User talk:SemperBlotto/2006

Hey SB, how do you make templates not be included in categories? There's some kinda NOINCLUDE thing somewhere that does it? Thanks, and reply here please --Wonderfool 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Template:citesneeded SemperBlotto 16:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

While ure here...could you unblock the Wonderfool account I've got...I wanna rename myself for 2006. Thankyou, --Wonderfool 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

See also if pigs had wings SemperBlotto 16:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you do with foreign words which are used as foreign words in English? For example, "negotiorum gestio" is obviously Latin but has a specific meaning in Roman Dutch Law and is used either in speech or writing. I have looked at the foreign language policy, but it doesn't seem to help. Any thoughts? Andrew Massyn

Well, possibly the best thing is to have two sections, one in the adopted langiage, and a second in Latin. See ipso facto or spaghetti as examples. SemperBlotto 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • Languages**

Hi there. You can talk to me via my "talk page" (like this one) rather than email - then everyone can see and maybe even learn. You can add entries in, say, Coptic just like this . .

Also, as for Sindarin and Quenya and other Middle-Earthian languages.. is it likely they'll be accepted or should I delete my entries? (that conlang rule kinda.. slipped my mind for a while) They are Tolkien, and well-crafted. Many geeks and LotR enthusiasts would find a Sindarin/Quenya dictionary useful, right? Or is that just me and a small handful?

• Words in Middle-Earth languages get deleted I'm afraid. SemperBlotto 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ah. Okay, thanks then. I was confused as there was a Quenya language index before I even registered; and they also said they were considering allowing Middle-Earthian language indexes if they're found to be useful enough.. are these deliberations still going on? Chimerical 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, wasn't sure how exactly to do that, hence the request for an edit. Paul Willocx 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, got it :) --delete after read --Optimix 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks for the help :) --Optimix 17:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

just to make clear: I didn't create it; someone else made it, so I expressed doubt on whether or not it was a valid word on the discussion page. Btw, I rfd-ed a few pages that require deletion, too (the piss pot and piss poor ones). Paul Willocx 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

We already have the correct spelling - barleycorn. Do you mind if I delete barley corn? SemperBlotto 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Resolution: I must look for similar entries! I have transferred some of my defs to the other article. You say delete wouldn't redirection be better, or is there a reason why not? Saltmarsh 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

We only use redirects for Capitalisation differences (officially). Spelling variations get their own page. But this is just a spelling mistake as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto 08:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wondered if it needed a US tag. I didn't know about the other spelling, it was listed as derived word under a la which I looked at to check that I was using it correctly. (By the way, dictionary.com has another sense for the word that I wasn't aware of.) JillianE 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the duplicate. I was going off of chemfinder.

I think the fused words might be more correct, I don't see the split on chemfinder. Iamnotanorange 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trust me, I used to work in the industry. SemperBlotto 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks. I switched the second definition to detergent. Just out of curiosity, what is an example of a non-ionic detergent? I would imagine it would not be very good for commercial cleaning. Iamnotanorange 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Semps, Whatever happened to the philosophy appendix? Iamnotanorange 23:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use "Verb form" in a PoS header. Use just "Verb". I think there is consensus on this. Similarly for "Action": The last two definitions are nouns (analogous to how we classify many present participles as proper adjectives), and the first one, er..., I don't know, maybe noun as well since it's a verbal noun? Or gerund? I have no idea. Ncik 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are we using verb form when creating an entry for a 3rd singular or participle? If we are is there an equivalent for a plural noun? Or do we just leave it as level 3 heading Noun? JillianE 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Either "Noun form" or just combine the two under "Forms and inflections". Uncle G 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

We already have City SemperBlotto 12:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

So we have - I had just started to check aroiund when I got the message!

Surely City of London is the main term. the City is the phrase which people would use not City? although I see that this is handled by the repeated head word.

Should I change the City to a redirect to City? Saltmarsh 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, OK. We don't really like words whose title starts with "the" or "a". SemperBlotto 12:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please check the entry I added at red pepper for British usage. Thank you. JillianE 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think that's fine. Peppers are a nightmare though - I'll dig out my Indian cookbook tomorrow, bacause I think they use red peppers to mean chillis. SemperBlotto 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't sure if that was just US. JillianE 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I found several ones of which we might have to change the titles.

• yotso-zumo → yotsu-zumo
• shikkiri → shokkiri
• shussei hiro → shusse hiro
• toshiori-kabu → toshiyori-kabu
• toshiori → toshiyori

I'd like to leave them to you, considering following deletion of the redirects. Anyway it was fun to see the vocabulary enriching to such extent! --Tohru 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tohru - I've fixed those. SemperBlotto 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category box: how do you do the category box at the end of an entry? I have tried to do it as they say, but it doesn't seem to work.Andrew massyn Try the word "gharry". I did this:]

Thanks very muchAndrew massyn

Thanks for the reference to Category:Definitionless words, I had just posted on Wiktionary:Beer parlour asking about that. I'll probably mark them stubs too. I don't really feel comfortable writing definitions yet, and anyway I'm still hoping to get through this book *someday*, but I'm hoping to document some of the less-frequently-used words. The quotations I've been finding are kinda crappy in terms of illustrating the meanings of these words; they mostly provide attestation. Anyway, thanks for all your help in the last couple of days for the articles I keep requesting, and hopefully I'll eventually make it through this book :-). -- Creidieki 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think this Main Page is prettier. And includes more stuff that should be on a main page. I've been working hard on it, and hope it can get published. When it is, I'll focus on another prominent page to give some sparkly colour too. --Dangherous 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I haven't forgotten how to format because I actually think that your formatting style isn't best. No numbers are needed for words with only one sense . (There isn't a single published dictionary I know of that numbers entries with one sense, either.) Also, I think that those headings are too large for such small entries. In any case, Eclecticology seems to have admitted that Wiktionary doesn't really have formatting guidlines--just suggestions . Primetime 22:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've answered these points of Primetime's and others on my talk page. — Paul G 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

See Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#flexibility, Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained#Four policy proposals, and user talk:Paul G#formatting for my response to your objection. --Primetime 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Can you stop harassing me. I don't know what your problem is with me, because I don't recall ever messing up any of your entries like you do with mine.

I recently tried to add an entry for the term: short-term goal, I was informed that you removed it. Please tell me how this term does not fit the criteria i see here. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion

I have seen that there have been several impersinations of you today. I hope you don't mind that I make myself (temp) CheckUser & sysop to block whoever did that? Jon Harald Søby 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Or… By the looks of it, they are all you (probably to avoid others doing that; I've been there too). At least, I see no harm done by them (yet), so I'll leave it. Jon Harald Søby 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I took an even closer look after desysopping myself, and found out it was only vandalism. I made myself sysop again, and blocked all of the impersinations of you for 3 days each. I think they should all be indefinately blocked, but that's up to you to decide. Jon Harald Søby 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. yes - they should all be blocked to infinity - they are all malicious - I am having difficulty getting any real work done. SemperBlotto 20:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

No wonder Dr Johnson didnt like them. Are words like "ben" and "fash" English or something else?Andrew massyn 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure who can correct the foreign words which have appeared in the Main Page's navigation menu requested entries is the only one in English. Saltmarsh 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I had noticed them - but I was hoping that someone who understood the Wiki internals would fix it. I'll have an investigate though. SemperBlotto 14:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • It isn't an error on any specific page - it is on EVERY page, bacause the bits down the side are generated by the Wiki software. SemperBlotto 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • thanks for the explanation Saltmarsh 15:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I've sent an email to one of the developers. SemperBlotto 15:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jeff,

When you get a moment, could you have a look at these two pages, please? I wrote them so I could put in derived and related terms, but I'm not sure about the definitions. Don't -ic and -ous terms usually refer to specific ranges of valences? I'm also not happy that each definition refers to the other. Could you check they are OK and do something with them to remove the codependence? Thanks. — Paul G 08:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'll try - but I don't get much time to do real work - constant battling with exi---nt vandal. SemperBlotto 08:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you glance at the glass (and when the glass looks back). I think the legend has it that you speak an ancient tongue. --213.214.155.64 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi

It is not a bad title. Just wait for a while... --Jic 15:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, again... Have you deleted the A (tg) entry again? What's wrong? Its the title format? It's about its content?? I´m doing a wikipedian version from a 1800s glossary, which is a public domain already. Please answer or send a message before delete a material! Are the wikitinary rules for deletion different from other wikis??? bye --Jic 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

tks. I'm talking there now. See Ya! --Jic 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping to deal with the vandal that struck my user page(s) on Christmas. - dcljr 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies if I seem too critical when you are trying to do the right thing. This nest of sockpuppets seems to stem from you objection to one very questionable word by this person. A little patience at an early stage often goes a long way in preventing problems with people like this. I know that my approach to these people may seem excruciatingly slow, but I find it pays off. If a word such as his needs to be deleted, there is not much harm done if we have to keep it for a week or two. That period may be enough to exceed the attention span of the contributor. If someone complains about a word that you have quickly deleted it is better to restore it while it goes through whatever formal process is required. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike ordinary vandals, these contributors mistakenly believe that they are making valuable contributions. When you too quickly raise the heat to the point where they are being blocked that encourages them into sockpuppetry, and the problem becomes more difficult to solve. Sometimes backing off a little at an early stage can be the most effective way to win an argument. I really hope that we can avoid the excesses that I so often see at Wikipedia. Thanks for reading this. Eclecticology 11:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I could find nothing on this word that was earlier than January 3, 2006. Shouldn't rfv take a whole month. Eclecticology 11:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the references; that at least allowed me to trace it back into November. Eclecticology 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you update the definition?

1. A self-sufficient residence occupied by communist hippies.

Sorry if you aren't the person to contact but you seem to update a lot ;) --Wonder al 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a word used in English speech (certainly in England if not in other places) and "coffee-maker" is the literal translation.

I chose to put an asterisk rather than a hash so people intuitively don't add definitions, synonyms, etc. Is particularly useful on a page like means. Ncik 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

why did you delete this definition. I restored it if you don't mindSunshine3a 12:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are obviously not enough of a man to compromise with me. So, I will not compromise with you, either. You are also obviously not creative enough to give an opinion on my superior entry format. I don't care, though, because your desperate attempts to get me blocked have failed because your mind has grown weak with age.

Sincerely,

Primetime 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ahem! We adhere to the civility rule here at Wiktionary, too. Uncle G 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I added the word Chimaera but when I look it up on the navigation page 'search', it doesnt show. I can access it from 'my contributions' but that doesnt help anyone else, does it? Are you technically minded and could you fix the link, or refer it to someone else? Thanks Andrew massyn 21:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC). PS I left a note about your definition of bodice ripper in the talk page there. I didn't want to change it without consulting you first. Regards.Reply

• I don't know. I just hope that people press the Go button instead of the Search button. SemperBlotto 09:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the drink a Bloody Mary or a bloody mary or a bloody Mary? (See Virgin Mary sense 2). JillianE 23:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The drink can be either. Bloody Mary was also the queen Mary Tudor who burnt lots of protestants at the stake. SemperBlotto 09:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto Dvortygirl block ip number 168 or 169 or something could you make the block shorter iam not a vandal! --130.111.98.241 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I need to reword my volunteer phrase. I do not intend to add to the list, only to remove from it, i.e. by defining words. Other than that I'll attempt to keep the list neat and tidy. Jonathan Webley 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just read your comment on Jonathan's talk page. I strongly support the idea of "this page is for our users to put up words that they actually need a definition for", where one could put a request and some comment about it, and the pseudonym so that a message can be left on the talk page when the word is defined. Is there anyway to do that here? I was thinking of maybe adding a "manual request" section in Wiktionary:Requested articles:English, or creating a new page. Kipmaster 13:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

please don't get mad blotto i ment mardi 130.111.98.241 13:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's right. Thanks for correcting my mistake; it's been so long since I've contributed to a Wiktionary that practices pluralization, since Vietnamese doesn't have plural forms of words. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 08:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

You better take a look at scrape.--Fonzo 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

) - TheDaveRoss

hi what do you mean, Format trouble? --Dubaduba 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

We regularly analyse all the words in Wiktionary to find those that either have no definition or are very badly formatted. The output is in User talk:Connel MacKenzie/todo3 and similar subpages. If you look at the entries from 10001 to the end you will see that we have been flooded with lots of your entries. SemperBlotto 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

German surname... then why listed under ==English== ? Generally, I'm a bit confused as to how given names or surnames should be listed. Some of them are pretty translingual. — Vildricianus 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jeff,

Please don't bite the visiting Wikipedians. It certainly was an experiment, and I know you weren't there to hear his explanation in IRC. Pretty much everything he was trying to do, we were able to explain (coherently) what the Wiktionary way of doing it was. He seems to be on board already. I need sleep now. Cheers!

--Connel MacKenzie T C 09:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have deleted several pages recently on the grounds that they were "not verified". These should go through the rfv process before they are deleted. Eclecticology 11:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll look into some of Primetime's efforts. I'm not happy with the way he has been insisting on his own format for articles. Many of his words seem valid, and might work out if given a chance at proper verification. I know that Connel has been making copyvio claims, but that kind of claim is not always that clear when definitions are the issue. Sometimes there is only one way to define a word, or at other times the online source may itself copy some public domain source. Eclecticology 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vandalbot just picked it up and within seconds you fixed it. You monitoring tawkbot2? Tawker 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the welcome, and the tips. I hope I'll get the hang of things here, as it is different from wikipedia. Thanks again Banes 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Definitely a noun (hubby)! I just went back to correct my mistake and then I realized it had lasted three minutes! Thanks! Miguel Andrade 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've got it blacklisted on the IRC Bot, I'll keep checking as we go along and revert if necessary. Thanks for the fast reverts though :) Tawker 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It is the Computer Lab of Centennial College in Toronto - I got an email hoping that "the actions of one student won't affect the rest of us." SemperBlotto 23:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

ok, will do. i will just move it to the lower case one. but this isn't easily done since Wikipedia uses uppercase. -- Zondor 10:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was cruizing through User:Zondor's contribs at the same time as you it seems. I'll back off for now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I was just wondering what to do with Tinker's dam - it's tinker's cuss in UK English. SemperBlotto 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard either one, myself. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Word of the day/2024/November 28

Hey Blots, I got a favor to ask. I would like you to spread the word (of the day-badum bum bum!). I really need some help on this one, I am not going to be able to keep it up. Its not tough, I just need nominations and to get it "out there". My own user page is not very well trafficked, so If you could just kinda help me out, that would be awesome. Thanks

Iamnotanorange 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Very impressive! Glennh70 07:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto, I have a question for you. You moved Timberline to timberline , and clydesdale to Clydesdale . Is there something I am missing? I've been told that articles should start with a lower case letter, is there a hidden rule with regards to certain articles being created with a lower case letter, or a capital letter? KnowledgeOfSelf 13:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most words will start with a lower-case letter. However, most proper nouns will start with an uppercase letter, and nouns (such as Clydesdale) which are also proper nouns (not yet defined) also start with an uppercase letter. A few words can start with either, so each word must be considered on its own. SemperBlotto 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I found it odd as I am sure you could imagine. Thanks for clarifying. KnowledgeOfSelf 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for trying to introduce a Dutchism, blotto. ;-0 Jcwf

Spot on with your RC patrolling as ever, Sempy (do you mind if I call you Sempy?). ;) --ex-admin part-time sockpuppetting quasi-vandal Wonderfool 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Vital" derived from "vita-" (as "vita-" + "-l" perhaps)? Surely that's not what you meant. These are OK as related terms, but I'm contesting on Requests for deletions whether "vita-" is a prefix at all. — Paul G 18:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I pasted that part directly from Wikipedia. Are they really wrong? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well Google, certainly, had 404,000 hits for "Falklands war" and only 52,200 for "Falklands conflict" - so I suppose that is what it has become. But, at the time it was never called a war - that's why we never attacked Argentina itself. I won't argue if you change it back. SemperBlotto 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I remember newspapers wording it funny, now that you mention it. I doubt that Argentina called it a "conflict" though. I'll leave it alone for now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't create the cycling (lowercase c) category. It was a pre-existing category with one entry - cadence. I moved the entry cadence from Category:cycling to Category:Cycling which left cycling (lowercase c) empty.Then I requested the latter category be deleted. JFPerry 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, now I get it! When I moved the cadence article out of the pre-existing Category:cycling (to Category:Cycling), the former category no longer existed. Sorry for the inconvenience. JFPerry 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

2,700 more entries for cleanup. These entries are all missing "==English==" (or any other valid language heading.)

I estimate about nine days until the next XML backup is done (the current one died and has been restarted...currently stuck on the German Wikipedia.) http://download.wikimedia.org/ has the latest status (and you can still see that it crashed in the middle of enwiki's backup.)

Enjoy!

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about any edit conflicts. I'm switching to a different section now...I was going after smaller sections there, and didn't realize at first that others were helping! Keep going! I'll be working forward from the *first* sections only now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't bite the newcomers! A light switch is a specific noun that meets our CFI, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=eobiont&curid=213900&diff=848749&oldid=654920

huh? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a third definition that has some merit - reworded and added to others. SemperBlotto 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at WikiSaurus:chav and push the dubious terms onto WikiSaurus:chav/rfv, I am not familiar enough with the term to decide what is and isn't legit. Thanks - TheDaveRoss 02:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather not - I keep well clear of Wikisaurus. It seems to be a dumping ground of made-up words and other rubbish. Anyway, I'm too old to know anything about chavs! SemperBlotto

Yes you were 100% correct. Sorry for the duff. KnowledgeOfSelf 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto

I am Kassios from the Macedonia Region of Greece.

I would like to ask a few questions. I noticed that the article for Macedonia and Macedonian was insufficient, so I edited them with the etymology of the names and a link to a reference to the Macedonia Region of Greece, simply out of respect to truth and honesty. Then, naturally, I contributed with an article about the Macedonia Region of Greece (since there wasn’t one) and some information about it, like its capital, its population, its borders etc., with a link to an article about it on Wikipedia and a few external links, under the definition "Macedonia Region" so people could refer to it. Just simple information that anybody can find in any good dictionary or geography book, or with a simple search online by typing these words.

However, obviously that was not liked by you and Alexander 007 and my article was deleted within minutes!

Quite surprised (and even shocked to be honest), since my article was very short and had just simple information and not any comment about the "Macedonian dispute" between Greece and FYROM -I am sure you are familiar with the issue - I tried to find out what I did wrong...!

So after thinking, the only thing I came up with was that maybe it was the definition "Macedonia Region" of Greece! Maybe it sounded "political incorrect" (unfortunately many people suffer from lack of history knowledge in our days) so I changed it to "Greek Region of Macedonia" and I even removed the link to the Wikipedia article about it and all the external links. But even that was not to be accepted by you and and you deleted that too!!! Furthermore, you broke down the edit I had done to the article for Macedonian and from Greek Region of Macedonia, now it’s: Greek region of Macedonia which refers to three different things, like there isn’t such a think as a "Greek Region of Macedonia"!!! Like countries do not have regions and counties!!!

Now my questions:

What did I do wrong that led to my article being deleted twice???

Why is it ok for Wiktionary to have a definition under Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and not Greek Region of Macedonia???

Is it ok for people to know about the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia but not ok to know about the "Greek Region of Macedonia"???

Does Wiktionary refuse to acknowledge that there is a Macedonia Region in Greece???

Does where I live not actually exist???

Isn’t Wiktionary meant to be a "Free dictionary" that people can refer to for knowledge or is it one of the "WE-WILL-TELL-YOU-WHAT-WE-WANT-YOU-TO-KNOW" rubbish that is provided by tons online???

Do Wiktionary administrators have an agenda???

Because obviously its trustworthiness is tested right here!

With respect to truth and knowledge.

Kassios

Hi SemperBlotto

I apologise but to be honest I didn’t realise there were already articles on West Macedonia, Central Macedonia and East Macedonia and Thrace. I am a newbie here, so still learning! :)

So I guess I can edit the Macedonia article like this:

…2. The largest and second...is Thessaloniki. Comprising the regions of West Macedonia, Central Macedonia and East Macedonia and Thrace…

so Wiktionary users can refer to them, right?

Kassios

Thanks for your comments on formatting. I had looked at a few articles to learn about style conventions but I had not realised that you needed to add == English==. Sorry,

John Cross 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SemperBlotto, I'll do that. :)

Let's just hope that TheDaveRoss wont parse it down like last time, claiming it is "too encyclopaedic"...! Kassios 08:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You better check your latest Sundays - you have etymologies and headwords not matching the article name. Keep up the good work though. SemperBlotto 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes - I was in mid edit! Saltmarsh 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know the format is different. I'm just planting a seed, like Johnny Appleseed. :-) bd2412 T 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey SemperBlotto, I thought I'd run this by you first instead of having you clean up after me. The word is an adv, and means "by many times." Even worth starting? Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, it just did it, I see what you mean, thanks! Kassios 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? My British dictionary says "colorimeter". I think this is more of a misspelling than an actual alternative. — Vildricianus 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, you are correct - autopilot error. SemperBlotto 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

had to redirect (was deleted 2 times), but luckily you have the real article. Eddie 10:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is the answer. I have saved Paul's page but it looks as if other pages might need a similar save. — Vildricianus 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:EddieSegoura is doing it. I suppose it’s something that his wordprocessor does, but every page he or one of his sockpuppets opens receives the backslash treatment. —Stephen 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What happened to that page, especially to it's history? Ncik 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• When I found it, it was a redirect to rob. I didn't know that it had had a previous existence. SemperBlotto 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

According to the deletion log, Connel erased the page including its history due to a copyright violation. I don't think that's legitimate. I posted on his talk page now. Ncik 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to delete this again, as the current version matches www.dictionary.com so very well. It was deleted because it was a copyvio from www.dictionary.com. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I took so long, I had a very busy few days on Wikipedia. :-| Basic administrative procedures and chores to take care of. :P Is that what you were looking for with regards to manyfold? Feel free to correct it as you see fit. Just leave me a message explaining what you are going to change so I can learn from it! Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

...free again! :) Kassios 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose you fance being a bureaucrat do you? I mean, there's no real need for it, but still, why not? You're the most perpetual user on here, and a cunning linguist after all

• Well, we already have two, and we have only ever needed one in a hurry an a single occasion (when Wonderfool went berserk and had to be de-sysoped). So I think I'll pass for the moment. Feel free to ask again if the need really arises. SemperBlotto 11:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wrote an entry for Ancient Greece and I want to redirect the old ancient Greece to the new one, how can I do that?Kassios 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it is a user. I tried to create the name but we were immediatly blocked by user:dvortygirl. I don't know if you can have webdomains as names, but we have not made any edits under User:Www.nycsubway.org (and feel free to check out the site), what is with this behavior? Nycsubway.org. 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I just properly formatted third rail. check it out. Nycsubway.org. 08:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

... as Solon of Athens said: "The older I become, the more I learn."  :) Kassios 11:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• As I say - The older I become, the more I forget. SemperBlotto 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kassios 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

why did you remove this definition from immunity? Wiki Kong 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

X Junction, x junction, Special:Contributions/205.188.116.67 I think you hadn't notice yet. Cheers. — Vildricianus 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

(Please forgive the impersonal message, Jeff - I'm sending this to lots of people, and I know you already do tons of work here so feel free to say no if you don't want to take on even more.)

You might or might not already be aware that there is now a new system in place for marking translations that need to be checked (those that are suspected of being incorrect or those where it is not clear which sense(s) of a word the translations apply to). (See here for the Beer parlour discussion on this topic.)

Translations to be checked are now categorised by language. For example, Category:Translations_to_be_checked_(French) contains a list of all words where French translations need to be checked. This is designed to make the checking of these translations easier to maintain and work with.

I'm contacting everyone who has either expressed an interest in working on translations or has indicated in Wiktionary:Babel that they have a good knowledge of a particular foreign language or languages.

Would you be interested in helping out with the translations to be checked for Italian? If so, please read the page on how to check translations.

If you want to reply to this message, please do so on my talk page. Thanks for your help you can provide.

— Paul G 11:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I ask for real Jeff or Semper i need to know if you hate i hope you don't block indefinity??? I have been threatened many times and i hope i'am not pushing you over the brink... 130.111.98.241 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC) you may or may not reply back 130.111.98.241 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC) i have a hard time with anxioty and agoraphobia also a computer is for any user not just me...Reply

Ask yourself these questions - Are my contributions of any real worth? Am I just causing other people more work? Should I just go an watch some professional wrestling instead? SemperBlotto 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok Jeff it sounds like you want me out??? --130.111.98.241 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Random question time:

If some professional dictionary company asked you "Hey, Monsieur Knaggs, would you like to be a professional lexicographer? We'll give you a bit of money for "research" if you like", would you jump at the offer? --Expurgator t(c) 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

== blocked "User:130.111.98.244" with an expiry time of 1 day: enough for today)

==

130.111.98.131 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

blocked "User:130.111.98.244" with an expiry time of 1 day: enough for today)

Jeff i got to say one thing reply or not you just like to kick my *** around because i don't obey your demands. You got a strick code about you and I think your a little too harsh for blocking me for a day or week at a time... also Dvortygirl must hate me too due to her blocking me till who knows when maybe never... no call out on you Jeff for real... --130.111.98.131 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC) I will contribute as best as i can and hopefully you agree... 130.111.98.131 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC) and if i got blocked how can i contact you to unblock me their is no {{unblock}} sequence??? 130.111.98.131 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto, why did you delete Morbidly Obese, and put "tosh" as your explanation? This is a legitimate adjective.

cassis and Cassis are different. Here is our standard welcome text. SemperBlotto 08:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right. Why is it that Wiktionary is case sensitive, but Wikipedia isn't? Dforest 08:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I noticed how confusing some edits about words from Greek are by user Dubaduba, so I tried to re-edit them to correct them, but obviously I messed them up even more. I came up with some “Template:gstr (section)” stuff, I don’t know what that is, I’m getting too old , too much technology… :(

Anyway, I am quite skilled with the Greek language, so can I re-edit them from the beginning? Kassios 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to check on legging and the link didn't show up when I looked for it in the "search" block. Would you ask a technocrat to fix it? Thanks Andrew massyn 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It is a known Wiki problem. You have a better chance of finding things with "Go" rather than "Search". SemperBlotto 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

For you SemperBlotto? Monn 15:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Not create a different sockpuppet every day
2. Learn how to construct a sentence, and the difference between the various parts of speech
3. Maybe get a girlfriend?

1. I need a good name I thought the rest kind of sucked
2. I'am still learning
3. No thanks!

Hey Jeff wanted pages can i add! 216.220.231.226 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC) ?Reply

Everyone can add sensible requests (silly ones get removed). SemperBlotto 22:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

thank you... 216.220.231.226 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) if i request will you answer? no? 216.220.231.226 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jeff I like the black cat i got one and another thing where do you get information on given names or surnames??? i am baffled choir boy cool 216.220.231.226 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I use two sources of information that you may not be familar with. The first has rows of printed words on pages all fixed together - they are called books. The second also has pages, but they are all online and linked together (and you can search them) - it is called the Internet. SemperBlotto 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay Jeff really funny chap 216.220.231.226 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks and good night Britain! 216.220.231.226 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't heard of this sense of "shore" before. I added your sentence, without removing the old one. If you'd like to improve the definition or anything else about the article, please feel free. --Dvortygirl 05:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did not look at the format Waha 16:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Phosphor (capitalized) is not the same as phosphor. The latter is a chemical term, the former is the alternative spelling of Phosphorus. Dart evader 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Phosphor as an alternative spelling for phosphorus is not in any of my chemistry books (and I have several). Can you find an example of this use? SemperBlotto 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, no. The Phosphor (or Phosphorus) I am speaking about is not supposed to be in chemistry books. It is the proper name of the Morning Star, personified by ancient Greeks.

Here is the quotation:

Anna likened you to Phosphor, the morning star, and herself to Hesper, the mortal star of evening, and when I told her those twin stars were one and the same, and not a star at all but the planet Venus... - John Barth

Dart evader 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• My mistake. I got confused because (a) I had never heard of that use, (b) people tend to Capitalize the first word in a definition anyway. I have added an English entry - feel free to edit it. SemperBlotto 17:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • Ok --Dart evader 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your edit to "briefing note" in Wiktionary.

Thank you as well for your suggestion that I place something longer on Wikipedia. However, I have tried that several times. Unfortunately, each time it gets deleted.

Rob Parkinson 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Rob ParkinsonReply

Thank you! I knew there was another definition for this word when it popped up, but I couldn't remember it or easily find it. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way - we haven't got titman yet! (also means a runt) SemperBlotto 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why have you deleted my definition of extravolution?

Do we want exhaustive lists of derived terms at frequent suffixes? -fy, -or, -ize etc. — Vildricianus 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, perhaps for those that would produce a list of hundreds, we could just have a representative sample. I don't think anyone would object if you were to add such a long list, and nobody would object if you didn't. -ferous was just on the cusp of being doable. SemperBlotto 14:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

There may be a need for such lists. That'll go then on a subpage of -ize of course. It's some enjoyable task for when I don't feel like doing anything else. — Vildricianus 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. When I think of a lamplighter I think of Gonzo in Muppet Christmas Carol. "Light the lamp, not rat!" JillianE 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

How would you feel about adding your comment on usage to the talk page? JillianE 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I might just see if the Wikipedia page could do with expanding. Also, I have this feeling that there is a second meaning - something about spies. I'm sure I've come across it in a Le Carré book (brain starts ticking). SemperBlotto 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on hitting another milestone. I'm surprised sulfurous wasn't already there. — Paul G 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed we don't have Appendix:List of cities in Alabama nor Index:List of cities in Alabama. Wasn't the notion that place names merit entries? Granted, taken to extreems, there could be an infinite number of entries. But the entry that was at List of cities in alabama seems like a reasonable start. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• We do have Appendix:Place names in Alabama It's not very long, but I could improve it. SemperBlotto 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Ditto Arkansas . . . SemperBlotto 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Thank you! --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just added this entry a short time ago, and was surprised that someone hadn't entered it previously. Is it used in the UK, or just here in the States? --EncycloPetey 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Used all over. Definition is fine. SemperBlotto 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please help me be sure that Anno Domini gets recapitalized. I moved it earlier based on the fact that all OED citatations are captalized, but Stephen G. Brown wrongly decpaitalized it again. I have sent a message to him, but have seen no response. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. All my dictionaries have it anno Domini (and it is an adverb, not a phrase). You better fight it out amongst yourself, or in the Tea Room. SemperBlotto 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've added quotes from the Mayflower Compact (1620) and Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) demonstrating capitalization. --EncycloPetey 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity, what does "tosh" mean -- Tawker 06:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yep, most of the Wikipedia stuff is junk, I've found I've been hitting delete a lot more than move. Oh well, there's the odd useful word in there to move in, though doing the rfap's is a lot more fun :) -- Tawker 07:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I based the deletion on the google context of having no relevant results within the top 10 hits, Dvortygirl and I talked about it a bit and decided to delete, though if you see a good reason to keep feel free to undelete -- Tawker 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am new to Wiktionary and I am not a language specialist, but I use thousands of words.. Cheers, Gregorydavid

Is there a way to link to these? Most of them appear in Special:Lonelypages. Perhaps as derived terms in E number? Or are there many more to come? — Vildricianus 21:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, there are lots more to come. I do just a few at a time. They should all (eventually) be linked to as synonyms of the materials defined (see e.g. riboflavin). But I have not got all of those defined yet (So much to do, so little time!). SemperBlotto 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Semper! I noticed that you have posted on this user's talk page informing him about Hebrew and Japanese transliterations. I have also informed him twice about our Wiktionary:Transliteration non-official policy. User:Dvortygirl has also informed him about improper formating and has at one point blocked him for not following the rules. This user, despite all of these comments and warnings, has continued to do what he's been doing without following the proper format or the rules. What do you suggest we do? --Dijan 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

He has created the categories for Japanese Romaji despite the fact that one already exists. Thank you for blocking him for a while. I hope that in the future he will follow the format if he wants to participate. --Dijan 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Becasue of the rules change, I've switched chasten'd to chastens. Using chasten'd would have added bot an apostrophe and a d to the previous word in the list. --EncycloPetey 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Never heard of such a thing (and I'm usually up on odd legal phrases) - the supposed word "judicagenic" turns up nothing on Google or Google Books, nor in any case, statute, newspaper, bar journal, or other public resource available on LexisNexis, nor in Black's Law Dictionary. In short, I think no such term exists. bd2412 T 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Haha, I didn't think of that in any moment. I will continue distributing my knowledge.(or copy from the dictionary.) Izumi5

You deleted DPDD here. That stands for "Dead people Don't Dream", which is the truth because dead people don't have brain activity, while dreaming implies brain activity. Why isn't the definition/acronym worthy to stay if it's the truth? --68.102.193.78 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Truth != notability, or even existence of a term. --Rory096 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wanted it (Quasi Adjective Category) to be deleted, because other kind of quasi adjectives may exist in other languages. I used quasi adjectives as Japanese "形容動詞".

Is there an automatic revision after vandals have been at work (and have been caught), or does one manually revert to the previous change? Best wishes Andrew massyn 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

What I do is go to Special:List of blocked thingies. For each entry, list contributions, then rollback them all one at a time. Jeez!! SemperBlotto 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another e vandal IP to block: User:61.213.147.177. Thanks. Rodasmith 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I still see a few at xiphiplastron, fore-give, dower, chi-ike, metallist, quantity theory, descort, give a hundred percent, give over, give voice, and some others. Perhaps you've deliberately left these in place? What should I do with them? Cheers. — Vildricianus 08:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I tried to treat each one on its merits. Most of them were copyvios from pretty obscure places, so I assumed that they all were and tried to rewrite them all. Those that had very short definitions were OK - you couldn't really define them any other way. I'll have a look at these too. SemperBlotto 09:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

All these cleaned up except fore-give and chi-ike - need to check the big EOD at the local library. SemperBlotto 10:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC) These were word-for-word copies from the OED - rewritten and wikified. SemperBlotto 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. — Vildricianus 07:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tawker2&diff=prev&oldid=47678760 - its Primetime seeking "revenge" after I deleted give me fin on the soul side as a recreate of previously deleted (by you) content. I'm going to make a note of it on his BP page, but I thought you might be very interested to see it. Apparently primetime's editing from IP's -- Tawker 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you see in the block log, WoW has been blocked three times. Now I was wondering, is this block operational or not because of the conflict? — Vildricianus 11:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. (I hit the button twice by mistake). If not, he would have been back in seconds. SemperBlotto 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. Is there a policy here on en. what to do with reflexiv verbs? I ran into this problem while putting some Dutch translations on the fr. wikti. There verbs like lever and se lever are happily mingled on the same page which makes translating less than obvious because what is reflexiv in one language often is not in another. I aksed and found there was no clear policy. On the nl. wikti (my usual home) we do not seem to have a clear policy either.

Examples:

 fr         nl                   en               de
se lever    opstaan              rise/get up    aufstehen
lever       doen opstaan         lift           heben
se demander zich afvragen        wonder         sich fragen

Etc, etc.

The questions are:

• Should the reflexive be a separate lemma or a separate heading on the same lemma
• What to do with verbs that are reflexive-only (what title e.g.) Zich afvragen is refl-only, sich fragen is not, e.g.

nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

I noticed the other day that the French wiktionary puts them on the same page (I can't find an example now that I need one) under separate sections. French dictionaries list them under the form without the component indicating the verb is reflexive ("lever, se") just as we expect to find phrases beginning with "a" or "the" under the first letter of the word after the "a" or "the".

However we are not the French Wiktionary, and I suppose most of the people looking up French terms will not necessarily know that "se lever" has distinct meanings from "lever", or even that "se lever" is a phrase in itself.

So I suggest we should have separate pages for "lever" and "se lever", each cross-referring to the other. For verbs that are exclusively reflexive, I suggest we have a redirect (or, because redirects are frowned upon here, a "See...") that takes the user to the reflexive page. This redirect (or the page with the cross-reference) can then be expanded later if there are lexemes in other languages that are spelled the same way.

I do think this should probably be discussed (or argued about, given the ire I seem to have stirred up in daring to suggest we have a page for verbs for addressing people using the informal form of "you" :) ) in the Beer parlour. You are welcome to quote my comments there. — Paul G 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Semper, just noticed the 0-0 and 0-0-0 entries and was intrigued, could you put them in context or add some note about where and how this notation would be used? I have no idea. - TheDaveRoss 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I reverted changes to those articles as noted on my talk page.

Thank you for the feedback. --That Guy, From That Show! 11:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry SemperBlotto, I am afraid I dont understand what do you mean... Is it about the "Related terms" section in my Mycenaean civilization entry? If it is, I have already changed it to: "See also".Kassios 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I think it's actually a copy of part of w:anal retentive, but I'm too lazy to look. --Rory096 21:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on my first Wiktionary contributions. You made them look much better & make more sense! --IndieNate 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help!

Vild had a great idea yesterday on IRC: list entries whose first heading is not a level two language heading. Instead, I listed things that don't start with a language heading (minus a dozen or so exceptions.) Anthor few thousand to cleanup...help from all directions is appreciated as always. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Before I run off on a fool's errand - what is the deal with plurals? Should they be redirected to the singular, or made into individual articles saying "foos is the plural of foo"? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, what you did with accidents is the way we handle them. The priority is to do the less regular ones first. SemperBlotto 07:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I was running off those in the newly added Shakespeare wordlist. bd2412 T 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Speaking of the Shakespeare wordlist, is there a cheap and easy way to make a separate list of only redlinks from that collection? bd2412 T 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • I would ask Connel - he's good at data manipulation. SemperBlotto 21:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Thanks, I shall. bd2412 T 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't intending to add the entire list of Messier numbers. The list is short enough that it's probably a reasonable little task, but my primary concern was to get in the "big three" that are most often noted. If you'd like to put them in yourself, go right ahead. Be advised that putting in the NGC list would probably not be worthwhile. There are thousands of objects in the NGC and except for a tiny handful of them, most are never encountered by non-astronomers. The Messier numbers, however, are encountered from time to time in amateur astronomy books and publications. --EncycloPetey 05:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe when I've finished E numbers. SemperBlotto 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff. I noticed you re-blocked the IP that had vandalized your talk page yesterday for just 1 year. Shouldn't these (e)-vandals be blocked to infinity? Since the shortest block always wins, it's best to check the block log first. Cheers. — Vildricianus 08:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should I assume from your recent work that you have a background in chemistry? You might have guessed that I'm (officially, at least) trained as a botanist, which is why I know the Latin as well. I also have three very nice (read: "heavy") Latin dictionaries, two of which are long past the copyright expiration. --EncycloPetey 10:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, amongst other things. At the top of my user page is a link to my homepage (plus photo) (if you have a few hours to spare). SemperBlotto 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did take a short tour around once, long ago. The biggest surprise recently, though, was that there wasn't an entry for amaretto. At least, it was a surprise given your user name. ;) --EncycloPetey 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. What it means is vandalizer - a person such as yourself who fails to post a notice prior to deletion and give adequate time for response from the author or fails to provide such notice on the author's talk page.

[email protected] 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Currently the flower Galanthus nivalis is listed under capital letter Snowdrop, with snowdrop being a redirect to this entry. Is this the preferred way to treat a plant species? I see that for example lilac is not treated this way.--sanna 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

User Drago has not responded to being chastized. His latest creations are velar, for which the Spanish definition he gave was "to remain awake", when the word actually means "to guard, watch over, be vigilant", and sumir, which he claims means "to make sink", but the word actually refers to receiving the chalice of the Eucharist. The word sumirse is the one that means "to make go down", as in a "sinking" feeling or a "sinking" of the facial features. Despite being chastized, he continues to plug along -- his latest languages are Spanish, Portuguese, and Icelandic. --EncycloPetey 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the previous etymology of Liliaceae was correct. Botanical names above the rank of genus are based on a generic name for their creation and etymology. They are never formed directly from Latin root words. --EncycloPetey 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I think I'm going to go for a major round of Latin additions once I finish the Constellations ... and I'm nearly done with those. I'm also looking over the various grammatical templates we already have (there are a lot of them), and someone with a good deal of Latin knowledge must have created them. --EncycloPetey 10:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well done! I tried to ask for help on the Latin Wiktionary, but they don't seem to have a Community Portal - the link doesn't work! SemperBlotto 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work on the chemical derived terms - keep it up! — Paul G 11:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

At hydrogen protoxide do you mean water? RJFJR 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it doesn't seem to be a "real" word. SemperBlotto 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Highly suspicious form. 75 google hits but when I look through them after the first 17 it says the rest were omitted. Do we want to get rid of it? RJFJR 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I checked Google book search and all the "hits" had a comma between the two words - such as "something hydrogen, protoxide of something". Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff,

I'm familiar with the -ane words derived from element names that you have just entered, these being used by IUCAP. Does -ane have the same meaning in these words as it does in words like "methane"? If not, could you add a new meaning to -ane accordingly? I have added "azane", etc, to the list of derived terms there and want to know whether or not they are derived from a different meaning of -ane. Thanks. — Paul G 10:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have updated -ane. I shall have to do a bit more research, as the IUPAC site has some spelling differences (and more anes that I didn't know about) SemperBlotto 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Jeff. You'll see I've separated the derived terms into two lists now, which I think is probably helpful. — Paul G 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tell me if I understand this correctly - if a word has no sense that differ between uppercase and lowercase (e.g. ostentatious and Ostentatious), then the latter should redirect to the former; but if there are senses unique to the uppercase (e.g. creek and Creek), then there should be two separate articles with only the senses unique to the uppercase in the uppercase article and a "see also" pointing to the lowercase. Si? bd2412 T 15:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But 1) there is no great priority in generating things like Ostentatious - they will only be red-linked if capitalized as the first word of a sentence. 2) creek and Creek BOTH have to have a disambiguation "see also" at the top to point to the other (and so on if multiple forms e.g. if there was also a CREEK) SemperBlotto 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Done. bd2412 T 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• But to further complicate things - the name of a small river would be Something Creek ! SemperBlotto 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I restored that. Looks like a valid term. — Vildricianus 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The headword doesn't match the title - which is correct? SemperBlotto 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, my mistake. — Vildricianus 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind taking a look at this category? I've done about all I can think of to populate it with various terms, but may have missed some of the chemistry related ones. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'm probably not the person to ask. I have a feeling that our users never use categories to look for things (how can we tell, though) and so I don't have a lot to do with them. SemperBlotto 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB, wondering what This experimental edit means. --Dangherous 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Two of your added definitions are for the noun sense, but you have put them with the adjective. Would you like to move them please. SemperBlotto 14:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which two? And why didn't you move them (edit the native article? or look at the differences in the edit history, find who added definitions in the wrong place, go to their talk page, and edit somebody's talk page? edit the native article? or edit somebody's talk page? edit the native article? or edit somebody's talk page?)? I thought that's why they made a dictionary that anybody can edit. (And why doesn't my wikipedia account autotomatically transfer to wiktionary? -rhetorical question) 68.6.27.235 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ps: After looking at the article, I only thought one was a noun, the other 4 had examples with nouns after the word native. 68.6.27.235 02:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you help fill in the Italian information on Appendix:Units of time? If you know of people who could help fill in more languages, that would be great! (Though I've already asked quite a few) --EncycloPetey 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Italian entry added (and red links bueified). SemperBlotto 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!

Do you think it worthwhile adding fortnight, century, millennium, era etc? SemperBlotto 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not on the Appendix page, no. For one thing, fortnight and millenium will not have equivalents in quite a few languages. I chose to stick with just the basic seven that were originally listed in the "Must Have" list for Wiktionaries. --EncycloPetey 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you did it on purpose to choose complicated words to translate, so that it becomes challenging to me... Honestly, where do these words come from? I may try your chemistry later on, but I already have a hard time keeping up with you :-p (and yes, I have more background in physics than in chemistry). Kipmaster 12:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whenever I visit my local library, I spend half an hour looking through a big encyclopedia of science and technology (I'm in the middle of N at the moment) and paraphrasing the opening definition of most entries - that accounts for the physics, geology and a little chemistry. I have a selection of chemistry books at home as I used to be an industrial chemist. I also check on the IUPAC site at for more up-to-date information (being careful not to copyvio). SemperBlotto 13:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

As much as I hate to say it, this seems like a decent entry. It's a regularly used word in the US, at least. --EncycloPetey 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

its a word children use in northern california mostly it means feces but its a way kids can say shit or crap withouht getting in trouble for using "bad" words. Its also an album from greenday they are from Hercules California and yeah thats in the East Bay in the SF Bay Area in Northern California

Can you check what I have done with this word is correct, please? I have added the following:

1. The OED says that lanthanum was originally included in the list.
2. There are three synonyms: "lanthanate" is obsolete; "lanthanoid" includes lanthanum, as "lanthanide" did formerly.
3. "Lanthanon" was (probably) coined to avoid confusion with the usual meaning of words ending in -ide in chemistry. Is it used in that way by chemists, or has it fallen out of use (perhaps being archaic - the OED does not say it is obsolete)?

Thanks. — Paul G 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I've added a usage note taken from the IUPAC site. My experience is that chemists use "lanthanide" rather than any other synonym, closely followed by "rare earth" in informal discussion. I have never heard "lanthanate" used - it sound too much like the salt of an acid. "lanthanon" is not defined in the IUPAC site (though it is used in one article). I'll try to fill out the definitions later. SemperBlotto 08:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find any templates or categories to help manage suspected sockpuppets, so I imported the main one of each from Wikipedia and applied {{sockpuppet}} to User:Webster fan. Please let me know if that was not the right thing to do and how I should report sockpuppets for admins to block. Rodasmith 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I saw you do it. Looks good to me. SemperBlotto 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Semper! I reverted your edit of kısmet. I don't think you noticed that the "i" does not have a dot over it. This is the Turkish version of kismet. --Dijan 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

kismet is an English word. But, the English word has a dot over the i. Turkish one (which I reverted) does not have a dot over i. --Dijan 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I added the see also at the top of each page.  :) --Dijan 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most Dutch adjectives have two versions - the standard one and a version with "e" added at the end (for instance, "gelukkig" and "gelukkige"), depending on how the adjective is used in the sentence. It seems fairly absurd to make double pages for everything, so I figure the best solution is either to create pages for the versions with "e" at the end and let them redirect to the standard page, or to entirely ignore the versions with "e" (except for perhaps a mention on the standard page). What do you figure? And then a problem arises in some cases where the version with "e" is also a noun (would be translated in English by "the (insert adjective) one")... I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Thanks.

Paul Willocx 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Paul. Well, the "official" answer has to be a separate definition for every separate word. But nobody can complain if you omit to add certain words, especially if you provide links to the "other" version. Where either or both word exists in another language (or in Dutch as another word), then you have to add a proper definition, preferably something short like "non-e version of gelukkig" (or something more precise). Cheers Jeff SemperBlotto 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen this recently? Number 2, and catching up on the bot! I don't know where you find the time/energy! Widsith 07:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Jeff, for your help. I am a novice in terms of the Wiktionary - it is obvious I still have some learning to do. Cheers! John Hill 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just came across the physics page, in which some of the translations link to other wiktionaries (nl.wiktionary.org, fr.wiktionary.org, el.wiktionary.org). I'm fairly sure that isn't standard policy, but is it preferable to just having a red link to a page which we don't have here at en.wiktionary.org? Paul Willocx 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff,

I'm not convinced we need this... the definitions of "pentagonal" should probably include "Of a prism, having a pentagonal cross-section" and "Of a pyramid, having a pentagonal base". Possibly a case to be argued over the in Beer parlour, unless you want to add <shape>+al prism/pyramid for all shapes from triangles to chiliagons ;)

BTW - not all heptahedra are pentagonal prisms: a hexagonal pyramid isn't, for example. — Paul G 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

1) You could well be right, feel free to rfd it 2) Yes, just laziness - I should have said "one of the heptahedrons". SemperBlotto 13:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

So we allow streets in Wiktionary now, do we? --131.251.0.11 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every entry is judged on its own merits. I wouldn't suggest adding every back-street in every small town! If you can find it mentioned in a book, we will probably accept it. SemperBlotto 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, for instance, Park Place, Cardiff might get the chop. SemperBlotto 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see what you did there, Mister "I'll trace your IP Adress". --131.251.0.7 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please block user 6919 695 214 and 704832 206. Minor Vandals Suggest one week. Thanks Andrew massyn 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

How come yea high was deleted? It's a real expression found in the OED. Could you please restore it and move it to yay high? (it was later found that this was the more common spelling)

If you don't believe me, there's a discussion I started about it on the language helpdesk on wikipedia .

Thanks Obli 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'll look in the OED next time I visit my local library. SemperBlotto 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff,

Could you have a look at auride when you have a moment, please? The only reference I have found is in Wikipedia's article on gold. It's not in my OED (2nd ed., 1989) nor in any online dictionaries I am aware of.

Wikipedia says (subscripts and superscripts omitted): "Gold also can under extreme conditions form a +5 state with fluorine (gold pentafluoride, AuF5), as well as a -1 state. Such compounds containing the Au- anion are called aurides and include caesium auride, CsAu, rubidium auride, RbAu, and tetramethylammonium auride, (CH3)4N+ Au-." What does the "such" refer to here? I have assumed it means "containing the Au- anion", but I have no idea. Please could you check my definition and make any necessary changes. Thanks very much. — Paul G 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Gold is unique among transition metals in being able to form an Au^- anion. You definition is fine. The "such" in the above sentence seems redundant. An original research paper is on the RSC site at SemperBlotto 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about making those edits about "office" being the opposite of "onus" (on/off), "spoon" being opposite of "spoof", etc... I knew they weren't opposites of each other; I was just having fun and giving myself some laughs.

About the later "silliness", well, why does my entry on nothing deserve a revert if it's the truth? --68.102.193.78 03:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your help and looking over my shoulder. Edit away! Robertkeller 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry about the formatting, I'll fix it right now. RasputinAXP 17:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Manastır isn't Monastir or monastery. İt shoul be manas tır or mey be manasdır .Because it is written as (m-n-s-d-r) in Ottoman language.--3210 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was a bug in the Nogomatch thing so that when pressing , users were taken to $1 instead of the non-existent entry. Therefore, I've unblocked Special:Contributions/81.151.148.241. Were there any other reasons? —Vildricianus 07:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - I figured that out just seconds ago - then couldn't figure out why it wasn't blocked! SemperBlotto 07:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi thanks for updating and correcting my noun/adjective err. Originally I was trying to avoid the similar definition found at http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/FIBROSITY.

• We sometimes can't help coming up with an identical definition - especially for a short one. SemperBlotto 11:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do we have an appendix that lists them all? It would be nice to link to it from this entry. SemperBlotto 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't (that I know of), but it would be somewhat of a duplication of effort to create one, since Wikipedia's got nice articles and lists, which I meant to link to. (Thanks for the reminder.) –Scs 15:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thinking about it some more, though, we probably do want our own "all languages" list somewhere, with links to our own articles on them, and to use as a tool to ensure that our language headers are consistent. And such a list would certainly want to cross-ref with ISO 639. And categories like "ISO 639 Language Codes" might make sense, too. –scs 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Language names is high on my todo list - they're quite poorly covered now. But do you want the ISO codes added themselves? —Vildricianus 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "List of Languages" could certainly have the ISO code. But are you suggesting a separate entry for each code (along the lines of the E numbers) - it would be a lot of work, be boring (like the E numbers) and may not be that useful. SemperBlotto 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me, I'm suggesting it, but not proposing it, if you see what I mean. :-) So far I've added a few, manually, to satisfy redlinks on RJFJR's list at RJFJR/WTconcord. If I were going to add all 480 of them (which is an "if", not a "when") I'd surely use a bot of some sort. I'm not sure if that's what Vildricianus is suggesting (or proposing) or what. –scs 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what happened to beryllium? :) — Paul G 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I've done the interesting bits; simple salts are a bit boring. I'll get round to them some time. SemperBlotto 10:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have - I'm afraid it's just the name of MediaWiki's default skin and that's it. Perhaps with the idea of user-friendliness we should make it a redirect to the WT:CUSTOM page like Newnoise intended to do. —Vildricianus 09:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some templates for Italian nouns that you might find helpful. See Wiktionary:Inflection_templates#Italian. — Paul G 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You put up a cleanup request on γάρ. I've done a bit of changing, but I am unsure of how to proceed and was wondering, if you have time, if you'd be willing to take another look at it, and either remove the tag or leave some criticisms on the talk page. Thanks a lot. Cerealkiller13 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff,

Is there also "carbon nanofibre" or is this American-looking spelling used by everyone? — Paul G 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Google hits - -er 33,600, -re 675 - altspell added. SemperBlotto 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does third leg have a cricketing meaning too? I'm not so hot on cricket terms. --Dangherous 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC) No. There are many terms with "leg" in, and there are several with "third", but that combination doesn't mean anything. SemperBlotto 13:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you've got a second. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Usage note(s) added. SemperBlotto 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please watch this user. I blocked him for two hours as an anonomous user for "game" talk and now he is back. Its 11.30 in SA and I am now going to bed. Thanks Andrew massyn 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at User:Vildricianus/PageX/5, usage demonstrated at the talk page. Parameter "lang" is for the language code. It automatically adds the language name per the various language templates (looks like they're useful after all). Default language parameter is "en". — Vildricianus 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

...about the rename. bd2412 T 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Instead of asking when I will learn how to format - using the arcane formatting tools found here - why not set up templates and other user-friendly tools that make the addition of words to this effort less of a chore? Go look at some of the tools that have been set up over on Wikipedia if you need inspiration. CORNELIUSSEON 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This seems to suggest it means "while smelling beer"... should it be "smelling of beer", or something like that? — Paul G 11:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, fixed. SemperBlotto 11:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This question about NADP seems best suited for you. - TheDaveRoss 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure the OED would be very pleased to hear about what you have dug up. I'll allow you to do the honours, if you wish:

[email protected]

(see How to contribute) — Paul G 09:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Email sent. We'll see what happens. SemperBlotto 09:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're too quick! I knew I should have created the entry first, and the redirects second. :-) —scs 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

gagner should have avoir as the aux. verb. Please show me how to do this, and thereafter I will handle it myself. --Brandnewuser 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could you take a look at subdomain and see if the second definition really needs to be there? Thanks. --kop 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have different definitions for subdomain. See Talk:subdomain. Thanks. --kop 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for info about adding definitionless CJK characters to "definitionless words" cat. I didn't know about that. There are quite a lot of definitionless CJK characters and I don't know how that happened other than that they're extra ones that don't yet have meanings but which Chinese scholars made up for the purpose of newly developed words in the future? I really have no idea. But perhaps there could be a cat that's more specific to CJK characters that could attract CJK specialists. BTW, I'm User:Badagnani but just too lazy to login all the time... 69.81.158.23 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are literally THOUSANDS of these. SemperBlotto 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The cap was just because it was at the beginning of the line, consider it a typo. RJFJR 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why you reverted me, please? I honestly don't see why an article that's a recursive redirect and is full of characters from different langauges should be kept. Sceptre 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Checks again after internet goes down. Ah, I see, sorry for timewasting. Sceptre 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you deleted this entry, citing "bad title" as the reason. I am puzzled, though, where it went, or where you think it should have gone, instead. Certainly it merits an entry, under some heading, I think. --Dvortygirl 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps under doing..., explaining other verbs can be used? — Vildricianus 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, the present participle form seems not the only one which is used for the verb. — Vildricianus 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

up a storm? — Vildricianus 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for sprucing up chowkidar :-) I am not so clear about categorisations here on wikitionary and am in genral always feeling my way.--AYArktos 11:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this should have user notes explaining that guano is actually urine and not faeces... maybe not, because no one who uses the term in preference to "guano" probably cares, and does it make any difference anyway? Hm. — Paul G 09:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Every dictionary I look at says "excrement" or "droppings" for guano. But there again, birds have just a cloaca so it all gets mixed together before being ejected. SemperBlotto 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's true. Anyway, I'm not a naturalist so I wouldn't know for sure whethere what I am saying is correct. I think we should probably leave the entry is fine as it is rather than getting into complicated niceties. — Paul G 09:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, SB! I believe we should have one more bureaucrat on this project as a fail-safe and I believe you should be it. Please mull. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd second that. Two is not enough. — Paul G 11:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would rather concentrate on adding content. But thanks anyway. SemperBlotto 11:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm sure it's not that much more labor than an adminship - really, how often does someone get promoted or seek a username change here? It would just be good for redundancy's sake. But if you're firm in the "no" then I'll not annoy you with continued appeals. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just changed a bunch of occurrences of containg to containing. Looks like either a systematic error or an abbreviation. It isn't in WT or dictionary.com so I changed them (about thirty of them). If it is some techincal term I apologize. The edit comment on them all is SP with the minor flag. RJFJR 13:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - just high-speed finger trouble I'm afraid. SemperBlotto 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Kaasje 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the US, we use both words. A term is a period of time that often varies from one school to another, and even one institution to another.Whicky1978 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're doing a great job on the "hot"s in the Requested articles page. I see the page is getting nice and small again. Keep it up! — Paul G 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure then, sorry for the mistakes --Kaasje 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Hey here's a guess, may be the diminutive of albore as in agli albore(tti)? --Kaasje 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't some languages have evocative names for food? You can just imagine "saltimbocca" and "strangolapreti" doing what they say they do. French has "pets de nonne" ("nun's farts", a type of cake), and of course, Americans choke on their steamed pudding with dried fruit when you tell them it's called spotted dick... — Paul G 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

fwiw.. Have you looked at the new user log from yesterday? There was a new user with a less than appropriate name - which appears to be directed at you. I haven't seen it blocked yet - so I figured I'd mention it..

I've never heard of it (see Struthioniformes). — Vildricianus 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Wikispecies uses "Parvclassis". parvclass seems to have the most Google hits - I'll see if I can find a definition. (even if it is only "a taxon below infraclass and above order") SemperBlotto 14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• w:Linnaean taxonomy alsi has "parvclass" SemperBlotto 14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm nowhere near an expert but I don't think Parvclass(is) is the right level for Palaeognathae. Most sources I check say it's a Superorder. Whatever we do about it, we should probably source all taxonomic entries decently in order to identify which system they are based on. Probably multiple definitions are best. Heading for the library one of these days. — Vildricianus 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• No, nor am I. I just rely on Wikipsecies and/or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

When you deleted coördinate, you deleted almost all trace of that word, because User:Doremítzwr had recently moved everything there, leaving coordinate as a simple link. I've restored the content at coordinate, which is where I think it should belong, but I may recreate coördinate (and have it be the link), because it is an alternative spelling. (Same as for cooperate/coöperate, of course.) —scs 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good grief! Thanks. SemperBlotto 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

en-noun-reg works differently to en-noun (so I have reverted your redirect) - see the sandbox or en-noun/test (test 10). SemperBlotto 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for restoring that and for adding the test to demonstrate the problem. (I hope to get time today to migrate from and to deprecate some of the older templates.) Rod (A. Smith) 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you address this please? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

coördinate is back, after your deletion.--Allamakee Democrat 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff - I've replied on my talk page. — Paul G 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert what I wrote? Doremítzwr 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Because it was wrong according to every dictionary that I looked at. SemperBlotto 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Right you are. Sorry about that. It is fixed. Please ask me to provide citations in future, rather than simply reverting what I write; I don’t write things that I know are untrue. Doremítzwr 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, I don't get it...is it English too (with the English 'pedia article)? Does the Italian phrase also mean actual holy wine? Widsith 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. You can find it listed on many English language wine sites. I'll make it so. SemperBlotto 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. Thanks. Widsith 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Italian Wikipedia does not have an entry for vin santo, but has dozens of entries for all the brands and varieties.SemperBlotto 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto,

That person who vandalized your talk page under the name Primetime+1 wasn't me. I'm still very grateful for you helping clean up my entries. Someone has been impersonating me and vandalizing pages in my name. Anyway, I wish you the best.

Sincerely,

Primetime

Hi Jeff. I've put a note at Index talk:Inuktitut. — Vildricianus 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I picked out one of the Wiktionary items listed tidy (for being small) up in the Community Portal. It was beserk - an entry made for a common mispelling of berserk. I changed it to a redirect page however I'm having seconds thoughts since the list I got it from is generated automatically? Anyway it was your article originally and since your experienced at Wikitionary I'll ask you if I did the right thing, if not just roll it back.

Cheers.--Williamsayers79 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, we are not too keen on redirects here. We like each word to actually be defined. Cheers. SemperBlotto 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have stepped on each other's edits.--Allamakee Democrat 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved to Talk:santorum. Rod (A. Smith) 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure about these defs? My understanding is that it's short for both vital signs and vital statistics. --Allamakee Democrat 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I've added a reference to vital signs but couldn't find it being used to mean vital statistics - feel free to improve. SemperBlotto 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I must have fixed most of them by now. Please use {{en-noun|sg=] or ]}} from now on. — Vildricianus 13:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, but it would be nice to know, in future, when a particular template gets replaced. SemperBlotto 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought Rodasmith had made sure that the parameters were identical. Apparently he hadn't. — Vildricianus 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am considering creating {{it-noun}} to replace the hotchpotch of templates we already have. I shall try to be careful not to step on anyone's toes myself! SemperBlotto 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you wikify "ossimoro", please? I'd like to know better how this dictionary works! thank you! --Dacxjo 13:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The conjucation of "rivendicare" is wrong, because when the desinence begins with -i or -e you must put an "h" after the "c". For example: io rivendico, tu rivendichi. Could you fix that, please? --Dacxjo 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Simply wonderful! Thank you! --Dacxjo 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see you capitalized "diaspora". Doesn't the capital version only refer to specific historical dispersions and to the Jewish community so dispersed? That is, shouldn't the common noun should be lower-case? Rod (A. Smith) 04:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SemperBlotto! Isn't there a template for feminine Italian nouns that end in -ca/-ga and form the plural with -che/-ghe (see grammatica)? Thank you! --Dacxjo 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SemperBlotto! How are you? I was wondering why you removed yawiktionary? what about http://www.yawiktionary.com ?

Isnt this a Yet_Another? like, http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Yet_Another?

Saw this and thought, oh, come on, protologism at best. But a google test shows an amazing number of independent real citations. (out of 11K hits) Quite something! --Robert Ullmann 16:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's tosh - but real tosh! SemperBlotto 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for yout message. Of course, you are right. I was meaning Verb phrase, while having noun phrase in the mind, hence the mistake. Lmaltier 05:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Please see talk page. I think I bit off more than I could chew. Could you please do the necessary? Many thanks Andrew massyn 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not finding these in any of my sources. Nyiramba is a place in Kenya. Not a tribe or language that I have a reference for. Are there 639 codes under variant names? Robert Ullmann 21:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I filled these in from Wiktionary:Requested articles:English by Googling. Feel free to correct any that I have got wrong. SemperBlotto 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, "Nyiramba" is Nilamba (nim). But Nyaturcha and Nyaturwil give me zero google hits? Robert Ullmann 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Nyaturucha 213 Google hits
• Nyaturuwil 899 Google hits

Oops, helps to spell it correctly (esp. when the spelling should be that way!) Still not getting any language reference hits, not in 639. (Yes, the google entries are for language names, haven't found a reference source though ;-) I'll keep looking. Robert Ullmann 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

For introduction, I'm the operator of Minnan-ascii-bot, please don't delete Minnan-ascii-bot's redirects. The numerical tones are given by ASCII and are made for searching purposes because searching with diacritics is very complicated especially if you don't have a Min Nan input system. A yao 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I left a question on the Beer Parlour. I am trying to move completely an article from Wikipedia to Wiktionary, and do not know how to do it. I have already copied the definition (which is why I want to move it) and talk page to Wiktionary. But we (a couple of us are trying to figure this out) do not know how to move the history, and then delete the Wikipedia entry entirely.Jawesq 21:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to figure out the formatting of ambulance chaser for Wiktionary. Sigh. I'm also trying to figure out how to move it from Wiki-en. I have cut and paste (which is what the instructions said to do). A tag suggeting to move it to Wiktionary had been on the article for over 10 days, so I thought somebody needed to do it. But I need help!Jawesq 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have formatted it for Wiktionary (I think).Jawesq 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got the help of an admin. Boy, the directions for trans-WIki moving are misleading!Jawesq 23:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

True. The method is still being worked out in WT:GP and none of the documentation has been updated yet. --Connel MacKenzie 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am really sorry I still missed something on this. This is my first Wiktionary entry. IS it okay now? I did not incude a pronunciation since it is actually two words. It I did incude the == English == . Jawesq 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I changed the formating as you suggested, with === noun === and the like.Jawesq 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can the tag come off? There's no listing on the RfV page and the definition is spot-on correct. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, but you could have done it yourself! SemperBlotto 06:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your help (and patience) on my first Wiktionary edit on ambulance chaser! I have wikified attorney and damages . In damages I saw that only the verb was defined. So I added 'noun' and the legal definition, Is this an appropriate place to do this or is there a disambiguation? I also piped civil action to lawsuit. Then I saw that lawsuit did not specifically say in civil law so I added that. Geesh. I am sorry to be such a pest. I am still learning in Wikipedia, too, having edited only a few months. Jawesq 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you delete my user name and account? I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia/Wiktionary/anything else. THank you.Jawesq 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No. That is not possible. SemperBlotto 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. No big deal (I hadn't noticed it was RfV). This was requested by Paul G - see User talk:Paul G#phosphorus for our conversation (I also couldn't find it online). I shall keep the red link at phosphorus in case it ever turns up. SemperBlotto 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have added the discussion to the talk page, so if it ever comes up, the note is there. Andrew massyn 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are really making progress on those requested entries! I'm impressed. —scs 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you be offended if I deleted sense 3 at nail, which it looks like you added back in January 2005? —scs 17:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I would be deeply hurt (as a Bristolian) - see on the nail. If you are serious, it should be discussed. SemperBlotto 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I was serious, but I wasn't trying to offend anyone. (If I'd known you were from there, I would have couched my suggestion in more diplomatic terms.)

Just so you know where I was coming from, my thinking was that (a) since we don't mention things like the Monument in London or the Washington Monument at monument (or indeed anywhere), it seemed odd to be mentioning those Nails in Bristol at nail, and (b) if we are going to mention the Nails in Bristol, it seems it should be under a spelling that's capitalized and plural, not hidden off at nail. —scs 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

But they are not capitalized. Also, unlike your other examples, they have a lexical interest in being the origin of on the nail. SemperBlotto 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was misled on the capitalization by http://www.about-bristol.co.uk/eye-03.asp. —scs 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#31337

obvious consensus for delete

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#bacon-faced

obvious consensus for keep

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#biblicist

obvious consensus for keep

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#asdf

no consensus to delete, default to keep

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Wookiee

no support for deletion, default to keep

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#User:Jezzer

consensus for weak keep

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#roflcopter

general consensus to delete

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Category:Leet

obvious consensus for keep

–Gunslinger47 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You know, I think you guys need to be a bit more careful who you give administrative rights to... eh. Remind me how he (Wonderfool/Dangherous/&c) ever managed to become an admin? Anyway; thank you for unblocking me! Dänkeschön. How did you manage to keep editting / reverting him after he blocked you?? Beobach972 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, this is not a phrasal verb. Please use your powers to delete this entry.

I do flail about, but then I have Tourette syndrome, and it's an aggh like me catching a typo after saving.

The verb flail is sufficient to convey the idea of one's body awkwardly moving through space.--Allamakee Democrat 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Citation added. SemperBlotto 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Full phrasal verb. Fart around, farts around, farted around, farting around. Please fix. AmE def: considering or pissing at an effort. --Allamakee Democrat 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Feel free to improve it. I can never remember the verb template formats. SemperBlotto 16:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The word comes between fortify and fortis, the latter being a major def in need of improvement. At least give you dic and etymology.--Allamakee Democrat 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Added this as an alternative spelling. My Latin is pretty basic and not good enough to tackle fortis. SemperBlotto 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Killjoy. I'm being useful. And am running out of accounts! --WFrenamingimp 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have proved several times that you cannot be trusted. So someone has to look at EVERY edit you do. That is a waste of our time - you will be blocked on EVERY account you create. SemperBlotto 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Careful with "new" words like peppershaker -- we already had pepper shaker. —scs 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You wrote: It doesn't really mean anything. It just rhymes. see for the original song.

Not the original use That is a reference to the earlier Louis Jordan Song, in which it is not so clear that it is not meaningless.

http://mysterion.org/~danw/blog/2006/08/miscalqulation

Probably deserves to have some mention, somewhere here.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 04:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If two identical categories exist (as French pronouns and fr:Pronouns), which of both is preferred? And is there a means (e.g. a bot) to change the deprecated category (and its items) into the newer one?

• I'm not sure. You best ask in the Beer Parlour (I'm not a great user of categories). SemperBlotto 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Category fr:Pronouns (and most similar categories, eg fr:Interjections) are preferred. In theory, even fr:Nouns would be preferred, although since we have Category:English nouns (see the debate on that somewhere - Beer Parlour or Grease Pit, I think), I'd hesitate on doing that just yet; and yes, somebody should design a robot to migrate the categories. Beobach972 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Special:Listusers?username=Semp. — Vildricianus 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• That was quick! SemperBlotto 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edit - it reads much better now!

Which version did you delete, the admittedly garbage original or my total rewrite? (The term is arguably dubious, but the rewrite was not "tosh" and not, I think, speediable. I had just gone back to add a link to w:Uncle Fucka when I discovered that I couldn't.) —scs 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Good luck! SemperBlotto 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • My point. Would you consider undeleting the rewrite and letting it stand scrutiny at WT:RFD? —scs 13:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • You can do that yourself via the history. I'm leaving it alone. SemperBlotto 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • Non-admins can't get at the history of deleted articles, that I know of. But don't worry, I've still got the text in an open window, so I can do something with it. —scs 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
        • SB already restore it - check RC -Versageek 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
          • Thanks. —scs 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry about the del requests. I've been working on templates and categories for CJKV languages for the last several weeks, with great help from A-Cai. It is midnight in Nairobi and I think I've just typed "Template" so many times I can't type "Category" ;-) Robert Ullmann 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) The others are the templates we combined after several weeks experience. Thanks. Robert Ullmann 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• All gone. SemperBlotto 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hog should go with Harley-Davidson, I suppose it really isn't derived, just related. A Harley-Davidson motorcycle commonly referred to a Hog or just a Harley. The entry for Harley should probably make reference to the motorcycle as well.. someone will eventually add it (not me, at least not tonight, it's past my bedtime :) .. --Versageek 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, yesterday there was a slew of vandalism from some oddball called User:ProfessorBob - he/she was found out and blocked for ever by User:Mike. This Prof guy was putting obscene pictures all over the place. On happened to be on my watch list and I was currious to see what the content of the original vandalism was (did not know it was obscene at the time tho!) and I was shocked at the filth this vandal had loaded. I tried to flag the offending picture for delete it self (see Image:Jojomall.jpg) however it seems to have made a link to it again in Wiktionary, I'm sorry for any hassel I may have indavertently caused, but could you have the offending article deleted? Many Thanks--Williamsayers79 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Passed onto WidSith - cheers--Williamsayers79 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Etcetera 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, what you like!

I was thinking how to send you back the message for some hours...

I only hope that a silly blond like me won't be a disaster for this site)))

In en-uk, is it emphasise? The example sentence at emphasize is for the British two-fingered gesture, while in America, flipping the bird is done with only the middle finger/the finger. Should this entry be split, with the sample sentence moved? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• My "Compact Oxford Dictionary" gives emphasise as an alternative spelling of the more normal emphasize. Perhaps a more neutral example sentence should be substituted. SemperBlotto 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is there a US/UK difference in the term co-op? AFAIK, in the US, it means an apartment of a co-op, or the co-op building (that has the apartments that people can buy.) The general meaning of the term "coperative" is used for all other uses, I think, while the abbreviated form chiefly applies only to living spaces.

Well, I should ask some other Americans for verification, I suppose. I'm not 100% sure that my perception is correct. It may be more micro-regional than I realize.

TIA. --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. A massive difference. In the UK a co-op is a shop; one of a range owned either by the Co-operative Wholesale Society or, more recently by Co-operative Retail Services. They are (or were) part of the Co-operative Movement - a form of socialism that gave rise to the present Labour Party. It is/was a mutual society and members who shopped there got "points" for their shopping that they exchanged at the end of the year for a dividend (the "divvy"). It has declined in recent years, but there are still co-ops in most towns. SemperBlotto 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • See The Co-operative Group

Isn't this supposed to go before the etymology heading? Or did something change again? --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you take The Times? This was in their "can you guess the meaning of these words?" puzzle in the copy that was lying around at work yesterday - did you see it there, or is it pure coincidence that you should enter it today? — Paul G 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• No, I'm a Guardian man. I looked up propudious (added earlier and not in normal dictionaries) and just made notes on the next two entries for the hell of it. SemperBlotto 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you happen to know if anyone has combed through his edit list yet? - TheDaveRoss 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• No, and it would be a long task. I'm pretty sure that the very great majority will be fine; or, at least, not deliberately bad - some of them may have poor definitions. So much to do - so little time! SemperBlotto 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I can't promise my comb will have fine teeth, but I will at least take a look at what I can, just didn't want it to be a redundant effort if anyone had dug through yet. - TheDaveRoss 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I did this as a draft: User:Kipmaster/english-index. It's only the first 2000 words out of 85644. How do you think it should look like? Should I keep only single and hyphenated words as you suggested on the BP? Should I try to remove plurals? Is it useful? Any comment is welcome :-) Kipmaster 11:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work. It would, of course, need splitting into sections, and subsections by first two letters (for non numeric entries). It's good that you have kept Capitalized and uncapitalized forms in synch (would you include both where there are separate articles? (rather than a redirect)). I would be inclined to include hyphenated words, and maybe even two separate words - but that is a judgement call (if you include electron microscope then why not scanning electron microscope?) But that decision can always be changed when it is periodically rebuilt. (Ditto the inclusion of plurals) I would say "go fot it" - noone will mourn the passing of the current index. SemperBlotto 11:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I managed to have the splitting into sections automatically, and could now copy it. Can you confirm that I can copy this over the already existing index? If it's okay, I'll try with A and let you see. Otherwise, I need a new name to give to the index. Cheers, Kipmaster 13:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes please. We can always revert to the present system in an emergency. SemperBlotto 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, I did Index:English/a. There is some errors in the sorting, and removing plurals is not as easy as I thought. Also, I've removed all articles containing a " " for now. Kipmaster 13:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is the first entry a typo? bd2412 T 18:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, thanks for spotting it (and there is no plural). SemperBlotto 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard this term before, but randomosity instead.

http://www.google.com/search?q=randomicity&as_brr=0&hl=en&sa=N&tab=pw (14,800)

http://www.google.com/search?q=randomosity&as_brr=0&hl=en&sa=N&tab=pw (127,000)

Do you think (as I suspect) that this is another regional variation? --Connel MacKenzie 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I was going to say that it looks like a spelling mistake. Randomisity seems to be a real word - I shall see if it is in the OED on my next visit to the local library. I'll define it anyway, for the time being. SemperBlotto 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB, this may be one for you. I've tried to define it, but the chemical formula I've put in (cribbed from various sources) seems to differ from Wikipedia. Widsith 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Wikipedia has the correct structure. It isn't an amino acid in the normal biological meaning of the word. SemperBlotto 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You asked for something like this a million years ago. I thought I made an attempt at it somewhere, but I can't find where else I might have put it. Let me know when you are ready for the twos. Or, if you want the anonIP onesies next. --Connel MacKenzie 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I must have had a bee in my bonnet when I asked you for this. I shall try to remember what I was thinking of (but anything after a few days gets hazy!) SemperBlotto 09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have to ask,

I mean, I really have to ask where on Earth you got that definition? It could go on WT:BJAODN, I suppose. I nearly lost my keyboard when I spilled a glass of water, from reading that definition. Thank the Lord, I wasn't taking a sip!

--Connel MacKenzie 09:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• See The Webtender - I have to agree that it seems a waste of good whisky. I just assumed that hershey (caps?) must be the US "chocolate" company. SemperBlotto 09:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Froid 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Londheart 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I was actually a little disappointed by the lack of in-depth documentation here on Wiktionary, so I just looked at some random pages and tried to conform to the standards de facto that I found. Hopefully I'll learn how to write good articles with some experience :) --Emc2 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've heard it, but I've never seen it written down. I've improved the article to the best of my ability and added my comments here. Dvortygirl 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you please check the entry for Julie. I'm new here so I'm not sure, but the quote seems out of place to me. How to proceed? Thanks in advance. Syrius 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well, we are certainly allowed to add example sentences to a definition. Ideally they should show how the word is used in practice - sometimes more helpful than a poor definition. In this case, it doesn't seem to help much - you could remove it and nobody would mind. SemperBlotto 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Cheers for your quick response.

The user who added these was working from the KJV concordance. Each is used multiple times.

• cherubims at (e.g.) Hebrews 9:5
• firstfruits at (e.g) Deuteronomy 26:10

Both have lots of other usage based on this. If you put them back, I'll add the citations a bit later. Thanks. Robert Ullmann 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK. My suspicion is that the original user (Ruedanton) was actually Wonderfool. Cherubims is definitely wrong - one of the few mistakes made by the authors of the Authorized Version. SemperBlotto 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it was a mistake; they were translating from Hebrew; they certainly knew what a plural was; it had to be intentional style. They would know that the readers would not know the Hebrew plurals. To you and me "cherubim and seraphim" sounds right, and we know they are plural. For the intended audience of the KJV: "cherubims and seraphims". Robert Ullmann 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you adding "saditty" to Wiktionary. I had originally added "sadity", but I must have been spelling it wrong because the version with 2 Ts seems to be more accepted (Even though phonetically, it is often pronounced as if there is only 1 T). I hope you don't mind that I added a bit more to the page for "saditty."

Also, do you know how I can delete my original "sadity" entry? BrasilianRain 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks -- you're too quick for me -- I got an edit conflict with you making the same change -- really should check my preview. ;-) --Enginear 10:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for signaling your confidence in my ability to act as a CheckUser for the English Wiktionary. Your vote means a lot to me. I deeply appreciate it.

You may not be aware, but the Meta: policy dictates that there must be multiple CheckUsers on any given project, or else none will be granted. Each must get 25 votes on their local wiki, as per Meta: policy, to be granted the CheckUser privilege.

I'd like to take a moment to endorse my friends and co-runners. Each of them offers different skills that, as a whole, complement the needs of the English Wiktionary.

1. User:Uncle G has been an English Wikipedia sysop longer than he's been an English Wiktionary sysop. This year (2006) he has refocused his efforts outside of Wiktionary. He was dragged away from Wiktionary while cleaning up the tens of thousands of entries on Wikipedia that linked incorrectly to Wiktionary after the case-sensitivity change in June 2005. He knows Wiktionary very well. And he is very competent at focusing his efforts wherever they are most needed. He operated the original Transwiki: bot, before we had the Special:Import feature we have now.
2. User:Kipmaster is a French Wiktionnaire sysop and bot operator who is very technically capable. He also is in Europe, making his hours of availability complementary to his American counterparts. He is active in WiktionaryZ imports and understands very well which data can be imported here, from there. He normally acts as our primary liaison to fr.wiktionary, whenever compatibility issues arise.
3. User:Jon Harald Søby is a steward. As a meta: steward, he is the primary person we call on to perform CheckUser checks now. His availability is often limited, but his Central European timezone proves to be very, very useful on occasion. He has contributed extensively to Wiktionary over the years.
4. User:Kelly Martin was recently called in to help perform CheckUser checks on the English Wiktionary. She is currently up for election also for the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation. (In the unlikely event she wins that election, she will no longer be available to pursue her CheckUser nomination here.) Since she also has CheckUser privilege on other sister projects, she is accustomed to the 'can's and 'cannot's of CheckUser procedures, in detail.

I hope you can take a moment to consider these fine candidates again. Your support means a great deal to them, as well as to Wiktionary's ability to perform its own CheckUser checks in a timely manner.

Thank you again, for your support.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard this term used in reference to physical pain. The one secondary source that alluded to it, did so only as a reverse-metaphor. I spell credence with an "e" not an "a". Perhaps the word poignant has different meaning across the pond? --Connel MacKenzie 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well, certainly, the normal meaning is "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret". I'll have a look at the OED on my next visit to the library. SemperBlotto 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I came back from holiday to find my council had implemented this some months ago without any previous notification. It's brilliant, not only for OED, but for dictionary of Quotes, etc

It might be worth checking whether your council has also implemented it -- or chasing them if they haven't. --Enginear 09:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• YES - I have access via my Herts library number (I had to struggle a bit with Norton security first). Well done that man! SemperBlotto 11:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Conversation moved to Template talk:it-adj. Rod (A. Smith) 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the history of the (imported) entry, I'm now wondering if we should change Wiktionary:Wiktionary Day?  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 20:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. Haven't Wiktionary "words" got sequential ID numbers? Can you see which one has the smallest, and look at its history? (Main Page goes back to 12 Dec 2002, and text of 2nd version confirms December start) SemperBlotto 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In fact wiki entries do have sequential id numbers, and when I downloaded an XML dump last week and started rummaging through it, I noticed that the pattern of the very earliest entries is rather amusing. You can totally see the first users taking the first steps at fleshing out their brand-new, empty database, entering the first words that pop into their heads:

id word

6 Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers

7 Wiktionary:GNU Free Documentation License

8 Wiktionary:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

12 Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not

16 dictionary

19 free

20 thesaurus

21 Help:Contents

24 dog

25 Wiktionary:Language considerations

27 encyclopedia

28 Wikipedia

29 portmanteau

32 encyclopaedia

35 frei

36 cat

39 woordenboek

41 gratis

42 umsonst

43 gratuit

44 Wiktionary:Using public domain works as a base

45 word

46 livre

47 book

49 pound

50 Wiktionary:Topics

51 GDP

52 chien

53 Debian

54 Linux

55 rain cats and dogs

56 pond

57 pies

59 nonsense

60 pie

62 Appendix:English proverbs

66 A

71 crow

72 Wiktionary:English pronunciation key

73 raven

75 elephant

78 Pope Julius

81 GNU FDL

86 Help:FAQ

90 frijaz

91 aquila

92 Wiktionary:Entry layout explained

94 brown

95 December

96 floccinaucinihilipilification

101 Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines

—scs 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for editing my entry aegilops wasn't sure how to remove the plural. I was also wandering whether it is appropriate to include trivia about words - like say for example - "longest english word" or something like that? Is it done on wikidictionary? Havent come accross any entry like that so maybe you could let me know. CooKeeN 08:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just had a look at my own block log out of interest and was not even aware that User:Dangherous had blocked me! You obviously unblocked me however but Danherous comment was to northern {I assume he meant too northern?). Was he/she a Wonderfool sock puppet or something, I've heard a few things around here on the various discussion forums and noticed a few admins and users stopped contributing at the time and have not returned. Were these all Wonderfool?--Williamsayers79 09:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Dangherous was Wonderfool as a sysop. He is now a sysop on WiktionaryZ would you believe?! The many forms of Wonderfool are now easy to spot - his style is unique. SemperBlotto 09:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, the sysophood on WiktionaryZ didn't last very long... \Mike 13:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also note that the attitude towards sysop-ship on WiktionaryZ is radically different from enwikt; with 162 out of 530 registered user being sysops.... *smile* --sanna 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

See my additional comments here. —scs 15:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You cleared out my contribution without explanation. You're not encouraging new users to contribute by being so rash. You'll see I provide evidence for the meaning on the talk page.

217.33.200.148 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

thanks you very much for your expands on my new articles, can you do something for encoder? 16@r 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I missed them as well. Certainly they were TheDaveBot. I'll see if I can do the &offset=6000 think to Special:Newpages... --Connel MacKenzie 10:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do we have to go to 250,000 in increments of 5k? Or is it 10k from 200 to 250? --Connel MacKenzie 11:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, perhaps it would be a good idea to drop down a gear (make it 10k) after 200,000. By the way, I have asked The Dave to slow it down when we approach the next biggy. SemperBlotto 11:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That was my plan, I only gave it enough input this run to get us to the high 190s. - TheDaveRoss 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit new at this so I hope I'm doing this right.

Creating an entry for Harrowing of Hell is an excellent idea. I'd still want to keep an entry in the verb entry of harrowing because there is no guarantee that someone searching for it would search under Harrowing of Hell (unless Wiktionary would automatically list Harrowing of Hell when someone searched for harrow, and because the Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary structures it that way. What do you think? Eewanco 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. The way we do this is to have a ===Derived terms=== section in harrow that has *] (* not # in this list) SemperBlotto 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Ok, I was unfamiliar with that usage. I would have no objection to that. I had listed it as a verb because that's how it's listed in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which is an entry distinct from the noun form. (On WD they are together so it's not really an issue.) If you did as you suggested with the Derived Terms it would probably suffice. I create a new entry for Harrowing of Hell, by the way. Thanks for the suggestions.Eewanco 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the advice. I'm not certain of the exact date (I don't have the dictionary on hand) but I've added a tentative reference to the "Fungible" article. OrangUtanUK 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a point of clarification: aren't we switching to one milestone every 25,000 entries now? --Connel MacKenzie 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I don't really mind. Who decides? I won't argue with any number as long as it is larger than 5,000. SemperBlotto 07:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Whoever cares, decides. It's a Wiki!  :-) The closest thing to a suggestion I found was Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/October-December 05#Wiktionary:Milestones. Like you said, the 10,000 increments were suggested. TheDaveBot didn't even slow down when it passed 210,000. But at 5:10:17 PM EST, we numerically passed fr.wikt:. I don't even have any choice words picked out for 250,000 yet, let alone 225k. --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK, We'll go with 10,000 up to 250,000. Then 25,000 up to 350,000. Then we'll get a life! SemperBlotto 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Speak for yourself!  :-) I think the recent influx of people willing to experiment with automation will gradually increase the pace that entries have content added. We never did get Webster's imported; after these last few practice runs, people are sharpening their teeth. I don't think it will be too much longer before we see a bot adding etymologies from Webster's 1913. Then another adding missing parts of speech to existing entries. Then another adding missing obscure terms. And so on. I think the rate of new articles will only continue to increase now. And of course, there's always a thousand new entries to be done at the Gutenberg list. (Perhaps I should increase that to 2,000 or 5,000?) By the time en.wiktionary hits three million entries, I imagine English entries will be a numerially minor portion. But, who knows? Maybe we'll start accepting slang, regional and technical jargon by then. --Connel MacKenzie 09:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You told me that you don't accept new words, but all of my recent entries are far from new. They are all modern American colloquialisms that I have heard repeatedly for well over a year. In the case of captain "save-a-ho", it can actually be traced back to the mid-90s.

--IndieNate 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to interrupt here, but I (an American) am the one who deleted that entry. It does not come anywhere near to meeting the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 09:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Connel mentioned that you were interested in having bot edits hidden in Special:Newpages, I was wondering if an "invert selection" checkbox similar to the one on recent changes would suffice? If so, we can certainly file a Bugzilla for one. Sorry for the inconvenience. - TheDaveRoss 07:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. I had never ticked that checkbox, or even used the drop-down list to restrict recent changes before. Anyway, I always used to review new words added by anon users (and problematic ones as well) every morning. That is no longer easy, so I rely on Recent changes with minor edits and bots turned off. I don't see how the invert selection box would help. SemperBlotto 08:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think whatever magic you added broke it; the s/w is returning a database error since your 19:30 (UTC+3) edit. Robert Ullmann 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Back now. Not sure what it was. Robert Ullmann 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I purged it. I.e. http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Grease_pit&action=purge --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks! I think I just saw it come up in two webcomics in short succession, or maybe in a webcomic and a D&D game. Either way, it got me curious. I do appreciate all of the work you do on the requests I make, by the way. Thank you. -- Creidieki 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you try a Google Books search?

Hi Semperblotto - I am a little unhappy

1. It seems to me that categorising molar and normal under Chemical reagents is not illogical, they are not reagents - but will be frequently met with in relation to them.
2. Does it break a basic rule to alphabeticise items in two ranks viz u/c and l/c ? It was I who dis this to reagent, molar etc (but I wasn't logged in :) – Saltmarsh 11:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, what is the purpose of the category? If it is to list reagents, then molar and normal have no place there. If it is to list anything to do with reagents you might as well list bottle (they all come in bottles). Personally, I think that most categories are a total waste of time and effort. I have no evidence that any user has ever used them to find something. SemperBlotto 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm – that logic is almost but not quite ad absurdum. Categories may be of more use when making entries (I havew found them so) than when looking things up! Saltmarsh 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The noise level is increasing, recently. I don't know that en.wikt: is suddenly more popular on the internet. Perhaps we should be adding all of these garbage anon IPs to WT:OP? --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Then again, maybe it is just growing pains. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=r&q=&size=medium&range=1y&url=en.wiktionary.org --Connel MacKenzie 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not too keen on any method of deliberately hiding a contributor's identity - so if you want to block them that's fine by me. Our growing pains are, of course, being matched by a growing number of sysops (what does the graph of that look like?). SemperBlotto 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I got this meaning from the notredame /english lookdown site:*(1) ; of ideas, . Is there a preference to the the type of latin ? (e.g. neo- latin)?(In your edit, it was left out) Just for you to know, I do prefer neo-latin which is more practical and used a lot in medieval times, than classical latin which is unwieldy and difficult to use.--Jondel 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I am not a Latin expert. So, if you know better than me, you should do what you think is correct. I included only what I could verify. We include ALL languages, so that means the Latin of Ancient Rome, medieval England and the modern Roman Catholic Church. Any words that have changed their meaning over that time should be so marked. Cheers. SemperBlotto 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Accordo. Neither am I an expert. I will be restoring the meaning then. cheers.--Jondel 13:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please restore this entry so I can add cites to it. It is a pretty common term, although I usually see it without the "k". --Connel MacKenzie 08:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Restored for you. Zero Google book hits for either spelling. SemperBlotto 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! regarding our previous thred (about blocking back in August) I've recently been approached by wikipedia:User:Dangherous with the following:

START

Hi Williamsayers, I think you should run for admin on the English Wiktionary. I'd nominate you myself, but find editting there troublesome. Wiktionary need more admins. --Dangherous 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do I go about being nominated then?--Williamsayers79 12:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Clickin' here should start one. --Dangherous 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

END

Do you know what this is about and is he for real?--Williamsayers79 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• If you want to be a Wiktionary sysop, you can put yourself forward at Wiktionary:Administrators#Requests_for_administrator_rights. Of course, if you say you were nominated by Dangherous / Wonderfool then nobody will vote for you as they will assume you are one of his many manifestations! SemperBlotto 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll want some more edit experience before I nominate myself! Thanks for your advice.--Williamsayers79 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

why do you feel that polemical (which is a corruption of "polemic") should not be a redirect to polemic? note for contrast, "barbarical", "concentrical", and many other syntactically correct, but linguistically incorrect words. Avriette 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (you may want to ping me on wikipedia, same user name)Reply

Hmm. a quick perusal of your CV indicates we have a lot in common. Cheers. -alex

• "polemical" is a real word. All words get their own entry - we don't do much redirecting here. "barbarical" does not seem to be a real word (or at least, is very rare). It might deserve an entry, but certainly not a redirect. Also, we are a descriptive rather than a prescriptive dictionary, so all sorts of gramatically bad stuff gets an entry if it can be shown to be widely used. SemperBlotto 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. All definitions of the word "polemical" point to the word "polemic." As you indicate, "barbarical" is a real word, in that it (as I said) syntactically makes sense, and somebody who knew english would understand the meaning of it, but it is nonetheless incorrect. What is the harm in having a redirect at polemical to polemic? You afterall removed a redirect to polemic from polemical. I am curious what motivated you to do that. Avriette 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't do redirects. Every word gets its own entry. SemperBlotto 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I take it, then, you wouldn't object to my creating a barbarical definition? Avriette 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every entry is judged on its own merits. So I won't know until you do it. SemperBlotto 07:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is just fine. 1/4 million hits. I've heard it used myself. Robert Ullmann 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not too sure about the "short and blue" sense though ;-) The other is valid. Robert Ullmann 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, if you say so. SemperBlotto 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fixed it so that {{plural of|foo}}, {{plural of|]}}, {{plural of|foo|bar}}, {{plural of|]}} all work as expected. (Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "foo" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "foo" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "foo" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "bar" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.) easy to copy to other templates. Robert Ullmann 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well done. I looked at some of these but was overcome by curly-bracket-fatigue. SemperBlotto 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment about learning the art of range blocks on WT:GP, I will point out Wiktionary:Range blocks, as well as meta:Range blocks for your perusal. Have fun blocking more of the internet at once! :) - TheDaveRoss 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You replace my def (that said the same thing) with Wikipedia's circular def? {shrug} --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. ALL entries MUST start with ==language== then ===part of speech=== then the headword within triple quotes, then the translations (each one starting with a #) SemperBlotto 07:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've amended the entries that they show language/part of speech, but did have a question. Ought genitive versions of words functions like plurals (in that they merely direct to the page of the word in its simplest form) or rather should they have separate definitions? For reference, can δώρου stand as it is? Thanks much! Medellia 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every word gets its own entry - even plurals. So δώρου is fine (with a minor tweak). SemperBlotto 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! Thank you so much for your assistance. Medellia 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto, I looked over your recent edit to stot (addition of noun) and noticed that you tagged some of the senses with (Scots). I assumed that this meant that the sense was Scots language and recently myself and Widsith have been making seperate language entries for the Scots terms. Of course this is not at all clear when words are used in both languages (English and Scots) e.g. the verb sense of stot. Should we tag any words with (Scots) next to them in English entries as Scottish English and/or make an entry for the Scots sense too?--Williamsayers79 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

My personal preference would be to have seperate language entries for all Scots senses where it is clear they are Scots langauge and on the rare occasion like with ootwith (Scots) and outwith (Scottish English) use the Scottish english tag.--Williamsayers79 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you think? I'll also direct widsith here.--Williamsayers79 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, I don't know! The word is in the OED - so that makes it ==English== doesn't it. (The OED tags the ox as "Northern" and the bounce as "Scottish"). I'm a southerner so will go along with whatever changes you want. SemperBlotto 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The usual explanation is to distinguish between Scottish English (labeled (Scotland) or (Scottish)) and Scots, which is a separate language altogether (with however much shared vocabulary). Unnecessarily confusing, I know. Widsith 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you please have a look at shining part and give it a proper definition? I'm at a loss. Dart evader 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK, I have used the citations to invent a definition. Some people might think that it does not meet WT:CFI, but what do I know? p.s. There are probably lots more old nautical terms to add from the works of Patrick O'Brien (I have got as far as Nutmeg of Consolation, reading one every so often). SemperBlotto 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's been used in quite a few well-known works, it's not a mere sum of its parts, and its meaning is not that obvious (at least for a non-native speaker), so why not include? And thanks for your definition, of course. :-) Dart evader 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd gone mad -- I noticed (at tube) that the link to Tube was red. I'm in the middle of something else now, so added the word to the to-do list on my user page. It went blue...maybe there was something wrong with the link from tube. Went back in my browser to the (cached of course) tube page...yes it was red...went to Edit, and the Preview showed it blue. Only then did it dawn on me that maybe someone had beaten me to it and entered it! (Well done.)

It's been a confusing couple of days -- yesterday I edited the RFV article on nope and had an edit conflict with the page archiving (BTW the software resolves the problem of someone editing a now non-existant section by showing the whole page on the edit-conflict screen...a neat solution once you know what has happened, but with such a large page, rather confusing until then...I wonder what it does if the whole page is deleted).

Time for a tube, perhaps! --Enginear 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this you? Jonathan Webley 12:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, it's an SUL sockpuppet (just to prevent malicious creation). However, there is a w:User:SemperBlotto on Wikipedia who isn't me, and I'm not sure what to do about it. No edits yet. SemperBlotto 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In the English Wiktionary, only English words have a ===Translations=== section. Foreign language words mostly just have a translation into English instead of a definition (unless things get complicated, or there is no direct translation). This is to stop multiple translation tables getting out of step. SemperBlotto 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for being so polite in explaining my mistake. In that case it is easy to find the Latin translation (the only interesting one) by going to the English page and reading the translations table. So indeed omitting the translation table from the foreign entry is quite appropriate. Thanks again. --Hroðulf 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you revert my edit to the oblivious article? That was not a vandal edit. 205.189.97.202 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The TV show is Oblivious not oblivious. Also, it is not dictionary material - see WT:CFI. SemperBlotto 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how to express how much I disagree with this edit. This is the exact opposite of what I understood our goal to be.

Example sentences and alternate spellings are Good Things. Simply indicating that it is only a single alternate spelling does a disservice, IMHO.

Granted, the definition itself was sketchy. But since when is making people chase links (on a slow 10-15 second per page load wiki) become the preferred method? Why remove useful information, when you could have added the "alternate spelling of" before it, and left the rest intact?

--Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Said another way: the purpose of 'bot-entering all those "plural" forms wasn't to have that be the "final" form of those entries, but rather, the starting point, or stub, for those entries. They each need example sentences, pronunciation, translations, etc., eventually. --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggested elsewhere (before I got an account, and I can't remember where, a color/colour debate IIRC) that the problem with this type of entry, i.e. where two words have precisely the same meaning, is that the wiki software does not AFAIA implement the obvious solution, namely the ability to include a page as part of several other pages.

Were that possible, you could have one page for each of, for example, "sub atomic", "subatomic" and sub-atomic", each page consisting of the headword and an entry "<include this page>", where the page thus referenced would contain all the actual detail for the world. (there would also need to be work done on automatic pluralisation and suchlike).

This would seem to me to solve all the problems with entries like "color/colour" in that neither would appear to have precedence and each user would immediately get to the detail required without either manual or automatic redirection.

As to this particular case, it was a pity that when 'tidying' the entry, the rather wider (although less detailed) sense that I gave disappeared and I had to add it all over again to the other entry.

Hi and thanks for the welcome. I am not sure if I should start contributing even with small errors at the beginning or simply make requests at Wiktionary:Requested articles:English. --Etymon 10:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User User:Moglex is behaving much like a certain Wonderfool/Dangherous. Very new account with really rapid well-formatted entries on a wide variety of topics. What d'ya think? --EncycloPetey 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I'd rather not reply here, so please send me an email, or ask Connell to run a CheckUser. SemperBlotto 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please note that when I'm working from the PC, I can't access Connel's talk page to send him a message. There are some weird content filters in place whose actions aren't predictable. I have no control over these, but Connel's user page and talk page are two pages blocked by the filters. And no, it's not related to page length. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what triggers the filter(s)? mailto:[email protected] --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Semper, am I correct in assuming that we are no longer doing the donkey work of adding plurals and that a bot is now doing this for us automatically? If so is there anywhere I can read up on the bot? cheers--Williamsayers79 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• See User:TheCheatBot - run by Connel. SemperBlotto 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you were online; 69.118.231.217 has been adding the non-word "popazow" to entries and would assume that said user is simply vandalizing. Thank you! Medellia 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I know that you can get proper nouns but I've seen a few odd POS headings around here recently, namely Proper adjective. Is this a real POS or just a made up thing?--Williamsayers79 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• proper adjective seems to be OK. proper adverb is a new one on me. SemperBlotto 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why was this word deleted, without any RFD. Just gone. I can provide and belive I did provide documentary evidence of this word being used in the english language. You could have said it was slang that does not mean it should just be deleted but highlighted as a slang term. Please tell me why this was deleted?

Atherton2 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Of course we allow slang. We don't allow protologisms before they enter general use. See WT:CFI. If you can find print references then feel free to reenter binhead. SemperBlotto 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've initiated at discussion at WT:AL about the lemma for Latin (and Greek) verbs on Wiktionary. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have, as one of the more experienced people here in both Italian and editing issues. --EncycloPetey 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto. I've lifted the block you applied on Shanel's account. The reason you stated was "Wonderfool", probably because that username was previously hijacked by a malicious user and blocked as such. That account was renamed WFsock-formerly-Shanel. The current user of the account is the real Shanel, a respected and loved administrator on several projects. :) — Pathoschild 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• OK, sorry for the confusion. SemperBlotto 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

what happened to "zuned" as in "We got zuned" (shafted, cheated) etc

• It got deleted. It is not yet a real word - zero proper hits in Google Print. It is a protologism - maybe one day it will become a neologism then we can include it. SemperBlotto 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's brilliant - thank you for making that entry. I'm reading a novel at the moment and they keep talking about a "penny-ante" university. I had no idea what it meant, but now it makes sense ("insignificant", "two-bit"). Thank you. — Paul G 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard of the Alee affect, but I notice you have it as "affect" in the article title and "effect" inside the article. Wikipedia and quite a few other sources suggest it's "effect". Either way, it should be consistent. —Dvortygirl 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Oops. Corrected. (Read it in this weeks "Nature" - along with other words I'm now entering - from half-metal to sonic hedgehog). SemperBlotto 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'm glad you were able to sort that out, lest people misunderstand the word. Ksbrown 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete this? It's now a well-uttered phrase. Look at Google: 44,000 hits.

Due to the funny sportscast where the student crashes, burns, and utters "...and Boom Goes The Dynamite!", he's what you would call a "'Net Celeb" now, and in turn, more people have uttered that phrase.

Did you watch this video? Here it is. "Boom Goes The Dynamite" ought to be notable by now, and he utters the memorable phrase at 2:29. What else could this phrase possibly need in order to stay on Wiktionary? --72.205.241.187

• You didn't define it! You didn't provide a print reference. SemperBlotto 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I thought I did define it, but as for it appearing in print, do you mean that it has to appear on Google Books first? How many times? --72.205.241.187 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, three times spanning more than one year, from independent sources. Note that your youtube "citation" link goes to a page that has been removed. (That is to say, not durably archived.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
• See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion SemperBlotto 10:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You'd better delete some more "tosh" entries. Wiktionary is crawling with them!

1. dragon
2. unicorn
3. outer space
4. Death Star
5. muppet

Or, is a mention in literature enough for us to call a fictional term, a word? Sheesh, not even RFV'd? --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I guess you restored it three seconds before I saved this... --Connel MacKenzie 23:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was also trying to get a citation, but I'm getting "404" errors from Google Books. Perhaps they're fiddling with the system. SemperBlotto 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Working fine here. I'm having trouble picking my favorite quote though... --Connel MacKenzie 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you are around here at the moment, will you have a look at the article? Perhaps it is a joke or something. I mean the Christmas part. Dart evader 18:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it is most well known (as an interjection) as being used by the character "Scrooge" in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" - but it is more general than that. I have rewritten it. SemperBlotto 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

These words are not alpha privatives. That term refers to the prefixes only. SemperBlotto 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shall I change it to Category:Words with alpha privatives? Lethe 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you deleted all my additions using a bot. I require a list of words with alpha privatives. I shouldn't like to make the additions again. Please use your bot to add them all back, making any necessary change in the category name you desire. Lethe 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I did not "delete your additions" using a bot. I reverted your edits manually. If you really think a category of this sort will be useful to our users feel free to actually create one. I'm not doing anything. SemperBlotto 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have started up again on a major project without consultation. You should start a discussion in the Beer parlour first. State what you intend to do and why, and explain how it would be useful to our users. Decide on a name for a category and say where in the hierarchy of categories you are thinking of putting it (So far you have just been adding words to a non-existant category). I shall unblock you so that you can do that. Please don't start the project again until you receive backing from other contributors. SemperBlotto 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will take your advice. But can you please explain why you blocked me without warning for three days after you explicitly encouraged me to undertake the actions which I did? Lethe 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I unblocked you within hours as the block was excessive. I don't think I ever "encouraged" you - i think it a useless endeavour. SemperBlotto 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am grateful for the unblock. Thank you. I also think the block was excessive. You said, on November 27 "If you really think a category of this sort will be useful to our users feel free to actually create one." Did I misunderstand that statement? If so, then can you explain what you meant by that? If not, then can you explain why you blocked me? Lethe 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The form dové, with the acute accent, is far less common the the other one. I inverted the order, but feel free to revert if you prefer the old one. I'm sure about the accent, since dovè would sound exactly as dov'è (an open sound) which is the Italian for "Where is...". Ciao, M7 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I ignored the existence of that very useful template, so I just cut and pasted from the page of another Italian adjective. Can you please point me out where I can find the other templates (verb, noun, feminine noun..), if they do exist :-)? Grazie e buona giornata.

Nothing so fancy as last year, but happy birthday, nonetheless. Hope it's a good one! --Dvortygirl 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. Last year was just a little over the top! (and thanks for emails - the World is definitely orbitting faster around the sun than it used to). SemperBlotto 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you glances at the definition for permeable, please? It seems to say it only applies to water but I'm not sure that is accurate. RJFJR 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

(re WT:BP discussion, etc.) we seem to have settled on not using "Verb form" as a header; and the form-of presentation issue. But as long as the entries aren't all over the place in format (which they aren't), and in a useful category (which they are), we can always go fix them. No problem ;-) Robert Ullmann 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What happened to my user page?John Kamer 04:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

troll, blocked Robert Ullmann 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have restored ella, which you deleted as 'tosh' based on the "English" addition. The Italian and Spanish content, however, is valid. Since you originally created the Italian part of the entry, I assume this was simply an accidental delete. --EncycloPetey 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

DFW stands for Drug Free Workplace, as well. I will add that as a second definition.

Sorry about that-I looked under Fender and there it is.

Hello Jeff Merry X-Mas. Thank You for fixing Sebago Lake. Connel is a nice guy i e-mailed him and he unblocked me i'am just worried that you will block me for a long time? Again sorry to bother you.

Hi there! mezzogiorno = south (you can see mezzogiorno in this sense for instance by googling "esposto a mezzogiorno"). South of Italy is Mezzogiorno, with the capital letter. I'm happy that Italian surpassed French.. a curiositiy: how can I see the number of Italian entries? (and how can I sign this message????) Tnx!

• You can see our statistics at Wiktionary:Statistics. You can sign your name by adding four tildes (like this ~~~~) (three tildes omits the date) SemperBlotto 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can always count on you to delete the junk that I really, really, really wanted to delete but forced myself to format as real entries because they had too many Google hits! - (I'm not being sarcastic, I really am glad they are gone. If the person who entered them wants them back, they can reenter with proper citations.) - IMHO - Some things just don't belong in a dictionary!

Happy Holidaze! --Versageek 15:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Then the Wikipedia article is in need of some serious revision. I agree that the Italian roots alto and bas are quite clearly distinct, but I'm not sure that that distinction is preserved as clearly in English. I'm not sure that I have any books here that are likely to be as informative as I would need. --EncycloPetey 08:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. See what you think of my changes. --EncycloPetey 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto,

sorry for recreating the entry; apparently I was just a bit too slow ;-) Greetings, — Pill δ 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Verb: "To be under the influence of alcohol" -- wouldn't that be an adjective. Even drunk, "I alcoholize" wouldn't sound right. --EncycloPetey 08:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have amended the definition according to the OED, and added the past/adjective. SemperBlotto 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should this one (and shiraz/Shiraz) be capitalized? --EncycloPetey 08:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I think that it has to be capitalized, both for the grape variety and the wine (so many of these to be added!). Interestingly, the OED hasn't got it - only Petite Sirah which I think may be different. SemperBlotto 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Similarly, I think zinfandel should be moved to capitalised - The OED has it uncapitalised but is capitalised in most of its citations! SemperBlotto 09:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. BTW, I know you don't care for topical categories, but you might apply ] as you create entries for these. I find that it helps me keep track of which items I've entered and which I haven't when fleshing out terms in a topic. --EncycloPetey 09:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where does this come from? I've deleted it at least once, and it keeps showing up. I'm wondering why this particular string? Robert Ullmann 11:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know. I have tried to create a situation for this and several other strange entries (strange versions of main page talk pages etc) without success. I have tried using both explorer and Firefox, logged-on and -off - all to no avail! SemperBlotto 11:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
• I suspect it is a malfunctioning spambot, we get similiarly formatted strange titles on wikiHow periodically as well. --Versageek 11:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply