User talk:SemperBlotto/2010

Hey thanks for deleting my talk page. Saved me from having to do it. Mjtrout 11:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not a perfect solution, but it does accept word#Italian|word with no square brackets, see http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mglovesfun/Sandbox&oldid=8173416 this test edit]. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Does that make the entry wikicountable? SemperBlotto 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No, but I don't know how to fix it, or at least right now I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • It needs some sort of "wikilink" expression - but there are too many brackets for me to attempt adding it. SemperBlotto 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Not interested - and don't tell me how to vote. SemperBlotto 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Could you take a look at (deprecated template usage) bagna càuda (Italian and English), please? It was recently cleaned up and expanded, relying on information from Wikipedia which conflicts with your original contribution. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - I've corrected the English Wikipedia link. The facts look OK, especially if you look at the Italian Wikipedia version (i.e. no reference to butter or cream!). SemperBlotto 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. Are the alternative spellings and etymology kosher, too? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think so. I've only ever seen it in Italy either as we have it, or without the accent (which is only there to show you that the stress isn't on the usual "u" (last but one vowel)) SemperBlotto 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. Shall I {{rfv}} those two alternative forms? Should the Italian section have an etymology stating “From the {{etyl|pms|it}} bagna càuda (“hot sauce”).”? Would the pronunciation be /ˌbaɲɲaˈka.uda/ or somesuch? Could you add an etymology and pronunciatory transcription, as appropriate, please? Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

bagna cauda garlic, anchovies, walnut, or olive oil, butter, and sometimes cream. --Knoblauch 16:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Again, not an Italian source for the Italian sauce. (but feel free to edit - this is a wiki). SemperBlotto 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, the surname but also a definition of the burgess --Knoblauch 17:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No - that's a portman. SemperBlotto 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Conjugation template needed per fevore. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are quite a few, I tagged them (as I found them with {{attention|it}}, but there's no rush. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to tag them - I have an offline list - I do a few every week as it's a drag. SemperBlotto 08:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just done cingere accingere attingere circoncingere circumcingere confingere contingere depingere dipingere discingere dispingere effingere fingere impingere incingere infingere intingere mingere pingere precingere recingere respingere riattingere ricingere ridipingere rincingere ripingere risospingere rispingere ritingere scingere semicingere sospingere spingere stingere succingere tingere - that's enough for January! SemperBlotto 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, how do we manage an italian polirematica (here a list)? A polirematica is a phrase that cannot be considered "sum of parts". We make a new entry or we put them in an appropriate section? Another thing: I wrote in Wiktionary_talk:About_Italian about italian hyphenation, if you have the time to have a look.--Diuturno 10:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Polirematiche - see avere freddo - feel free to add all the rest!
• Hyphenation - I saw your talk - feel free to add a paragraph in the article. SemperBlotto 10:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this should be dismissed quite so hastily; there is “smallcapped”, which I haven't managed to confirm as a verb form, but I have found on Google two instances of a verbal “smallcapping” as well as one of “to smallcap” . – Krun 16:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - it was from a dodgy contributor. SemperBlotto 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. Could you please remember to include prefixes or suffixes for entries such as this one that you made? Also, I believe that {{wikipedia}} templates go right underneath the language header, not the part of speech header. Thanks, Razorflame 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - but I put the Wikipedia template where it looks best on my screen. Feel free to move it. SemperBlotto 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Maybe we should open a discussion in the BP about where it should go, if that suits you? Razorflame 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that based on User:Razorflame/Italian sentences, that I have enough of a knowledge of the Italian language to begin contributing in Italian? Thanks for the feedback, Razorflame 16:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Babel => it1 seems OK. Therefore I have no problem with you editing Italian words. You might like to add an "attention" template to those that you are not 100% sure of. Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Very well. Thank you for the opinion. Razorflame 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

you deleted the Russian translation "позорить" for shame (verb), yet it is certainly correct. Why? — This comment was unsigned.

• You added an unknown template (a word in curly brackets) - How was I to know that this was supposed to be a translation? SemperBlotto 22:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I see my mistake, I will correct it

I was just about to create this entry when I noticed that it had already been created by an IP, and then deleted by you. Any particular reason that entry shouldn't be there? --Yair rand 05:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The original entry had no useful information - just said it was a surname. SemperBlotto 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I can see that it, like most of the surname entries on Wiktionary, did not yet have any further information other than that it's a surname. Is that any reason to delete it? --Yair rand 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, "no usable content" is an allowed reason for deletion. We wouldn't allow "a placename" as a definition of New York. Feel free to recreate with some sort of useful content. SemperBlotto 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with Yair rand here, what sort of information should we put for surnames? If it had had a pronunciation and/or an etymology but the same definition, do you still delete it? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Any content in addition to "a surname" makes it a reasonable entry. SemperBlotto 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • Probably more than half of the surname entries contain nothing more than "a surname". I think the real question here is whether "usable" is the same thing as "useful". All of these entries were "usable" if not particularly useful. --Yair rand 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • So, do you have any objection to me recreating the IP's surname entries? If so, I guess we can bring it up in the BP and maybe attempt to establish a formal policy about these kinds of entries. If not, I'm going to go ahead and recreate them. Okay? --Yair rand 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • I have no objection to surname entries that contain at least some useful information. In fact, I positively encourage them. SemperBlotto 22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • The question is whether entries without further information (other than "a surname") should be kept. If not, than we should discuss it in the BP, establish a policy, and proceed to delete the many entries that don't give further information. Otherwise, the many surnames that were deleted because they didn't give further info should be recreated. --Yair rand 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You deleted my talk page while I was still setting it up. Repeatedly, it appears. I'm new on Wiktionary, but have some Wikipedia experience. Are there some Wiktionary talk page rules that I'm not adhering to? Please reply to my Wikipedia talk page for prompter response, thanks.Centrepull 11:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the link to some helpful introductory pages. I will be sure to read them before making any contributions. Assuming that you are not here just to waste my time by constantly reformatting my talk page whilst I am still editing it, permit me to explain a little.

• My message to you above was an enquiry for some direct information on whether I was actually breaking a Wiktionary rule in formatting my talk page

• I have reasons for choosing to format my talk page, and intend to do so if it is permitted

• The formatting I was attempting to carry out consists of a brief relevant note (as there is a note on your page, I assume this is permitted)

• If any formatting of a user talk page is actually permitted, or may be permitted under some circumstances, could you please wait a reasonable period of time (I suggest 72 hours - this is a talk page, not an article) for me to complete my formatting, before you inspect and correct any breaches of etiquette I may have made.

• I have done some research: I have read http://meta.wikimedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Help:Talk_page. I would be grateful for links to any other relevant help page that I should read on talk page conventions?

• Whilst I await your response I will be checking the FAQ, Discussion room and other help pages for further guidance.

Please reply (or copy your reply) to my Wikipedia talk page for prompter response.

Thank you for your patience. Centrepull 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can this be considered an English word? As you put the translations in the French section. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I realized that as soon as I had hit the button. I suppose that it must - certainly that how Balzac's name is written on his books in English (not that I have ever read any - life's too short). SemperBlotto 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consensus seems to have formed in the beer parlour to have him reinstated as a sysop without having to go through another vote. Would you be willing to give him back the tools? Thanks, Razorflame 12:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - let's hope everyone calms down now. SemperBlotto 12:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Everyone and everything should be calm now. I won't interact with him any longer, so there shouldn't be any additional problems. Razorflame 12:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This has been on WT:REE for a while; it came up in an American spelling bee. I gather it means "bitterly" and is used on musical scores in the manner of (deprecated template usage) allegro etc. Could you add the Italian entry, please? I don't know whether it should have English or not. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm - seems likely, but isn't in any of may paper dictionaries, or in any of the online ones that I look at. I'll do some more research. SemperBlotto 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • The Oxford Companion to Music has a one line entry - just translating it as "bitterly". Not in Grove Music Online (the absolute music bible). I'll ask Barmar. SemperBlotto 22:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • See - doesn't seem to be very real. Most Google book hits are either dictionary translations or possibly typos for (deprecated template usage) amorevole .SemperBlotto 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Hi there. I don't know if this word has some English use but for me in Italian it is simply a misspelling of amorevole. --Barmar 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it's not real, then. How unacceptable that it got into a respectable spelling bee! Equinox ◑ 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, could you help me with the following: is there a set of sources that could be used for sourcing of etymologies of chemical terms?

As many chemical terms have been coined or formed in the 20th century, my favorite source of etymologies Century Dictionary 1911 does not have them. Some of the modern etymologies can be found in Merriam-Webster online, but sourcing modern etymologies from a single source could border on copyvio, even if I modify the formulation a bit; sourcing an etymology from three sources is more secure.

Thank you for any advice. --Dan Polansky 11:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The OED is not much use, as it has very few modern chemistry terms. has a good list of named reactions in organic chemistry (you can then find the person on -pedia). Most other science sites that I look at aren't interested in the dictionary aspects of words. Sometimes Wikipedia articles have references that might be useful. In very many cases you can make a good guess from the name (e.g. butyric acid probably is related to butter, capric acid to goats etc). I'll have a think, but, in the meantime let me know if you want advice on any specifics. SemperBlotto 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
• See also Elsevier's dictionary of Chemoetymology on Google books (only partially visible). SemperBlotto 12:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. The word (deprecated template usage) chemoetymology doesn't seem to be used other than in the title of this book. SemperBlotto 12:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was actually looking at "alprazolam", "binospirone" and other terms found in Wikisaurus:anxiolytic. There seems to be some scheme behind the names, but not one that I could infer from merely looking at the term superficially; my only background in chemistry reaches up to high school meaning secondary school (Czech gymnasium).

Thank you for the useful pointers, especially "Elsevier's dictionary of Chemoetymology". --Dan Polansky 14:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can remember, the names of pharmaceuticals are invented by shuffling all the parts of the systematic chemical name until something that sound reasonable is formed. I'm not sure if these parts are ever published. (In these two cases, I've had a go at reverse engineering the etymology). SemperBlotto 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should this be contained in a 'frame' like {{fr-conj}}? I say yes, as the conjugation takes up too much space on the page, I think {{es-conj}} uses the same sort of 'frame'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Probably. But I like it the way it is. The conjugation table is (almost always) the last section, so it doesn't really matter if people have to scroll to get to the bottom (in my view). SemperBlotto 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Unless here's a section below the Italian one. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thanks, I'll watch out for that. Mostly I'm creating new entries or missing entries by copying other entries and changing them.

Hi, you deleted my page for Hydrochroctex. I am wondering what wasn't properly formatted, so I can recreate my page without deletion--thanks. — This comment was unsigned.

• There is no such word. If you recreate it, you must provide evidence. SemperBlotto 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Myself and a colleague developed it. I was under the impression this was a way of making it public, we have no patents or trademarks--nor is Hydrochroctex for sale. It is a term for something we have created, and plan to continue working on. I'm not sure what type of evidence I should bring to a dictionary site, would a screen shot of Hydrochroctex being used suffice?

• • No. This is what we call a protologism. You must not add it here, until there is evidence of its use in the real world. (and you probably mean "A colleague and I", but I'm just being pedantic). SemperBlotto 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You're right--I probably did mean: "a collegaue and I"; furthermore, thanks for condescending me for simply asking how to make something public. As an administrator I would have expected something much more professional.

Hi, just requesting clarification on your deletion of "oh my goodness gracious me" (redirect to "oh my goodness gracious").

The "bad redirect" explanation in the deletion log includes the following passage:

>>> Redirecting between different forms of idioms

Redirects are called for in this instance. For example, burn his fingers or burning one's fingers should redirect to the pronoun-neutral and uninflected form burn one's fingers.

The redirecting between variants of idioms, say a cut above and a notch above is somewhat controversial, as both versions may require their own entry. If neither exist, feel free to enter a redirect. If a redirect exists, feel free to replace it with a full-fledged entry.

See the criteria for inclusion for more information about idiomatic phrases. <<<

I would think the addition of "me" at the end of the the phrase does not change the phrase significantly and thus is just a "different form of idiom", as mentioned in "oh my goodness gracious" under "Variation". Facts707 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK, if you really feel the need. SemperBlotto 22:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was afraid you would say that (the language in the box has to be the language mentioned). I'll have to think how to translate it into Ngarrindjeri. --Roisterer 12:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that it never has an apostrophe at all, or never in British English? We do have citations at (deprecated template usage) ladies', and I think some are British sources. Equinox ◑ 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It must be very unusual - I can't remember ever seeing such a sign (of course they often just have a twee picture these days). SemperBlotto 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does Italian have any similar words, where the noun has the same form used with two genders? How did you format the entries? Nadando 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Oh yes, lots. Many nouns ending in -a have both masculine and feminine forms. See arabista as an example. (but none that I can think of where the meaning is different) SemperBlotto 18:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, there are some words exactly like mañana in Italian (different gender and meaning), but they don't come to my mind now, maybe in a grammar book we could find them. But there's crème, for French, and I think it should be formatted like mañana, I prefer its layout. What do you think? Pharamp 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can you please help me with my SUL Request? Thanks heaps in advance. Chezhiyan -- 121.44.144.149 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done. But you didn't need to ask me - just adding an entry to the "Changing Username" page is all you needed to do. SemperBlotto 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I've re-added nett in the sense of "after tax" - it's a (British?) variant found occasionally on price labels. Let me know if there's any more I need to do. Thanks - Interplanet Janet 13:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, OK - I can see Google hits now. SemperBlotto 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, any thoughts on what an English rose is? Opinion seems to be mixed on whether it is having dark hair like Snow White or blonde. Maybe I should add 'doesn't wear tracksuits and play songs on their mobile loudly on public transport, not in receipt of an ASBO'. Anyway specifying hair colour and so on is difficult as I have seen people of various races described as an 'English rose'. :D Kaixinguo 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It is a rather old-fashioned phrase, and I didn't know people still used it. I can't think how to define it, but watch out for the thorns! SemperBlotto 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, how poetic! lol Kaixinguo 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Buongiorno. Would you add the suffix -ibile in words like inconcepibile that is composed by in- + concepibile or in inaccessibile that comes from Latin? --Barmar 07:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I probably wouldn't. The current etymology point to (deprecated template usage) concepibile and that word's etymology shows the (deprecated template usage) -ibile suffix (or it should). But I wouldn't stop anyone else from doing so. SemperBlotto 08:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, that's me. (Fixed IP, so any edits from that one is me not logged in.) - Amgine/^talk 06:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Can you restore this page please? Thanks, Razorflame 10:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Doesn't seem to have existed. Spelling? SemperBlotto 10:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Checked and fixed. The entry in the title should be the correct one. Razorflame 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for restoring it! Cheers, Razorflame 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you also restore these five pages: User:Darkicebot/eo, User:Darkicebot/eomake, User:Darkicebot/eoadjmake, User:Darkicebot/eonounmake, and User:Darkicebot/eointrmake? Thanks, Razorflame 11:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks :) Razorflame 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Noticed you removed it. I apologize if I made a mistake since I don't have a great deal of experience with wiktionary yet. When I read -phile#Etymology next to φίλος in parenthesis it listed philos. When I checked out the greek page, while the h was very small it otherwise looked to be spelled that way on the pronunciation key. I figured based on the use in parenthesis on the etymology that this might be a common way to refer to the old term using our letters. Is it possible that this could refer to other terms? In that case, would a disambiguation make sense? I'm trying to figure out if this redirect would have harmed the project or been an asset to it. Ty 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hi there. What you see in the etymology of (deprecated template usage) -phile is a transliteration of the Greek for people (like me) who aren't familiar with the language. We don't list transliterations (except for Japanese (don't ask me why)), and we don't use redirects much here either. Have your say in the Beer parlour if you don't like the way we do things. SemperBlotto 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can I ask you to delete this article جدّی. In Persian, diacritics are rarely used so I have created an entry for the correct form: جدی.

• No. I don't know the language. Use the {{rfd}} template. SemperBlotto 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, thanks.

Hi! Could you tell me what was wrong with this, and help me doing it correctly? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• See Help:Transwiki. SemperBlotto 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that process seems to assume that a whole page is to be transwikied. What if I only want to move part of a page, and the rest should stay at WP? ἀνυπόδητος 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just do it all - we will sort it out. SemperBlotto 12:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

But in this particular case - do nothing. It is a word-for-word copyvio from SemperBlotto 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the help. --ἀνυπόδητος 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have added the ===Noun=== header, but no definition for that noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very nice. :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Is our etymology for politesse correct in the stating that the Italian words polito and pulito are related? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be surprised. says that the verb pulire comes from the Latin polire. SemperBlotto 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. It seems like your bot missed this verb form-of when it made all the others. Cheers, Razorflame 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You can go for weeks without ever hearing an Italian present participle - they just don't use them. You could probably go a lifetime without hearing this one. Added anyway. Cheers. SemperBlotto 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, I noticed the (very rare) in the note above the conjugation table. Maybe add a {{very rare}} to it? Razorflame 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Can your please remind me how to increase the throttle on my bot. I've had to reinstall everything after losing loads of files, and it's now running terribly slowly. --Rising Sun talk? 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's in your "user-config.py" file. Set put_throttle = 4 or something similar. SemperBlotto 11:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why do you create plural forms before their singular counterparts? it just seems..a bit odd... 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I am creating words farmed from several online sources (see my sandbox). If they just happen to be plural, I create them. If then the singular turns out to be red-linked then I create it. SemperBlotto 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, right. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I quite often do it too, because the plural shows up as a green link in the preview before the singular is actually saved. It also stops any Recent Changes patrollers racing to create the plural and getting a conflict of some sort. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know by now I'm not making these up. Why can't we go through RFV like civilized people?

• No hits on Google books that I can find. Feel free to provide evidence of actual use. SemperBlotto 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • "Odie planted a big, wet slurp squarely on his whiskers. The sensation gave Garfield the skeevies".
    • How is that "evidence"? In what publication can I confirm it? SemperBlotto 18:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • It's Google books quoting the Garfield: the movie By H. S. Newcomb, Jim Davis
        • OK - actual evidence of use! I've added an entry together with a link to Google books. SemperBlotto 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. If procedibilità = The ability of an action to be undertaken: could "The inability of an action to be undertaken" be a correct translation of its antonym? --Barmar 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I suppose so. (deprecated template usage) unprosecutability - but very rare. SemperBlotto 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Semper! Do you know how I can find a list of all people I blocked and of all the pages I deleted (only my activity)? Because... ehm, I've deleted lots of things... I'm a bit perplexed. Is it vandalism always like it is now? I'm probably too naïve... Pharamp 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Vandalism is non-stop. So far, you have been doing a great job - I have no complaints. Now, go to "Special pages", then "Logs", on the drop-down list, you can select the Block log or the Deletion log (amongst many others). Cheers. SemperBlotto 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • You can also click on My contributions and then click on logs, which should show all the blocks, deletion, and other log entries. Razorflame 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Now what I would like to see is a report - number of blocks, deletions, reverts etc for each sysop over the last few months. To see who hasn't been pulling their weight! SemperBlotto 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Ohhhh thanks you very much both :) :) It's sad to have to block and delete all this bad stuff. Puff, I return to monitor! Cheers^^ Pharamp 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not convinced that we need a high-score table of reverts to make people even more aggressive about doing them. I do go on RC patrol occasionally, and I always think "poor old Blotto, I'm saving him 20 minutes", but most of the time I don't because there's no way to filter by language (so I see loads of non-English stuff I can't confirm or refute) and, er, it's just a bit soul-crushing. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please reformat this new Wiktionary entry as you deem appropriate. My English is OK (still learning), but I still have a hard time understanding technical language. It will take me too long to understand what you need and how to do it. Thank you for your help. With best regards, Charvex, 24 février 2010 (UTC)

Since you nominated this for cleanup, how does it look now? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Fine. SemperBlotto 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there SemperBlotto. There are several administrator votes that need the flag granted to users: Atitarev, Doreimetzer (sorry if misspelt), Volants, and one other one. It would be very helpful if you could do so. Thanks, Razorflame 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Four done on the same day - probable record. SemperBlotto 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Indeed. Cheers, Razorflame 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A total mess, the pronunciation isn't IPA either. Can you clean up a bit plz? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - cleaned up. Pronunciation would be standard Italian - but I'm not very good with the symbols so I just removed the section. SemperBlotto 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't a Category:Italian invariable nouns using a {{it-noun-inv}} similar to {{fr-noun-inv}} be a good idea? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Dunno. I'm not really interested in that sort of thing. SemperBlotto 13:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  I think it would be a good idea, even if the French category contains plenty of nouns which aren't invariable in reality, and maybe the template should be changed a bit. But I'd love to have specific categories for Italian nouns like this one (others are possible too). Pharamp 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  I've realized now that I was speaking about Category:French uncountable nouns. Category:French invariable nouns is good, sorry. But maybe we should include this difference also for Italian... this article makes a lot of distinctions we don't have here. Pharamp 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

:
Forgive the spam, but I need to know urgently what the two Latin words scita and scienda mean. My guess is that they're related to either sciō (“I can, know, understand, have knowledge”) or scītor (“I seek to know”, “I ask, enquire”) (which we don't have), or to both of them. They have a specialised use in English as terms of political science, as demonstrated by this quotation:

As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings." (taken from w:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn#Work)

Any help you can give me with these words (the greatest being the creation of entries for them) would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen ? SemperBlotto 15:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had not seen that, and although helpful, it doesn't really tell me what the words mean in Latin. I'd guessed that (deprecated template usage) scienda means something like "things to be sought to be known", "things to be asked about", "things to be inquired into" — that sort of thing — and that, grammatically, it's a plural neuter future participle (or something) of a verb ((deprecated template usage) scitor?). As for (deprecated template usage) scita, I couldn't guess as to its grammar, but I take it to mean something like "things known" (it's not an inflexion of (deprecated template usage) scientia, that's for sure). Can you shed more learnèd light on their literal-grammatical meaning?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(deprecated template usage) scita could well be nominative, vocative or accusative plural of (the noun) (deprecated template usage) scitum - but my Latin is dreadful. SemperBlotto 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean a plural of the supine (since it is a verbal noun)?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is the plural right? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Google hits (using quotes) - alkoxys 9,220, alxoxies 1,570 (but both pretty rare - alkoxy gets 1,180,000) SemperBlotto 11:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a novice here--I don't have a vested interest...do whatever you see best. For example, de jure, de facto, ex ante, deus ex machina, are all "Latin phrases" that we use in English...just like "sans" is both a French word and an English word. Note: (1) I created this entry because it was red on the list of most requested entries (for English); (2) I do no advocate creating this as a Latin entry, because in Latin it would merely be sum-of-parts, whereas in English it is a distinct, fixed phrase. Hope thathelps. Thanks. --71.111.229.19 13:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this something on its own? I just saw (deprecated template usage) alphamethadol and (deprecated template usage) betamethadol (isomers)? Equinox ◑ 22:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - α-methadol and β-methadol are just two stereoisomers of the same compound - see w:Dimepheptanol (now bedtime). SemperBlotto 22:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unsurprisingly, no one has stepped up to try to cite this. Should I delete it, or is there someone who can be nudged to give it a shot, or … ?

Thanks in advance,
—Ruakh_TALK 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, my understanding is that undealt-with RfV entries get deleted, and RfD entries get kept. So go for it. SemperBlotto 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Your understanding is right, but if I can get an RFV'd entry to be dealt with, I'd rather that than delete a good entry in the name of process. Ah, well. *shrug* I'll go ahead and fail it. —Ruakh_TALK 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could this also mean "having two sections"? ---> Tooironic 11:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know. Can you find any Google book hits with that meaning? SemperBlotto 11:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

81.68.255.36 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Because your edit summary was "I don't know". SemperBlotto 07:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, that was regarding the -n-, I have no idea if it's pannekoek or pannenkoek, but anyone who would write one of the two is perfectly understood. So it doesn't 'really matter. 81.68.255.36 08:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

See w:Pre-exponential factor. Why did you label preexponent this with {{maths}}? It seems to me more related to chemistry or physics than mathematics. 124.171.169.189 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Certainly it main application is in physical chemistry. But it is definitely a mathematical term. SemperBlotto 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could this also mean to control oneself and to moderate oneself as well? Razorflame 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well spotted. I've expanded the definition. SemperBlotto 22:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No problems :) By the way, can you add the conjugation to inutilizzare please? I made the basics of the entry, and all that it really needs now is the conjugation. Thanks, Razorflame 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you run your bot for just this one conjugation of inutilizzare please? Thanks, Razorflame 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Isn't generalismo an Italian word for generalism? Razorflame 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Not in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm...AHA! It is a Spanish word :) Cheers, Razorflame 22:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • And Italian, 650 Google Books hits, 42 for il generalismo, so it must mean something. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • - many of which are misspellings of (deprecated template usage) generalissimo. SemperBlotto 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course it exists, but it's a bit a newspaper term, 1. It is the antonym of specialism in the education field. Pharamp 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does that mean that it does not meet the CFI? Razorflame 14:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Google books and CNR. It isn't in my dictionary, but I think these sources could be enough. But pay attention, I've found some people in forums who use it like a synonym of generalizzazione/generalisation, that sounds completely incorrect to my ears. Pharamp 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Please be careful to avoid copyright violations. (Also, please note the other issues with that entry.) Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

When a definition is less than a half dozen words, rearranging them hardly seems worth the trouble. SemperBlotto 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that, for many definitions, trying to reëxpress a concept in different words is often difficult, especially since many of the OED's definitions are often as elegant and succinct as they are likely to get. However, we have to do that, lest we make Wiktionary vulnerable to accusations of copyright violation. That said, I'm not certain what is the minimum length of a definition which, if copied verbatim, would constitute an actionable copyright violation, so I've asked our resident intellectual-property lawyer to give his opinion.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Where's the vote? SemperBlotto 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you, as an administrator I presume, delete "climate shelter"? Tosh seems hardly appropriate. --Johnwalton.27 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Does not seem to be a real term. Perhaps you could provide evidence. SemperBlotto 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Climate shelter. As in, you'll be really happy you built that climate shelter where you can securely live and grow your own food while the masses of climate refugees crowd and fight over the little remaining arable lands. I expect that, any day now, climate shelters will pop up much like bomb shelters and panic rooms did and have. The idea came to me as I pondered the implications of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway which is really a just very large shelter against climate and other change. I'd very much appreciate if you would reverse your deletion of my definition. Kind regards.

--Johnwalton.27 02:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You must recognise that my definition fits well with a post apocalyptic world (written in HTML and javascript). I too have my programming roots in MVS, CICS 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, ISPF, TSO, VM, CMS, JCL, DOS/VSE, IMS, BTS, DB2, VB4, VB6, VB6 and Dotnet.

--Johnwalton.27 02:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Here's some evidence: http://arkinetblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/floating-climate-shelters-in-bangladesh/

--Johnwalton.27 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • Used once in a headline, but nowhere in the text. Can you do any better? SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the process of bureaucratising him, you seem to have unsysopped him, was that intentional? Conrad.Irwin 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a trial to see if he can use the bureaucrat tools correctly. -- Prince Kassad 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I just assumed that sysop rights would trickle down from the above -crat. Anyway, he's fixed it himself. SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. This verb is missing some of the verb forms....was this intentional? Razorflame 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No. That's one of the things that User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme is for. SemperBlotto
  • Ok. I'll add them to feedme page in the future. Razorflame 22:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came across this word over my surfing on the Internet and found several different meanings for this word, although I can only confirm for a fact one of them (dispellable). The other one I am about 90% sure on, which is why I included it, but it could still use an experts' opinion on the matter. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks, Razorflame 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• (deprecated template usage) dispersible (-ible, not -able) is fine. Second is probably OK. SemperBlotto 07:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok. Thanks :) Razorflame 07:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would this happen to have the female variant contattatrice as well? Razorflame 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Not really. It's an electrical device, not a person. SemperBlotto 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok. Thanks for the clarification :) Razorflame 16:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing - Rothorpe 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word "phylactery" is used in multiple games and stories and is therefore a generic term. If you think phylactery should be removed, the word "lich" should be removed too - it is a "game word" as much as "phylactery".

The word "horcrux" is used only in Harry Potter - that is a word which is only used in one story and doesn't belong to Wiktionary. Why is "muggle" in Wiktionary? That's a Harry Potter specific word.

Wiktionary is supposed to be FREE, not CENSORED. You should not censor Wiktionary just because you have personal grudges against fantasy fiction.

--208.109.78.126 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

How does adding a literal translation make me a vandal ? Some other user pointed out I might want to put it in an ethymology section, which I'd be happy to. But I'd like to know why you would block me for vandalism when I only provided additional information, that is available for a lot of other entries in the French idiom section

192.17.207.186 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I acted too hurriedly - everybody makes mistakes - contrary to popular belief, I am only human. SemperBlotto 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think his intentions were good. See Talk:interjectionally. He just doesn't know the customs and policies around here. -- 124.171.169.189 07:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The eternal link at the bottom does use the word in the right context. I might see if it's used anywhere else. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having said that, Google News and Google Books turn up nothing obvious. Seems that all of the hits refer to the town of the same name. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as the resident chemist here, can I request a definition for steam cracking please. Also, there seems to be a related verb steam-crack or steam crack, which is most likely what vapocraquer is in French, and noun steam cracker (vapocraqueur). Thanks. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've added the base noun. Strangely, the Italians seem to use the English term for the process. SemperBlotto 11:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
• The verb is proving difficult to find - lots of game crap in the way. SemperBlotto 11:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • steam-cracked n Google Books and to steam-crack on Google scholar may be of help. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps there should be an entry at (deprecated template usage) more like instead, then. It's used in an odd way. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Exactamundo - I'll try to think of a way to define it (or forget about it more like!) SemperBlotto 15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. Both words I vetted before adding them. Both were correct because both were listed in reputable dictionaries and had the Google Books hits necessary to keep an entry on here. Please restore both of them as they were both correct. Thanks, Razorflame 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Am I missing something? He's only made one edit, which was a bad one, granted, but we don't block users indefinitely on the basis of one bad edit, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. He is a multiply-returned sockpuppet - adding the text "do shorts stink" in all sort of places. SemperBlotto 09:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Right, thanks for answering my question. Cheers. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can I request autopatrol rights here? You can see my sulutil:.snoopy. for informations. Ps: can you reply me on meta.wiki? Thanks a lot. :-) --.snoopy. 12:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• We do that via Wiktionary:Whitelist. I don't think anyone has ever asked before. SemperBlotto 12:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please take a look at the last section on Barmar's talk page please and provide your input? Thanks, Razorflame 16:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. What kind of gutter is grondaia? Is it the gutter on a bowling lane or is it the gutter on a house? Thanks for the clarification, Razorflame 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It's the sort that collects rainwater from a roof. I think (Barmar would know) that the bowling variety is a (deprecated template usage) cunetta. SemperBlotto 07:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok, I just wanted to make sure what variety it was. Thanks for the help, Razorflame 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Claims to be a chemistry terms. It's not a noun, whatever it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Deleted - just a form of -ide where there happens to be an "s" in front. SemperBlotto 10:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Umm, is it correct? Maro 14:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Looks good to me. SemperBlotto 14:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So is it an alternative spelling of non-governmental? Maro 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry - bad eyesight - didn't see the spelling error. SemperBlotto 14:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The subfamilies of the Araceae have been in a state of chaos for several decades, and things are looking worse rather than better, with many taxonomic changes likely to happen in the next few decades (if some taxonomist is brave enough to tackle this huge family). Better to list the genus in the family than in a subfamily. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Feel free. SemperBlotto 06:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Buongiorno. This is a very common Italian set phrase with a sarcastic meaning. Here's some examples. Marco is always late. Sono già le 9 e anche stamattina Marco, tanto per cambiare, è in ritardo. I always leave my umbrella at home. Piove a dirotto e tanto per cambiare ho lasciato l'ombrello a casa. How would you translate it? I've found these: so much for change, just to change or also surprise surprise, as usual, but I'm not sure they're correct, especially the first two. --Barmar 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've made an attempt - using your example sentence. SemperBlotto 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks fine --Barmar 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

A lot of your cricket terms from 2005 seem to have redundant senses. For example back up has two cricket meanings, essentially meaning to "to move backwards" and to "help by reinforcing", hence redundant to other definitions.

• Not really - in the first case the batsman "backs up" by moving forward.
• The second case, I suppose, is a form of "help by reinforcing" - but then someone finding this sense of the term in a cricket situation might get confused if we only keep the other.

Bad light also seems sum of parts, although I'm less sure for that one. When you say "the umpire stopped play for bad light", that's just light that's bad.

• Yes, but (deprecated template usage) bad and (deprecated template usage) light both have several meanings - I would keep it.

But offer the light seems idiomatic. The umpire isn't offering any light, he's offering to stop play because of a lack of light. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I've already got half a dozen unfinished projects on the go - but Ill try to have another look at the cricketing terms in the not too distant future. I'm sure that some could be improved and I can think of a few more now. (e.g. (deprecated template usage) ball following, (deprecated template usage) slip cordon . . .) SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

How do I say this in Italian: but we also got into a lot of trouble? Thanks, Razorflame 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Italian for trouble is (deprecated template usage) guaio and the verb "to get into trouble" is (deprecated template usage) inguaiarsi (can also mean to get yourself pregnant).

So you could say something like "ma anche ci siamo inguaiati" or even "ma anche abbiamo avuto un sacco di guai" (but this is probably closer to "we had a lot of trouble"). Real Italians would probably stick the (deprecated template usage) anche in the middle of the verb - but you need to be a native speaker to get word order sounding right. SemperBlotto 09:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much for the help :) By the way, could you make an entry for cambiare pagina by chance? Razorflame 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It just means "to turn the page" - not sure if also has an idiomatic meaning (There's a song - but I haven't listened to it). SemperBlotto 19:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help, Razorflame 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some specific meaning, missed in English. Yes, in translation it can be replaced with what written there. But wictionary is not a paper dictionary, so there is no need to combine word equivalents with explanation of meaning. And now nobody can understand from the article what the word means. And then nobody can use the word right.

It means part of ability which is in the neurons. So you may know how to swim, but you almost definitely will dead if you only know how to. So it is not know how. And you may still уметь, but don't know how or be not able or both. So volume of the concept is different, what is missed there.

Instead of reversion entertainment, better make some improvement in the article.92.124.111.49 09:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm much mistaken, there actually were no links to this at all, except from the IPA template's #ifexist function. The {{IPA}} template automatically checks whether the Appendix:X pronunciation exists, links to it if it does, and otherwise links to w:X phonology, making this appendix useless if it's just a soft redirect. --Yair rand 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - deleted (and French). SemperBlotto 16:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the additional synonyms I provided, for both usages ? StuRat 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Probably by accident. Reinstated. SemperBlotto 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I suspect that undoing my edit then adding back in the new def was to blame. Perhaps that's not the best way to do it. Also, if the original author spots the undo before you add the new material back in, they might also wonder "Why did he undo my legitimate edit ?", possibly subjecting you to some abuse (although a comment on the undo explaining what you were doing might clarify this). StuRat 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

" phrase, with no particular meaning..." You just made my day! ---> Tooironic 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

We have only one sense listed for this verb, but it:wikt has seven. Is this as important a verb in Italian as it is in Latin? --EncycloPetey 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - I'll fix it. SemperBlotto 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks. I've started expanding the Latin agō entry as well with (so far) 13 missing definitions. --EncycloPetey 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi.I am a student studying at English Language Teaching Department.I have a presentation to do. If you help me, I will be grateful to you.

I just want my class to do some vocabulary task using wiktionary. Therefore, I want to use the page ]. I have tried to enter some words to check. However, you have deleted them. You were totally right but I have no other choice. I have to use this page because my teacher wants me to do it. I will be writing some known (so they are useless in wiktionary)words till two weeks after from now.

Thanks for your attention.

I disagree with your first definition of quasienantiomers being a "deliberate mixture of enantiomers"; the latter would be best described by pseudoracemate, pseudo indicating the "deliberate" quality of the mixture. Quasienantiomer as an operative notion is much better described by your second definition, although one should add that the "derivative of the enantiomer" should be close to the original molecule in terms of chemical and physical properties ( as in my example, that you deleted, were a chlorine atom is replaced by a bromine atom.

I would be glad to provide you with the article "" Quasienantiomers and Quasiracemates: New Tools for Identification, Analysis, Separation, and Synthesis of Enantiomers"",.Q. Zhang, D.P. Curran , Chem.-Eur. J. 2005, 11, 4866-4880.

I am a professionnal organic chemist in activity, ( French). It's the very firs time in my life that I try to contrribute to Wiki, and the reason why is that the definition 1, that I just found when looking for the sense of of this word I met for the first time, misled me. — This comment was unsigned.

• Yes, I think you are right. Definitions so adjusted. SemperBlotto 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not gonna revert this, but c'mon SB! It was one more day, just one more day until this could've been done the right way. *sigh* -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

What are we supposed to do about this? We have explained to this anon time and time again but to no avail. ---> Tooironic 09:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mate -- do you know anything about genetics, by any chance? There is a noun sense of this word which isn't in any of my dictionaries. I have tried to write a definition based on stuff I read in Google books, but an expert eye would be appreciated. Ƿidsiþ 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not an expert on such things - but the definition looks OK to me. SemperBlotto 09:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is there anything Italian that can be added to speronara? A quick search suggests "La speronara era un tipo di naviglio usato principalmente dai siciliani e dai maltesi" (a type of boat used mainly in Sicily and Malta) --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - I've added an Italian entry. (deprecated template usage) lugger is the nearest English term that I can think of. Not really sure if it is a Sicilian or Maltese word - so haven't added etymology. SemperBlotto 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which sense of disabled does this word mean? Thanks, Razorflame 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've added the adjective sense. SemperBlotto 21:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for the help, Razorflame 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"When a country chooses not to make alliances with other countries" is a perfectly acceptable definition. Why did you undo it, and not even bother with a reason why? Why do you and Petey gang up on me? Purplebackpack89 15:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, why do you and Petey undo lots of my edits? I haven't gotten an answer on that Purplebackpack89 15:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

We undo any edit that we think is wrong. We haven't normally got the time or patience to discuss it. SemperBlotto 15:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why remove the done in guardingly? It is an adverb, so something has to be done in a guarding manner, otherwise, it wouldn't be an adverb. That is why I included the done in the definition. Razorflame 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The general rule is that the definition should, where possible, be the same part of speech as the word being defined. (deprecated template usage) done is a verb. SemperBlotto 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There might not be any "doing", either, if the verb is something like be or seem. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I'll stop including done in my definitions for adverbs. Thanks again, Razorflame 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello User SemperBlotto. Why did you undo my edits to 'silly' and 'pill'? --67.217.0.108 21:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Because silly pill is nominated for deletion - wait for the decision. SemperBlotto 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that makes sense. --67.217.0.108 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Um, you seemed pretty confident about that. Not that I mind. Does that mean I can start deleting on sight obvious Mandarin SoP entries too? ---> Tooironic 15:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. If they are as obvious as that - I don't see any problem. We can trust you. SemperBlotto 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, I see. Well, good to hear I suppose. I will do my best not to abuse these powers. ---> Tooironic 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this a typo for interreducibility (inter- + reducibility)? Jonathan Webley 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yup. SemperBlotto 21:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Urgently need cuntass as an Italian entry. Proof of its existence here, here and somewhere here --Rising Sun talk? contributions 13:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It looks like an apocopic form of some obsolete verb. Dante (and his friends) are a bugger to translate - you have to be a proper scholar. Let me have a think . . . SemperBlotto 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • OK - it must be an apocopic form of either the first- or second-person singular imperfect subjunctive of (deprecated template usage) cuntare (i.e. "cuntassi" or "cuntasse"). And this is an obsolete form of either (deprecated template usage) contare or (deprecated template usage) raccontare (to (deprecated template usage) recount or (deprecated template usage) tell) (still used in Calabrian dialect). I'm not really confident enough to add it to the wiki though. SemperBlotto 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

p.s. What is the urgency?

I made a bet that cuntass is a genuine polite word that appears in dictionary - got a beer riding on it, too! In fact, in my time I've made quite a few bets about whether certain words are genuine dictionary words, and have got a few free beers that way too, after adding them to Wiktionary! And also, the urgency lies in the fact that it's made up of the words cunt and ass. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. Done. SemperBlotto 07:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC) p.s. Similar word also used in Neapolitan dialect.Reply

Actually, I asked to be de-admined rather a while back, I don't remember exactly when. I was not using the bits often enough to justify having them, and the community seemed to me to have rather a few too many admins who were well-splintered into opposing cliques. (As you can see, I'm a month behind on the conversations so it's clear I'm not active enough!) - Amgine/^talk 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You were desysopped in February. SemperBlotto 07:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply to my inquiry about Republan. Interestingly enough you used the term protologism which though in the rules is not in itself defined! I hope this is the correct bottom of your list and I apologize for inserting at the top previously. Thought new was on top. Mea Culpa. ColoradoBob 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just received my User talk:ColoradoBob page. Thanks!!

Buonasera. I've added the same conjugation table of piantarla to finirla, but the |mi=la|ti=la|si=la|ci=la|vi=la thing does not work. Am I doing something wrong, is it a bug, or...?? Thank you --Barmar 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Both! I have corrected the coding, and also amended the template. Is it OK now? SemperBlotto 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I've removed me te se etc. the rest is fine, many thanx. --Barmar 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I added mír buchri ki khichri, zanána-mandli, & kaurika with no language header because I do not know for sure the exact language. The context in north Indian/Pakistani/Punjabi, so most likely Hindi or Urdu, but could always be something else. Is there a header for ISO 639-3 und (undetermined language) or inc (unspecified Indic language)? Nicoleta 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know. But it can't be Hindi (would be written in Devanagari) or Urdu (would be written in a form of Arabic). Really, it's up to you to do the research. SemperBlotto 10:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Just put it as an English assimilation then I suppose, it was in an English-language publication, and English is carnivorous enough that just about any language's nouns can be called English. We'll just pretend it wasn't italicized :-p. Nicoleta 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there any more specific translation for the Italian word cordino? My rudimentary search turned up the same information that is in the article, but I was just wondering if there could be a more specific translation for this word...Thanks, Razorflame 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I believe that climbers call it a (deprecated template usage) sling - added. SemperBlotto 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ok. Thanks, Razorflame 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why have partial, duplicated information. Clicking on the Category link gives a more complete list. SemperBlotto 11:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my revision summary, "Please don't remove lists of derived terms where many of them are useful red-links and where {{prefixsee|en}} has already been added." Red-links are potential articles, so such derived-terms lists ought not to be removed until those potential articles are actual articles. It doesn't detract from the article and has a useful function; why do you oppose its being there?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

But there are no red links. I've added them all (except one that had the wrong capitalization). SemperBlotto 11:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

(deprecated template usage) Merostomata? Sorry. I didn't check to see that you'd added them. That was bloody quick. My sincere apologies.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those prefix-see and suffix-see things are fairly handy, thought they do raise the question of how to present terms formed by affixation, but not in English. The labor-intensive way is to check and correct the etymologies of all the terms in the associated affix-derived categories and manually insert the terms formed in other languages. Perhaps we need an additional parameter in the suffix, prefix, compound, and confix templates to indicate the apparent language in which the affixation took place (and which etymology of the suffix, if necessary) and have the items appear in the appropriate location using either modified forms of the "see" templates or similar new templates. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jeff. You have block the user Sven70 for disruptive edits. Therefore, he contact us on meta. As you can see on his en user page, he is a user with w:Repetitive strain injury, which means that he can´t use his hands for writing like we do, and that is the reason why he write in shorthand on talk pages. He has learn, and have made some good edits on enwiki in meantime. Sometimes it looks like garbage, but i can´t see any desruptive contributions here. Edits out of normaly used syntax yes, but IMO not desruptive. IMO the block per indef is not the best way to help such users if they are willing to contribute as he is. The errors he maded are product of his injury and of the software he use to write. Perhaps you could asume good faith and check the block once more and give him a second chance? THX in advance. Best regards --WizardOfOz 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

PS: I will copy his user page to here just as information for others. --WizardOfOz 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done (but will keep an eye on his contributions). SemperBlotto 09:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. It will be fine if you could help him, and please have a little bit of patience with him. Otherway perhaps to warn him first what is wrong in his contributions before blocking. Thx once more! --WizardOfOz 09:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but that user has been since blocked on a sockpuppet account for abuse, threats, and even death threats. Repetitive stress injury or not, his behavior here has been completely unacceptable. Ataleas has done the reblocking; the unblock did not consider all the facts. The blocking admin should have been consulted first. --EncycloPetey 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just finished reading User_talk:SemperBlotto/2009#Vanity_user_pages in an attempt to understand why you deleted my user page after you made no reasonable attempt to contact me with corrective action. Thanks for explaining that you judged my page as an attempt to establish a presence when such reasoning could be equally applied to your own user page. I want to explain that it was not vanity. I was trying, like other users I saw, to keep track of the various accounts that Wikimedia forces you to make if you participate in more than one project. I suggest that in the future you don't simply tag someone's page with a boilerplate and instead leave a message on their talk page so that it triggers an email message to them, assuming they (like myself) have their accounts configured this way. You'd go a long way towards not starting out a new relationship on bad footing. --Sborsody 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In fact you're so upset, that it's taken you five years to reply, without you making a single edit in those five years. Sigh. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Right, because deleting user pages is a sure-fire method to encourage participation on a project </sarcasm>. Incidentally, the page was deleted in August of 2009, not five years ago. The problem of separate accounts across the various projects was what lead to the creation of unified logins. Perhaps unified user pages will be next. --Sborsody 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey SemperBlotto,

Why did you revert my edit to savorer, with no explanation on either my talk page, the word's talk page, or the edit summary??

I've added some references, under the assumption that a lack of these prompted the revert. TotientDragooned 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• It was deleted because it isn't in the OED (the only place that I looked). I haven't got time to explain all reverts - there's just too much vandalism. I've cleaned it up a bit. SemperBlotto 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at this? It was created by old faithful, Mr. Razorflame. — opiaterein — 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - it is in one of my dictionaries (It probably comes straight from English, as there is no related adjective (deprecated template usage) tecnicale). SemperBlotto 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. He's marked it as "invariable", but there are plenty of google hits for "le tecnicalità", so perhaps someone somewhere confused invariable with uncountable? — opiaterein — 11:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

All our Italian -ità nouns are marked as "invariable" - the plural is the same as the singular. SemperBlotto 13:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is your problem with 81.68.255.36? :S — This comment was unsigned.

• It looks like I hit the wrong person. I always have a mass of vandalism to revert every morning (where are the sysops overnight?) that I sometimes make mistakes. SemperBlotto 08:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could this be considered an English prefix? If not, please revert my last edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• There are very few words beginning with these letters - I can only think of (deprecated template usage) acidogenic (deprecated template usage) acidoleous (deprecated template usage) acidolysis (deprecated template usage) acidophilia (deprecated template usage) acidophilic (deprecated template usage) acidophilous (deprecated template usage) acidophilus (deprecated template usage) acidosis and (deprecated template usage) acidotic. So I'm not convinced. SemperBlotto 13:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added an adj entry. The closest nouns I can think of are miseria and miseratio (both f.). Attys 14:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Nah - not bothered. SemperBlotto 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ooswestthoesbest is a legitimate user. Is it really acceptable to bias a vote by supposing that anyone voting against must be a sockpuppet? Are we still allowed a differnt opinion? This smacks of vote rigging. Jcwf 18:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• So how do you account for the two votes within seconds? Just coincidence? SemperBlotto 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is on YOUR side. People are innocent until proven guilty. You have no business accusing Ooswesthoesbest of being a sockpuppet. And ues you are pretty guilty of biasing a vote. Jcwf 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had an edit conflict and now I'm seen as a sock puppet? Do an IP-check I'd say.. --Ooswesthoesbes 18:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also note logging in and logging out within a few seconds is practically impossible.. --Ooswesthoesbes 18:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jcwf: If you're going to accuse someone of rigging a vote, you should probably make sure it's not someone who has suggested one of the vote's supporters might be a sockpuppet. As I've pointed out on the vote's talk page. — opiaterein — 18:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

A good way of using two userids at once is to have an Internet Explorer and a Google Chrome (etc) session open at once. They use different cookies, and you can edit with two userids almost at the same time. SemperBlotto 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me, so I can use a sockpop at the next vote ;) Even then it would be difficult, 'cause my normal speed of typing and my very good internet connection (guys, I miss my inbelverbinding instead of that wireless crap..) would make it practically impossible :) --Ooswesthoesbes 08:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you have a laptop connected to your desktop system by wifi, you can use the same browser on both, and just edit twice by swivelling your chair. (Both of these techniques have been used in the past by Wonderfool - they show ups as having the same ip address). SemperBlotto 08:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I only have one computer, so I can't use this technique :( --Ooswesthoesbes 08:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can we return to normal business? So according to the relevant policies

1. Checkuser policy: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse)
2. Privacy policyWith permission of the affected user;

Check my CU data. You'll find only one IP and only one user account. Annabel 08:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Same for me, though I used to have an older account with many number in it (forgot exactly what it was 451....a or something), don't know whether I've been using it here. --Ooswesthoesbes 08:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemplerBlotto, I saw the vandalism of this ano but you were just a little bit ahead of me while reacting. As it was a long time I put user messages, I went looking on the info page checking vandalism, but I was not able to track it back. Can you help me? ;-) Annabel 08:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, this request for help can be dropped. It has been answered by IRC. Regards, Annabel 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

(deprecated template usage) Irreparate also seems to mean something in Italian. Do you care to add an entry for it?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feminine plural of the adjective (deprecated template usage) irreparato - which isn't in any of my dictionaries. Give me a little time. SemperBlotto 11:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. There's no rush.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done - it is the same as the English. SemperBlotto 13:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I like it when a page contains entries for multiple languages because of coincidental homography. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The rather controversial vote is shortly coming to a close. I suspect you all know at least the basics of the issues surrounding it. Since it is rather close, incredibly controversial, and tempers are flared, I think one of you could go a long way to preventing future clashes by closing it when the time comes. All of our current 'crats have a great deal of respect from the general community, and, while there isn't a strong precedent for 'crats demonstrating authority in vote closing on this project, I suspect that most people would nonetheless recognize that authority and respect it. I certainly would. Thanks for your consideration. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I'll be sound asleep at midnight (wiki-time). SemperBlotto 07:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't notice that you had edited the phlorizin entry when I made the edit to "remove the uncountable designation". Please feel free to revert if you think it best. Xophist 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind telling me what dictionary states that a bibliotaph is "one who hoards books"? You have substantially altered the definition, and not one of my dictionaries agrees with your definition. Please let me know the edition and date of the dictionary so that I can check this. Thank you. Xophist 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• We are not supposed to get our definitions from other dictionaries, but from actual usage. Perhaps you can find some. SemperBlotto 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the procedural point. Luckily, Widsith has provided examples which are consistent with the definition you altered. Are you able to provide a referenced example of usage that supports your claim that a bibliotaph is "one who hoards books"? There is an important distinction between a hoarder and a hider, so an example to support your definition is needed. Xophist 16:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. Feel free to remove it. SemperBlotto 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when you block users would you please consider not disabling their email access, or providing some outlet for them to appeal the block? The block instructions tell them to email you or another administrator using Emailuser to appeal the block, which of course they can't do, so it results in users sending complaints to OTRS, which is really backlogged lately. Thanks! Stifle 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Per comments made by Widsith, it's pretty amazing how you keep up a massive workload without being arrogant, pushy or losing your temper. I think it's something that 99% of people couldn't do. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• See also like water off a duck's back - of course, you don't know what I'm thinking (probably just as well most of the time). SemperBlotto 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh - that needs a better definition - so much to do, so little time. SemperBlotto 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Without "overtly" losing your temper. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I could not find any support for your addition "coat with a layer of steel". That is limited to acierage, and usage suggests that acieration is not related to the electroplating process. Your earlier comment under "bibliotaph" has made me more sensitive to usage.

I'm only interested in accuracy, not in nettling you by reverting your edits. I am attentive to the edits of old-timers. Thank you. Xophist 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The OED (online) gives, as an example sentence, "Some persons have suggested that it would be better to acierate the surface of the plate only, leaving the engraving lines untouched." - this seems to me to be coating a surface with a layer of steel. SemperBlotto 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • They seem to be two different definition, to convert to steel AND to coat with steel. Put them on two lines and add {{rfv-sense}}. Have fun, I'm off juggling. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks to both of you. I would not have deleted the additional meaning had there been an example of usage. SemperBlotto, is it possible to construct an example sentence based on OED or would that be intellectual pilfering? Meanwhile, I'll revert my bad edit. I appreciate your unemotional handling of my queries. Xophist 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Feel free to invent an example sentence if you can't find one on Google book search etc. (and see previous entry for reference to duck's backs) SemperBlotto 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

What can we do about words like 5-hydroxymethylcytosine that only appear with a number prefix? Do they mean anything alone? Equinox ◑ 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Define them without the number - see for instance .

In this particular instance the 4- isomer also exists. SemperBlotto 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto, I would like your advice on the matter raised on my talk page under the heading "the definition here seems to have been copied verbatim". I copied phrase "Equality of rights of citizenship between different communities" from the 1900 edition of the Century Dictionary, and added "or states" (which may be inaccurate but seemed plausible). I believe the work is not under any copyright protection, but I took no more than the beginning of the entry text from the Century Dictionary. I did not copy the two examples of usage it provided. Please let me know if I have committed an offence. Would it have been appropriate to copy the usage examples? If so, is there an attribution template for citing the Century Dictionary as the source? Thank you. Xophist 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Copying short definitions is OK, especially if rewording it would make it seem awkward. Copying longer definitions word-for-word is not allowed here (even if the copyright holder doesn't object). I don't know of a template for that dictionary - simple text is fine. SemperBlotto 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Head word is mancata and the plural is mancate. Wrong place? Or should it be manca/manche? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. SemperBlotto 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo the edit that I made to encyclopedia? I added it because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Keyboard mouse (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because you linked to Wikipedia's main page, not to Wikipedia (which should probably be deleted anyway). Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then' I'll link it to Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia. Keyboard mouse (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then again, why did you undo it? I linked it to Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia. Keyboard mouse (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

We are a dictionary, not a topical encyclopedia. Our entry for (deprecated template usage) encyclopedia is about the word encyclopedia, not about things that are encyclopedias. There is no lexical relationship in providing that link. We are not a link farm. --EncycloPetey 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I can't find any such reference to this as a galley in any of my dictionaries, or in Italian wikipedia. Could you point me at a source? SemperBlotto 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Way ahead of you. As far as primary sources, can't help you there: Shanghai's English-language library resources are horrid; but it's legit (if normally so difficult to find that, eg, the w:Battle of Lepanto page listed Capitana Lanterna as a ship name instead of a class.) -LlywelynII 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Contributions seem suspect, maybe copied from a dictionary or a website. I'll be out of the house for almost 48 hours so I can't patrol these dubious entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Most are real but obscure. I have wikified those that seem OK. Others have either been deleted or left unpatrolled. SemperBlotto 07:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Semper. There are a lot of entries like propendere which aren't using the new Italian verb conjugation template. Since you have a bot, I was thinking that maybe you could get a program to have it change what is on the page to the way it is supposed to be using the new verb conjugation table. That way, all of the Italian verb conjugation tables in the entries can be standardized, and that would be awesome :) Anyways, let me know what you think about this idea :) Razorflame 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - I change them when I find them. I can't think of a way of listing them all though. SemperBlotto 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I based the format of this article off of packing heat. Either they are both adjectives, or both verbs. If you change Benjis, change packing heat as well. Purplebackpack89 00:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete the slang usage of "benjamin" and "benjamins"? Since I couldn't figure out why you did, I undid it Purplebackpack89 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The US banknote is a Benjamin, not a benjamin. SemperBlotto 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. I cannot find enough sourcing to feel comfortable with creating this Italian noun myself, so I was wondering if you would be willing to create it for me? I would be very happy if you could do so :) Thanks, Razorflame 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No prob. SemperBlotto 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks for the help! I guess that this is from the verb inceppare? Razorflame 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is a protologism? Proxima Centauri 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Scilons is used in the Anti-Scientology community. Proxima Centauri 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• A newly-invented word that has not yet become a neologism. All you have to do is provide evidence (ideally from Google book search or similar, rather than from blogs or forums). SemperBlotto 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake, won't happen again. Thanks --Lasta 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! Thanks for moving my page, but I meant to put it under User: instead of Talk:. Could you move LokiClock/Most common Old Norse words to User:LokiClock/Most common Old Norse words? LokiClock 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - that's what I meant to do in the first place! SemperBlotto 07:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly!

RazorFlame has added this as an Italian translation of I need a drink, and even though I don't really know a lot about Italian I'm about 100% sure there's something wrong with it. Could you fix it? — opiaterein — 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed - but I try not to touch the phrasebook! SemperBlotto 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

WordDewd suggests that there is an Italian word sene derived from Latin senex. If this is correct, could you please create the entry? I am using senex as a model entry for one class of Latin adjectives, and so would like to have as much useful and correct information from that page as possible. --EncycloPetey 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done - took a while to find it (obsolete). SemperBlotto 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! --EncycloPetey 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there.

From "Grove Music Online" - The word is not genuine Italian and has been little used by Italian composers. It was apparently coined by Joachim Raff, whose Sinfonietta in F for ten wind instruments, op.188, was published in 1874.

From "The Oxford Companion to Music" - Since the early 20th century the Italian form ‘sinfonietta’ has been preferred (the word is not genuinely Italian, however).

Cheers. SemperBlotto 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I and the entry stand corrected. Could you furnish us with publication information and/or links for those two authorities, please?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well - I access them through my local library's "Online Reference Library". This supposedly needs a library card number to obtain access - but, in fact, the websites only seem to check the format of the number supplied. Herts library card numbers have the format B123456789 (that information is not secret as far as I know). SemperBlotto 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added that information. The sources seem to contradict each other, however, with Grove saying that it is the German-Swiss composer Joachim Raff's coinage (though in which form it does not specify) from 1874, and the OCM saying that it is the Russian composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's French coinage from 1880–7. Do you know of a list of cognates and calques? Wikipedia has w:de:Sinfonietta, w:ja:シンフォニエッタ (shinfonietta), and w:sv:Sinfonietta. To ensure a correct etymology, we need to know which language first spawned this term, and what form the term took (French? Italian? Something else?)…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a use of the French symphoniette (in French) from 1872, which is two years before Raff's composition. I have not been able to find any pre-1874 uses of (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta in any language. That said, there were so many incorrectly-dated pre-1874 hits for (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta that I'm reluctant to take that single hit as conclusive until I've seen clearly the date of publication on its title page.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, this confirms that that French source is from 1872.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is outside of my comfort zone - I have always assumed that etymology was just guesswork! However, in my Italian dictionaries are - sinfonia, sinfoniale, sinfonicamente, sinfonico, sinfonismo, sinfonista - and even sinfonietta in one of them. The only Italian etymology website that I know of has sinfonia only.SemperBlotto 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating the Italian entry. I've asked Mglovesfun to create an entry for the French symphoniette. The Italian sinfonietta and its plural sinfoniette are both attested from 1884, if you trust these two; I'll attempt to verify their publication dates soon. I'll also try to find the earliest attestion date for the English sinfonietta; if it is prior to the first attestion date of the Italian term, then it's very unlikely that the former derives from the latter. Could you add those two 1884 citations (with translations) to the Italian entry please? I'm especially curious to know why the citation of the singular italicises the term. Right now, I need to give Wiktionary a rest and go off to do some IRL work.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've now collected citations of the earliest instances of sinfonietta and its plurals in English (see Citations:sinfonietta). The dates of first attestation in four languages are:

1. French (as symphoniette) — 1872
2. German — 1874
3. English — 1881
4. Italian — 1884

I conclude that it is very unlikely that the English (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta derives from the Italian. AFAICT, the French citation from 1872 looks like a non-technical use — perhaps a belittling diminutive — but I'll wait until I get a translation of the quotation before making a decision either way. ATM, my best guess is that the English term was adopted from the German; however, both of the 1881 English citations treat the word as a novel coinage. Knowing more about Mr. F.H. Cowen's biography would help, I think. I'll search for the first technical use of the French (deprecated template usage) symphoniette in due course (The Oxford Companion to Music asserts that it was Rimsky-Korsakov’s 1880 Symphoniette sur des thèmes russes, but since it wasn't published until 1887, that makes (deprecated template usage) symphoniette an extremely unlikely candidate for etymonship if Rimsky-Korsakov’s is the first technical use of the term in French).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add the Italian citations. I'll then follow on with a translation. SemperBlotto 06:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added them to the citations page.

AFAICT, the 1884 citation of (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta (italicised) is a personal letter from 1810. The source is here. The headings to the first few letters (up to the one quoted) in that part VI (if that's what it is) are "Benedetto Giovio al cav. Ugo Brunetti da Milano", "Il conte Giov. Battista Giovio da Como al cav. Brunetti", followed by six headings which are identically "Lo stesso da Como", in case they're important. This is interesting in that it drags the first attestation date back 74 years; however, since the letter was not published until 1884, it could not have been an influence upon other languages before that date. Pertinently, I need you to tell me whether it seems like a technical or non-technical use to you, which is why I included so much context.

I could not verify the date of the 1884? citation of (deprecated template usage) sinfoniette; however, that isn't much of a problem, given that that is also the publication date of the verified 1810 citation of (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta. I may need to gather more citations for the Italian term. Any context you can give me on this one would be much appreciated.

Let me know what you make of those. I didn't add them to the entry because they need to presented in an abbreviated form in the entry itself, and since I don't speak Italian, I reckoned that you'd do a better job of that than I would.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added (not without some difficulty) an attempt at a translation. Barmar would do better but she's offline this week. The first text uses informal, almost playful language - sinfonietta is in italics to emphasise this playful use of language. In that last short quotation, I'm not at sure of how to translate (deprecated template usage) ordinario. It can mean (deprecated template usage) ordinary (as a noun) but also (deprecated template usage) professor (at a university). SemperBlotto 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your efforts.

1. Are you sure that the (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta of the Italian 1810 citation should remain (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta in the translation? In English, (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta is a technical term only, and doesn't have a playful or diminutive usage as it might have in Italian. English doesn't form diminutives nearly as easily as other languages (such as Dutch); instead, the diminished noun tends to be prepended with an adjective, usually (deprecated template usage) little. That said, "little symphony" sounds a bit strange (probably because it, too, is a technical term). Am I correct in thinking that the use of (deprecated template usage) sinfonietta in that letter is meant to have a diminutive quality similar to that which the English ditty might have?
2. I've added more context to that 1884? Italian citation, in case that helps. Moreover, please note this exciting find, which I think is the same source; am I right in concluding that the source is a letter written on the 15ᵗʰ of February in 1620 from Claudio Monteverdi to Count Allessandro Striggio qua advisor to H.S.H. Duke Ferdinand I Gonzaga of Mantua?

Thanks again for your help.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Are you able to verify the context of that 1620 cite?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Far too much talk about a little word - I've moved on. SemperBlotto 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem; thanks for letting me know. (Now I can take your talk page off my watchlist.) I'll copy this discussion to Talk:sinfonietta where it can serve as a basis for future research.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. vuvuzela in Italian is a loanword, so the correct ortograph form is feminine invariant (plural is "vuvuzela"); vuvuzele is informal plural form. --Achillu 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - fixed. SemperBlotto 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Poke. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I’ve set bot status. —Stephen 08:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Done Pardon me, but you have deletd my user page giving the reason "not created by user". This was created by me, whether I was logged into my account or not. Could you please restore it? Thanks. PopMusicBuff ^talk 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You don't seem to have made any contribution to the wiki yet - I'll wait till you do. SemperBlotto 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is not an adjective. --EncycloPetey 16:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• My Latin is very limited (La-1), and I do not have any paper Latin dictionaries. Feel free to correct any of my errors. SemperBlotto 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've also made a change to colchicum, since Crocus and Colchicum are not in the same genus. Older dictionaries often use a very out-of-date taxonomy. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Reactor Physics Division, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Reactor physics division annual report, Argonne National Laboratory, 1963.

Thus, in the general case, pressure buildup is a function of the rapidity of heat dump to the fluid...

Although I still think the previous cite can be read as a verb usage. SpinningSpark 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That's a noun. SemperBlotto 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Let's try replacement shall we..

• rapidity of walking to the fluid...
• rapidity of shoe to the fluid...

• Doesn't work if you replace with a noun. SpinningSpark 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• walking is a noun - the action of the verb "to walk" e.g. I like walking = I like jam. SemperBlotto 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It becomes clearer if you substitute the right kind of noun (viz. an uncountable abstract noun): "Thus, in the general case, pressure buildup is a function of the rapidity of irradiation to the fluid..." The preposition is wrong for that noun, but the point is made: That 1963 quotation is using (deprecated template usage) heat dump as a noun.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

• Yes, the word need to be capitalised i.e. Noemvriana... My mistake... how do i make the necessary changes?
• I rarely add things at Wiktionary so I am not very familiar with templates. I will check them and I try to improve them.

Thanks.A.Cython 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You just use the "move" tab - I've done it for you. SemperBlotto 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not a verb in any dictionaries? The only answer to that is get a new dictionary. Try Oxford Dictionary or Collins, not a concise dictionary. If a word is a doing word, it is a verb. If you can age someone-to reckon their age, then surely you can overage them-and people often say that children are "underaged".

See Oxford dictionaries. Also not in the full OED. What does your dictionary actually say? SemperBlotto 20:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let us disregard these argumenta ad verecundiam. See b.g.c.; I'm sure there are some genuine verbal uses in and amongst those 14,400 hits which seem chiefly to comprise countable nouns, verbal nouns, and participial adjectives.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

O.K., but we should also disregard argumenta ad hand-waving. There are indeed genuine verbal uses at google books:"underaging", but I don't see any in the anon's claimed senses. —Ruakh_TALK 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here here 78.151.111.84 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We do not accept invented words. Re: "If you can age someone-to reckon their age, then surely you can overage them-": you mean, surely someone could invent the word overage meaning "overestimate the age of". Perhaps so, but until people actually start using the word (instead of just claiming that it could be used), we won't include it. Re: "-and people often say that children are 'underaged'": that is irrelevant. I am brown-eyed, but no one brown-eyes me; rather, I simply have brown eyes. Underaged is more interesting, in that you can't say "He has under age" or "His age is under", but it's nonetheless obvious (yes, obvious) that it's not based on some transitive verb "to underage". (That doesn't mean that such a verb can't develop, of course, but you need to provide evidence.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This entry (which you created in 2008) is being flagged by the mismatched wiki syntax report for its unbalanced parentheses in the chemical name. On looking to see where the balancing parenthesis should go I noted that the name is given differently at w:imidacloprid, and differently again in some other places on the internet. Please could you check this and correct it if necessary (I freely admit to not understanding it at all!). If the correct name does have unbalanced parentheses, please could you list the entry at user:Robert Ullmann/Mismatched wikisyntax/stops with an appropriate note. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please can you create an Italian entry for silfide - sylph --Volants 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Italian Wikipedia says that this is a masculine noun, however, I cannot think of this having a regular plural, so I was wondering if maybe there is an irregular plural that I don't know about because all the information that I can find is pointing to this term being invariable....maybe a clarification could be in order? Razorflame 20:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Italian words that are borrowed directly from English are always invariant. So it would be "il gabapentin" and "i gabapentin". SemperBlotto 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • OK, thanks. That was what I thought :) Thanks again, Razorflame 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering, is it not okay to recognize that the term skinny was used to refer to the alien race in Robert Heinlen's Starship Troopers? They were featured very prominently in the Roughnecks 3d animation even if they were not incorporated into the live films. I am not sure how it is determined what alien references take priority, is it because the use of skinny to refer to this is rare whereas Klingon would mean nothing else? It is a shame they were not actually given a name I guess. Still I wonder, there really are a lot of fictional species out there, do all invented words such as these get to be in a dictionary? Trek is certainly pretty predominant... even so, there is bound to be some grey area.

Removing it is more than cleanup, a note for 'removing non-noteworthy usage' or something would be useful. Ty 10:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've added my references - see trinkly, trinkle, chinkle, strinkle, springle, friggle, swiggle, scriggle. Is this OK? I don't want to be blocked for a third time, or I'll probably give up on this site. --Mat200 09:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Pretty good. I expect someone will come along and format them nicely (so you can see the text without going off to Google books). There is a template ({{quote-book}}) - but it's a bit comlicated. SemperBlotto 09:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Very complicated. I tried it with trinkly, but it looks wrong. It takes longer to find references than to write definitions, this doesn't seem right to me. Any tips on speeding up the process? --Mat200 10:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Not really - I never use it! SemperBlotto 10:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • What part of finding references are you interested in speeding? (The search for positive results, the weeding out of false positives, the copying text to Wiktionary, the finding of citation information about published works, ... ?) I might be able to help with some of those, and others watching this page may be able to help with more. Anyway, thanks for your edits, and I hope you do stay.​—msh210℠ (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • First, thanks Msh210 for the help. Answering your questions: The searching is fine - I know many tricks for googling and weeding out unwanted cites. Copying text to Wiktionary and finding citation information is the tedious part. SemperBlotto mentioned to me that I should add references, but he then says he himself doesn't add references, so this confused me. And I read somewhere about needing 3 cites to pass, but most of the pages here don't have 3 cites, can you clarify this? Sorry for the questions, it's just there's lots of information in this welcome package, and I don't want to read it all now. --Mat200 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • It is worth looking at when you have a chance (to answer your last point first). Needing three cites to pass refers to the fact that if someone doubts a sense exists, he can seek verification of it by adding {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to it and posting a request at ]. If no one finds sufficient attestation of the word within a month, it can be (and usually is, especially if it's English) deleted at the end of the month. Sufficient attestation usually means three cites from sourcesthat are durably archived (which usually means in a library somewhere, though we also accept Google-archived Usenet posts). (Books.google.com and groups.google.com are therefore great sources for seeking citations.) (There are exceptions: one really good citation suffices, for example: see ].) Copy-pasting the source text and its meta-information can be tedious, though for some older books Google supplies a "view as text" (or some such) link which helps. The reason SB said you should add references but that he doesn't is that you should so people can trust that words you're adding are real, whereas all the regulars here know SB adds only real words. Unfair, isn't it?  :-)  Soon enough, most likely, you'll be trusted enough that no one will jump on you when you create an entry for a suspicious-looking word, and you'll be able to do so without defending yourself.​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • OK, I understand. When someone adds rfv to my entry, that's when I'll have to jump in and prove it exists. If it's difficult, I'll add {{rare}}. Easy! --Mat200 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

            Yes, if it's difficult, add {{rare}}, but if it's impossible, the entry will be deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up! Eroica 13:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hullo old chap. What do these words mean? They seem to refer to some chemical/molecular structure, but there's nothing at (deprecated template usage) bridge to explain what. P.S. I ate at a very expensive Italian restaurant tonight and it was good. P.P.S. (deprecated template usage) nonbridge too. It seems to have a chemical sense and a linguistics one. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - I'll look into these and related terms. p.p.s. Of course good Italian meals do not need to be expensive. Some of the best I have eaten were simply made, from fresh ingredients, by a woman who has learnt everything from her mama. SemperBlotto 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

True, but I bet they were eaten in Italy. It can't be cheap to export those people to drizzly England :) Equinox ◑ 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Semper. Could you add any senses to this entry that I might have missed, and can you also add the conjugation? I still am learning the conjugation, but I've only gotten as far as just the present tense :( Thanks, Razorflame 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there,
I'm it:Utente:Siciliano Edivad and I'm writing this because User:Adivasi asked someone on it.wikt to contact you, since his IP was banned and he can't login. This is not proxying: he was blocked before editing on en.wikt. More info here. Maybe a IP range ban?
Regards, it:Utente:Siciliano Edivad
PS: you can contact him here --Siciliano Edivad 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That ip address is now unblocked. SemperBlotto 14:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, SemperBlotto. --82.198.250.66 10:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Red-hot as a slang/archaic use of a hot dog is in Urban Dictionary and even Webster's...so I reverted your revert of my edits. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've probably realised this is not NEC's fault, it's the (mainly IPs) who use them to create rubbish. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Coulomb's constant has nothing to do with Planck units. Nicoleta 13:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• What is a headword?  :-( Nicoleta 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • The inflected or uninflected part of speech that is written in bold as the first part of the "part of speech" section. It is normally generated by a template such as {{en-noun}} that also adds the word to the correct category.
    • It worked on simila but not sprico I think. I just type { {en-noun}}, { {io-adj}}, etc. right? Nicoleta

Why your edit, here? ---> Tooironic 00:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Because none of the translations added were for the prefix, but rather for the noun (or similar). The Italian was definitely wrong and most of the others looked suspect. SemperBlotto 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Why not just chuck 'em in the trans check? ---> Tooironic 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you remove from me the Autopatroller status because for a long time I can't contribute? Very thanks --Ivocamp96 14:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having spotted this on my watchlist, I've done it on Semper's behalf. When you are ready to get it back, please just ask. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be an interesting bug when you use {{it-noun}} in an adjective section with five parameters (link). Hey, we've all done it of course, but why does the bot specify the gender as {{o}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• The it-noun template wasn't expecting those sort of parameters - so it just a case of (deprecated template usage) gigo. Thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've whipped this up rather quickly, it will merit checking before it goes 'live'. Basically all the features of the current it-noun, with the option of linking the head word and specifying the other gender forms (rather than doing it by hand, which we currently do). Oh, and I'll try and add {{it-noun|gender|inv}} to allow for invariable nouns, instead of using {{infl|it|noun}} {{gender|inv}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well the switch works, but after all that I wonder if it's worth it. It had no advantage over {{infl|it|noun}} {{gender|inv}} (apart from categorization). I'd definitely keep the other stuff, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your efforts. But, yes, I think we'll just carry on with things the way they are. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't "removed" anything, (see User:Mglovesfun/Sandbox, permanent link) at the very least the template needs a NAMESPACE parameter (to stop it categorizing user pages, talk pages, etc.) and documentation. The m, f, mpl and fpl links are all optional so entries won't stop working if they're not used. The inv idea does technically work but it's useless and I'll remove it. So, what's the problem? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, will it cause SemperBlottoBot problems? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. Nothing that can't be programmed. If you go ahead with the changes, just let me know and I'll run some tests. SemperBlotto 09:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - template generates the correct things. Bot modified and tested OK. Cheers. SemperBlotto 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. These is *only* :-))))) one word left from -ità DeMauro list, luogonatività. Here's the definition. "STATISTICS; Rapporto tra il numero degli abitanti nati in un luogo e l'insieme di tutti gli abitanti di quello stesso luogo in un determinato momento". Could you please help on this? Thank you. --Barmar 06:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• That looks to me like birthrate, sometimes called natality. (Defined in one online dictionary as "The ratio of total live births to total population in a specified community or area over a specified period of time" SemperBlotto

• • No, that's not so easy. birthrate is our natalità. I'll try to explain it with an example. Let's suppose that in this moment in Happy_Town live 3,000 people but only 1,300 of them were born in Happy_Town and the rest were born elsewhere. Well, luogonatività of Happy_Town is 1,300 : 3,000. --Barmar 05:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • • I can't think of a single word with that meaning. Perhaps it needs a definition instead - something like "The ratio of native-born people to the total population of a place." SemperBlotto p.s. Congrats on the achievement - many more to follow, I hope.
      • I've created the entry using your definition. Thank you, also for your congratulations :-). I had started copying -zione red words from DeMauro to my sandboxit but probably I won't add them because I've seen that most of them are very rare. Buona giornata. --Barmar 05:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just curious--what were the incidents that caused me to be blocked on July 14?--71.111.229.19 10:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I can't possibly remember all the crazy stuff that goes on around here. You'll have to look at the logs. SemperBlotto 10:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

All the log says is "disruptive edits." That's pretty vague--can you tell me what I actually did that was disruptive?--71.111.229.19 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • What don't you understand about "I can't remember"? You have to look at the logs to see what activity was happening just before the block was issued. SemperBlotto 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I already looked at the logs and history and but don't understand what caused you to block me. No matter how many times I look at the logs the only person who can answer the question of why any given behavior caused you to block me is you. Can you point to any behavior that justifies blocking? Because I'm not seeing it--71.111.229.19 14:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The clue is to be found among your deleted contributions. Specifically, you have created the page Talk:haben Sie Allergien gegen irgendwelche Medikamente with the content irgendwelche = any? which was subsequently deleted (you should switch Allergien and Medikamente in order to render the German sentence meaningful). Do you remember that? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That seems a very very low threshold to block someone for distruptive edits...for the sake of argument if you called me a vandal I might understand, but basically all I was doing was providing a gloss for the German word "irgendwelch", which for non-native German learners (e.g. myself) is a rather rare word, and I thought it might be beneficial to place it there for further use by others. OK my idea was stupid but did it really merit a block?--71.111.229.19 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, if the phrase "haben Sie Allergien gegen irgendwelche Medikamente" is poor grammar in German, I cannot vouch for it, because I did not create the original entry, only the talk page.--71.111.229.19 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thought I'd let you know I changed Category:Definitionless words to Category:Definitionless terms. Cheers. --Bequw → τ 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In romanian language "celebrare" is noun! I'm sorry, Mr SB...

It's OK. BAICAN XXX 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with ? Both sport and sports are used as adjectives, so there should be some mention on both pages. 81.142.107.230 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's not an adjective. "Tractor parts" doesn't make tractor an adjective, either. It is attributive use of a noun. Equinox ◑ 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I can see that - so why is sport listed as an adjective then? Is that different? 81.142.107.230 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think someone made a mistake. I'll raise it at WT:TR. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, you are right. At first I had read it differently. And I tend to make mistakes on Wikt. Thanks :) - Theornamentalist 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Like most words in wikitionary, the etymology is lacking, hence people do an indepth search through google themselves. I added the etymology to knick-knack which dates from 1618. Its a British English term yet you reverted. Explanation?? Was it the format i used?? (ie.knick knack in a sentence??) MichaelHubbard31 09:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• What you added wasn't an etymology. I suppose you could have used it as an example quotation, but the sentence didn't really show the meaning of the term. SemperBlotto 08:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but you still reverted back to an erroneous page. The earliest usage of the term dates from 1618, while the context from which the term is used today is from 1682. Whats the format here?? Early modern English, 1618. ????MichaelHubbard31 09:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• There are a number of templates available, but it is no problem if you just write an etymology in sentences (ideally not copied from the OED). If people don't like what you write, they will change it. SemperBlotto 09:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Weird formatting, says that risa is the plural of riso. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Strange but true. Laughter only, rice has normal plural. SemperBlotto 10:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I've got a name I can stick with now, thanks for your patience! ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 13:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've had it on my wish list on my user page for a little while, and usable content was given. I was very thankful to the anonymous user who created it. Would you please undelete? ~ heyzeuss 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are 2 links (plus one link from a missing words list) to power saw, which has been deleted. The previous definition was inadequate. Should a better definition be written or the links in be delinked? RJFJR 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've added a simple definition. Feel free to improve. SemperBlotto 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

No no, italian. Sorry, my bad :) --Number55 23:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

They all proper nouns in Turkish. See Alman, İngiliz, etc. --88.253.112.11 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• How strange. Perhaps proper noun means something different in Turkish. SemperBlotto 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope. You can see the Turkish Language Assosiation's page. I think the strange thing is: A person is a noun while the language one is a proper noun :) --88.253.112.11 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have deleted this item as 'Tosh' and yet I have seen it used at two Spatial/GIS seminars recently - and as soon as I can find a published source I was going to add it as I want to use it in my own slides. So Tosh to you it might be but if we are using it is it completely so? — This comment was unsigned.

• Zero Google hits for the term. Feel free to add it again if you can find citations. SemperBlotto 13:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
• How do I get the text back to save me re-writing it up?

I'd like to translate this, mainly because Tooironic has asked me to. Is it the same as lower back? If it isn't, what's the difference? --Hekaheka 12:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I think so. SemperBlotto 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you deleted my user page on 01/14/09 for vanity; I guess that was because I just use Wiktionary as a resource and was never an active contributor.

Is their anyway I can put a statement up at my user page, redirecting people to my more active en.Wikipedia page? please, respond on my wikipedia account BionicWilliam 09:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've done it for you. SemperBlotto 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank You for the fast response, but I made it more specific by adding the SUL/Userpage templates BionicWilliam 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me, that was just a little slip. I'll fix it if you haven't already. Also I probably should be logged in but I couldn't be bothered. :) Hhaayyddnn 12:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for fixing it for me. Hhaayyddnn 12:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

WT:BP#Request for bot status: QuasiBot?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is an inter- ester chemically? The "person who interests" sense seems to be a joke. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Converted to the (rather rare) adjective. Original entry was tosh. Very many typos and misspellings at Google. SemperBlotto 14:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I spent some careful time over this and would appreciate a little courtesy and input to go along with this its reversion. Of course you are busy but you weren't busy enough to skip evaluating the edit. You can describe your evaluation now thanks. I have reread my edit. Insidious still does not mean treacherous and the references do not say that either, even if they are all 100 years old. Happy to discuss. NOTE: He was nastily hammering does not equate Nasty = hammers. This is what my edit amounts to. I may be asking you to slow down a little... RTG 02:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• insidious is an adjective. Your addition - "A disguised trap or dangerous object." is a noun. How's that for being ignorant? SemperBlotto 07:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

noun? Insidious is not an intention to trap. Simple treason, the reason I edited the page at all, is not insidious so that is another, and most, misleading entry. The Hansel and Gretel example is more like a noun as it is, "Insidious Gingerbread House". The witch and her cunning is the insidious part. The gingerbread house is just an attractive house. The page needs rewritten and if my edit is closer than the current page, that is the one that should be until further improvements are made, hint, hint. That is why the page is open to edits. Would you agree with that idea? Partial improvements are better than none at all? RTG 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you doubt the existence of a "treacherous" sense, don't remove it, but, rather, add {{rfv-sense}} to it (right after the # at the start of the line) and, after saving the page, click the "+" that appears there to add the sense to ]. However: Please only do this after you have attempted to verify it for yourself, i.e. searched http://books.google.com for the word used in that sense and failed to be able to do so.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was obvious to me that insidious did not mean treacherous but what I did was to check the references provided. The operative word was "stealthily" in that case. "Stealthily treacherous". And then it wasn't a very definitive entry for such a colourful word even at that. Something like, "A thing or an action which is harmful but not obviously so until serious harm is done. Esp. with cunning and deviciveness." would be more precise. I don't know but I do know that the three entries need rewritten to be a bit more precise if not to be accurate at all. I may not have accomplished that but it should be accomplished nontheless... ? RTG 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that some of the concern has been addressed but insidious still does not mean treacherous and the gingerbread house is not insidious, the witch and her trap is. I don't think the word treacherous is a very good word at all for a sentence explaining stealthy and harmful. Treachery is often best known for being open, public and defiant. Some who commit treason are brave heroes of renown, hardly a fitting example of insidiousness. Of course some who commit treason are insidious altogether. Sorry don't have a better one now should just delete that one. RTG 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does hop need a cricket sense, or should simply the (sports, US) sense not have "US" next to it in order to include cricket. I'd have thought that it's usually just a bounce in cricket. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No, the word hop does not, by itself, have any cricketing significance (Only long hop). See, for instance, and . SemperBlotto 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think that it's common practice to put entries like (deprecated template usage) objectivus at obiectivus instead, see ; therefore, if you're adding any Latin words with 'j', please could you change the 'j' to an 'i'. Thanks. Caladon 08:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - is conjunctio (for example) acceptable as an alternative spelling? SemperBlotto 09:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would say no because of this discussion and this edit, unless things have changed since then. Caladon 09:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to say yes - because there are people of the old school who will look for them with that spelling. (I won't go out of my way to create them, only as I come across them in the real world). SemperBlotto 09:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please don't feel that your additions are a waste . I've not been as active of late because of moving (I'm still not fully unpacked) and starting a new job this past week. As a result, I'm spending a lot of my time simply adjusting to my new surroundings, looking for shops that I wouldn't have had to look for before, and other similar issues. I've set a personal quota for creating new entries in Latin (which I am currently behind in), but am glad of seeing specific requests from others waiting for me, rather than simply adding random entries as I think of them. I hope to begin filling requests again soon. --EncycloPetey 02:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Don't worry about it. Nobody here can tell anyone else what they should be working on. SemperBlotto 07:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Do you think we also need an entry for "a hundred and one percent"? There are probably several forms of the expression. SemperBlotto 10:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, probably; that one is far more common a cliché than 25/8. However, all other things being equal, I'd lemmatise the phrase as hundred and ten percent, since that form is the most common and because idiom titles are supposed to be written without initial articles.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo my edit here? the other meaning of scissoring is not used with "to engage in", so it is not like I was favoring one of the meanings. Or was your rationale a different one? --Waldir 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• There was only one possible meaning. So we don't define the same thing twice. SemperBlotto 11:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as you know we list Latin verbs under the first-person singular present active indicative. For instance extendere.

Regarding Old French, these look good but there are some pitfalls. Particularly, verbs can have several infinitives with the same conjugation, like aprocher and aprochier. I'm having trouble tracking down apareir, I'd have thought that was Anglo-Norman and the 'mainland' Old French was aparoir, which we don't have, but I think we should. If you have a batch of entries you want to make, I could pretty easily look them up at Leeds University Library, as I now live about 10 minutes walk from it (as opposed to 45 minutes by bus). Cheers, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I add words in the form that I come across them - so if it's an infinitive, that's what I add (I don't understand macrons, so can't make a proper entry). In case you are interested - my current project involves spidering the Oxford Dictionaries site at http://oxforddictionaries.com/ - they have a "word of the day" on their front page, so I get a different selection every day. The Latin and Old French (etc) infinitives come from the etymology sections of words. I could add Latin entries to Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin/verbs, but that is already massive (and ignored). Would you prefer that I add Old French words to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Old French)? - as I don't know the first thing about the language. SemperBlotto 14:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • p.s. What User:Exodus likes to do, is keep an eye on my sandbox and add words before I have a chance to. You could do the same if you want. I always found (in Italian) that the best way to stop someone adding a bad entry was to add a good one first! SemperBlotto 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • • Well Old French can be a bit tricky. Let me come at it from another angle, I almost always take words/phrases directly from works so there's no danger of them being unattested. Creating entries directly from etymologies is a bit like creating them directly from translation tables - at best you've got a basic but competent entry, at worst you've got something that's wrong. Saying that I'm aware than if I come across words, I usually have a quick scan of Google Books. But most surviving Old French literature isn't on the Internet, so sometimes things that do exist seem unattestable, but they're not, they're just unusually difficult to attest. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • There are two issues here that are specific to Old French (or quite specific). Wiktionary treats Anglo-Norman and Old French as separate languages, while just about everyone else treats Anglo-Norman as a dialect of Old French. So if a dictionary says that apareir is Old French, it's right - just not by our standards. Furthermore Old French often has several infinitives for the same verb, so if I find the conjugated for aparois, what's the infinitive that I can cite? It could be aparoir, aparir, apareir, or aparoistre (probably even more than that). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto,

Could you take a look at this entry? It's been listed at WT:RFV for a few months. Google suggests that it's real, but I don't know enough Italian to be able to cite it properly. Some of the Google Groups hits seem to be talking about a TV show or something (?), but a fair number do seem to be in this sense (e.g. this one).

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 00:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 13:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The definition you have is wrong. It is perfectly OK to quote the OED to that extent. It is very, very, very clearly fair use. I know enough intellectual property law (I studied it) to know that. Please inform yourself before you interpose yourself. Ammimajus 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

...fix what I tried to contribute rather than just revert my edits? I can't see why you would view this edit as anything but constructive, and your unexplained reversion implies my edit constitutes vandalism, which is not my intention at all. At least some constructive criticism would suffice...is the definition inaccurate? I was aiming to be more precise; if somebody didn't know what adversarial means, chances are they won't know what adversary means either. I'm referring to this reversion. -- 203.206.247.25 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• There is already a link to adversary in the definition. SemperBlotto 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

But it's still more precise a definition? And the legal sense I added? (w:adversarial system). -- 203.206.247.25 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Adversarial is an adjective. Your definition "A legal system ..." was a noun. SemperBlotto 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my mistake. But what does it achieve to revert and not simply alter the definition line to change it into an adjective sense? Does a term like this not belong on Wiktionary? -- 203.206.247.25 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

adversarial system now linked from adversarial. SemperBlotto 15:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert the alternative meaning of Luton? The term luton is commonly used, at least within the UK, for the space over the cab of a lorry or van. — This comment was unsigned.

• Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide evidence. SemperBlotto 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here is a random example of people discussing their Luton on a forum... http://www.motorhomefacts.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=50744&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

• I'm not sure if forums are "permanently recorded media" - see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion for attestation criteria. SemperBlotto 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, here are some more permanent examples...

• Architecture today, Issues 124-129

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iMZUAAAAMAAJ&q=luton+cab+-airport+sleeping&dq=luton+cab+-airport+sleeping&hl=en&ei=9gF9TI6tGofqOIWSkYME&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ

• The World's carriers and carrying trades' review: a record of the carrying trades of the world, Volume 58

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aS0EAAAAMAAJ&q=luton+cab+-airport+sleep&dq=luton+cab+-airport+sleep&hl=en&ei=uQJ9TOz9E4TgOKDJyeoG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ

• Livestock farming, Volume 18

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CqhLAAAAYAAJ&q=luton+cab+-airport+sleep&dq=luton+cab+-airport+sleep&hl=en&ei=4wJ9TKnRDOWXOOaQ9YIE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK

• That's better. I've added the noun (with a link to Wikipedia). SemperBlotto 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks

Hi SB. Don't you think that User:Neozack should be blocked for longer? That's three times s/he's made the same spamming entry. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it's the first time he's been blocked. Other sysops don't seem to bother. I normally get told off for excessive blocking! SemperBlotto 14:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have answered on my talk page. Regarding an unrelated entry, was this edit an error or was there something wrong with the template/formatting here? Caladon 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Oops - I thought it was in a noun section - I need new glasses. SemperBlotto 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's a 'real' consensus on this, but Wiktionary:About Latin says "do not use j at all". The reason I dispute this is because J has been used in Latin at some points. I think so anyway. Anyway, just a warning so that is EncycloPetey or Caladon deletes this on sight, you've been warned. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• My understanding is that you should use "i" for vowels and "j" for consonants. (like we do for u/v) That's what Lewis & Short uses (see reference section). SemperBlotto 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm. I've just reread "about Latin" - I'll swap them over. SemperBlotto 17:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, we contradict L&S. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, chemical friend. Can you fix this entry? It's a verb written like a noun. I can't fix it myself because I don't know which thing is the subject of the verb: the hapten, the protein, or even the chemist. Equinox ◑ 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 07:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seeing that you are systematically entering Latin verb forms: could you create verb forms for opinor? I was about to enter the alternative lemma "opinari" myself (an infinitive verb form here in Wiktionary), but I thought you might prefer to have a complete bot-generated batch of inflected forms for the verb. --Dan Polansky 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks! --Dan Polansky 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to notify you that this bot needs some magic from a 'crat to get up. -- Prince Kassad 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have actually no idea. I saw the word all on its own somewhere. Searches show "error in speech" (or something like that I don't know the English), but also perhaps "dubious". it:zàrro, it:svariare. You tell me hehe 81.68.255.36 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I thought the erm, italian wiktionary actually listed svariona :P I didn't pay attention. Still, I can't really tell what svariona is. 81.68.255.36 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

How difficult would it be for SemperBlottoBot to do things like this? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No prob. I'll just have to add a new Italian adjective to test it. SemperBlotto 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I must get my eyes fixed. It took several attempts - but see dublinese and durativo. SemperBlotto 09:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I was also thinking of existing Italian adjective/noun forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, I thought that you might be! SemperBlotto 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Latin superlatives have additional functions. So, clarissimus could mean "most clear", or it could mean "extremely clear". That is, the comparison can be made to other objects with the quality or to other instances of the quality. This is one reason I haven't done much with Latin superlatives. I'm still trying to figure out what format might best handle this information without lots of unnecessary duplication from the positive entry. --EncycloPetey 16:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK - I'll hold off on those for a while (and am accumulating a list of questions for later). SemperBlotto 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you want to delete the definition then post a deletion +tag and build a consensus. WritersCramp 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm an OTRS volunteer who handles tickets in the "Sister Projects" queue occasionally, which also includes Wiktionary. I came across an email a bit ago from the real person behind 99.255.137.57. They were inquiring about Wiktionary's rules about discussion and how to go about editing charidee. See, they believed the definition was wrong, then updated the definition, then discussed it on the talk page. Then you rollbacked their edit with no explanation. So they edited it again, and left yet another talk page note trying to stimulate discussion. This was responded to by you rolling back again without a reason, then you blocked them for "disruption".

Now, the user in question seemed quite unsure of how Wiktionary worked completely, but stated that they "enjoyed editing" and they were surprised that their update of the definition was removed without any commentary as to why this was done. It is especially intriguing to me that you were the one who originally wrote the article, and were reverting, and going so far as to block to keep your definition intact. Would you mind reviewing your actions and perhaps leaving a statement here directed towards the IP editor? Is this standard practice on Wiktionary? Do you understand this situation based from the viewpoint of a newcomer who would like to be more involved in Wiktionary? Killiondude 23:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Anon user replaced definition with a sort of etymology. I'm afraid that nobody here has the time or inclination to hold newcomer's hands. SemperBlotto 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at all surprised you are short of people to help out, if that is your attitude towards new users. How do you expect users to gain experience and build a community capable of providing support for itself, if you blatantly abuse the policies and block new editors in this manner?

If you think the policies need changing, then suggest change. Otherwise, please follow them. 94.196.173.219 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I received a complaint against your recent block of Jay-Sebastos. While that user should not have tagged despicability for speedy deletion too fast, neither can I agree your speedy block of Jay-Sebastos without warning when considering our Wiktionary:Blocking policy. Therefore, I am giving you a reminder so hopefully you will better consider our policy before blocking someone, while I also replied to that blocked user on my Meta talk page. Thanks.--Jusjih 22:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, my blocking policy is that vandals get blocked. What are you going to do about it? Leave patrolling to our other sysops? The wiki would soon fill up with crap. I'm the only sysop that patrols recent changes from the time that I last logged off - others (if your lucky) just patrol while they are logged on. You will miss me when I'm gone. SemperBlotto 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Be careful, he has the ability to desysop you. -- Prince Kassad 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Not my problem. SemperBlotto 08:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Semper, you're probably right as I don't going 'looking' for vandalism, I just revert it as I see it. Semper's got a justified reputation for blocking more lightly than any other admin, but he does so for the sake of caution - don't give the guy another free shot at vandalism. You have to expect that he's not gonna be right everytime. But FWIW if I were in Semper's position I would just say "whoops, sorry". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • And if you need proof of what Semper says above, just check out the last 30 minutes of the recent changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • How are you going to solve the problem? Large parts of RC from late 22nd to early 29th have not been patrolled by me - and must contain unfixed vandalism. SemperBlotto 12:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • Me specifically or just everyone? Dunno, we're all working for free here, we have to appreciate that. But if I may take the analogy of a charity shop, it would be unacceptable for its shop and till to only be guarded 90% of the time. I know that most editors like to create new entries, while I spend a lot of time improving one's we've already got. (I'm not sure this helps much). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I patrolled about a day of it. Equinox ◑ 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you are still adding Latin inflected forms, would you generate those for sedo? --Dan Polansky 13:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 14:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

What possible reason could you have for deleting an entry that another admin looked at and specifically asked not to be deleted for at least a few days so it could be worked on? Was it really such an emergency that a word with 40+ g.b.c. hits and which could likely be attested in some form needed to be deleted as a protologism without any explanation, rather than taken to RfV? Incidentally, I don't know if you realized, but when "--explanation of deletion--" doesn't actually explain your deletion, you should probably just explain it yourself. Dominic·t 20:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the removal of eccosi form. I'm not able to find this word used anywhere and I'm not able to give this word a meaning in my mind, do you have any example? --Giuliopaci 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

An aria in the Barber of Seville? "alfine eccosi qua"? (or should it be "eccoci"?) SemperBlotto 18:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here the title reports eccoci and the singer is also pronouncing eccoci. Moreover "Alfine eccoci qua" means "At last here we are", while I do not know the meaning of "Alfine eccosi qua". --Giuliopaci 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - edit reinstated. Removal of text by anon users is vandalism 99% of the time, and I didn't investigate. SemperBlotto 07:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I know how big is the vandalism issue. --Giuliopaci 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good, very good even. Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've only done simple ones. I have a problem with accents that I can't quite figure out. SemperBlotto 11:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Is that in terms of programming, or in terms of grammar. I suspect it's the former, so I can't help. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Correct - I get nasty messages from the underlying software (I'll investigate soonish). p.s. I'll be off all day Thursday then I'll be back to normal). SemperBlotto 11:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Are you planning to wade into the seedy but highly hypnotising world of French verb forms too? It would be nice to have a trustworthy botter doing it for once ;p. --Felonia 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • If somebody supplies me with a file for each conjugation type, then I COULD run such a bot. I would have more time for such tasks if other sysops did more vandalism patrolling. SemperBlotto 07:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • Look at User:MglovesfunBot#Subpages, it seems that the previous bot owner very kindly left all their codes and files. --Felonia 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • See adouber - is that OK? SemperBlotto 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
              • It's perfect. I'll make a list to feed your bot. --Felonia 13:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
                • See User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme SemperBlotto 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Any chance you could do the same thing as above with Esperanto nouns? Mglovesfun is slowly trickling them out, but it might be best to just hire your bot to open the floodgates and let them all come out in one massive gush. Plus, this way he can do other more useful stuff. --Felonia 09:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I still plan on getting MglovesfunBot to do this - yes, I know I'm stalling, trying to do other useful stuff (hopefully useful). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • No. Since I am eo-0, I wouldn't know what I was doing. Far too dangerous. SemperBlotto 10:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Um, are there any? I can't think of one that isn't from Latin or Old/Middle/Modern French. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OED has (under magni-) - Forming a small number of adjectives with the sense ‘having (a) great ’, and of nouns based on them, on the pattern of classical Latin magniloquus, magniloquentia.

SemperBlotto 11:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

why did you erase my edit of 'טל'? it is a name.

• You put it in the wrong category, and in the wrong place - it has now been done correctly. SemperBlotto 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh... you're quick. Though it is not a male given name.

Isn't it? I based my assignment of sex on , but on review that actually seems to show that it's both a male and a female name.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's both. The noun is male, but the name is both. I was just about to write that, actually, when you changed what you wrote.

Please make any changes necessary!​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to wrtie it is both male and female. I tried to do what looks reasonable, but I'm not sure I did it right.

Hello. Regarding fictional words, you have expressed "One-page-per-term-in-appendix is nasty.", as quoted from an ongoing GP discussion. May I ask why do you oppose the format of one page, per spelling, per context? What is wrong with, for example, having the page Muggle to define "Muggle" in context of "Harry Potter"? --Daniel. 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• My opinion (if I'm allowed to have one) is that having a separate page for such a word is just the same as having a separate page in the main namespace - so why go to all the extra bother. Either have a page in the main namespace, or have an appendix for e.g. Harry Potter or Fortran, and just list there all the terms with a brief explanation. In case you are wondering, my own preference is :- is it a word? Yes - include it in the main namespace; No - don't include it at all. SemperBlotto 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. I have a different view on how to format fictional words, so I would appreciate if you replied another question: Can you please say if the current version of Appendix:Marvel Comics is good enough to fulfill your idea of listing "there all the terms with a brief explanation"? My objective is to conciliate the concepts of having only one appendix with a list, or having multiple appendices with individual terms. Appendix:Marvel Comics is sufficiently informative for people who want to see all the terms at once or add simple definitions, and includes links to more comprehensive pages with possibly translations, etymologies, usage notes, categorization, and so on. In my opinion, these individual pages don't fit the main namespace, but may be formatted like other entries, if possible. --Daniel. 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • It looks fine. But it has links to appendix subpages (which I don't approve of). SemperBlotto 07:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I have created Appendix:COBOL to show the approximate format of my preferred form of appendices (It just needs a bit of extra formatting). SemperBlotto 07:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

    Understood. Thank you. --Daniel. 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Erm, typo for maiuscola? If this is the case, you can 'fix' it, thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Confusion between the noun and adjective. Fixed. SemperBlotto 15:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not certain yet, but I might be in the region of Stevenage railway station in the near future. Would it be churlish to expect somebody of your user name to share a beer or two? Equinox ◑ 01:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

We generally don't add noun senses for adjective entries in Latin. In Latin, pretty much every adjective can be used as a substantive (noun), so we normally list substantive meanings under the adjective with a {{context|substantive|lang=la}} context. The exception for this is when the substantive meaning is limited to a particular gender, which does happen. In that situation, the gender-specific noun sense gets its own entry.

For beatus, that means that the first sense of a fortunate person ought to be under the adjective section as described, but the plural masculine specific should probabaly have a separate entry. Since they are plural-only meanings, I'd use the plural form for the lemma. --EncycloPetey 16:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll let you fix it - it's probably easier to understand then. SemperBlotto 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. --EncycloPetey 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I watched you do it (and found a similar situation in Christianus). SemperBlotto 17:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although that one does not have a plural-specific sense like beati. --EncycloPetey 17:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had a bit of a look round. Unfortunately my grandad had a knee problem. Had I been on my own, I'd have spent at least two more hours looking round. Still, I could probably organize a pretty cheap trip there. Dunno if I'd find anyone wanting to trudge round churches, museums and galleries though! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I don't get back there very often, and it normally to visit relatives (or bury them). You get a good view from the top of Cabot Tower on Brandon Hill - mind you, I don't know if it's still open - it cost thruppence (3d) the last time I went up! SemperBlotto 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlotto, As a Latin teacher, I get questions about why Latin words have different forms in different circumstances, such as inter alia vs. et alii. Therefore I thought that I provided useful information to the entry ad libitum. I conclude from your deletion of it that you disagree or that I breached some rule of Wiktionary etiquette. I read the Welcome page and the one on editing a page, and do not believe that I broke any rules. Please help me understand your action. Thank you. Ferrarama 22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

More a matter of 'norms' than rules. I set the entry to link to the Latin section of ad and libitum. Your information should be under ===Etymology=== and in this case is redundant to the blue links in the head word (ad libitum). In other words, your analysis is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

However, as you are a Latin teacher perhaps you would like to improve our covering of Latin. There are still very many words that we are missing. Have a look at the format of existing entries first though - the template usage can be quite difficult for some Latin entries. SemperBlotto 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. I do hope to contribute. I will examine existing entries more closely.Ferrarama 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

These need checking, please. Sum look sum of parts, many don't have gender. I'll add it-noun to some. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you would create inflection for expedio, that would be nice. --Dan Polansky 11:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Expedited. SemperBlotto 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've tried to start a discussion here. - Richardcavell 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is Latin clino attestable? The entry inclino implies it is not ("From in + *clīnō"). William Dwight Whitney, Benjamin E Smith, editors (1911), “incline”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., →OCLC. does not mark clinare with an asterix, while in the same dictionary William Dwight Whitney, Benjamin E Smith, editors (1911), “cline”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., →OCLC. does mark clinare with an asterix. --Dan Polansky 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it's in Lewis & Short - though they don't give it a definition. It does seem to be pretty rare. SemperBlotto 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • It is there in L&S; I know. I considered entering "clino" some time ago, but I refrained from doing so for the fear that it was unattestable. I have found one hit that could count toward attestation, and posted it to the talk page: Talk:clino. I speak no Latin, so attesting it is hard for me; I do not know what inflected forms I should try to search for. I searched for "clinare". --Dan Polansky 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • It's really difficult to search for, as there are other words that hyphenate as xx-clino etc. SemperBlotto 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but a link on the permissible innovation page too me here. I'm attempting to make a contribution to Wiktionary and someone deleted some material I contributed. While the explanation is probably correct, that it was not a proper citation, I think, that to encourage participation, the "citiations" should have been edited or moved. — This comment was unsigned.

• If only I had the time. SemperBlotto 16:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to know why the entry آرمین which is a Persian male given name was deleted? Thank you. Optional 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• You expect me to remember things back to September? It was probably too badly formatted to be useful. SemperBlotto 08:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• OK I'll create the entry again, if you don't mind. Optional 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It should be "perfect passive participle", not "passive perfect participle". The former is practically a set phrase, as can be demonstrated by a comparison on Google Books. The former has over 8K returns, the latter has none. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK SemperBlotto 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also please note: Lewis & Short are notoriously out-of-date when it comes to macrons. They also deliberately leave macrons off all standard word endings, so you have to remember where those are supposed to go because Lewis & Short won't tell you. A good (cheap) reference for macron placement is Langenscheidt's Latin-English dictionary. It costs only US $10, →ISBN. --EncycloPetey 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that L&S does things differently than us at times. But who am I to say who is right? By "out-of-date", do you mean a usage of Latin that is out-of-date, or an out-of-date understanding of how Latin was/is pronounced? Yes, I had noticed that they have things like -āvi when they mean -āvī, and I try to use the correct version. What I found in Italian (I must get back to it) is that the only way to stop people adding poor quality entries, was to add a good one first! SemperBlotto 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mean they are out-of-date with regard to modern scholarship on the matter of Classical Latin. Numerous addiitonal early texts and much research has amended the Victorian scholarship that went into the production of Lewis & Short's dictionary. --EncycloPetey 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entries I've looked at (so far) did need some attention to fix problems. Why were you removing the request tags? --EncycloPetey 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• To me, it looked like the tags were added when the Latin entry was a red link. I removed the tags as the links were now blue, no reason being given for the attention. SemperBlotto 22:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. There are still over 600 words needing attention. SemperBlotto 22:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• In most cases where the term is in the etymology, the reason for the attention tag is either (1) uncertainty about macrons, (2) uncertainty about lemma form (especially for verbs), or (3) uncertainty about form. Any etymology that links to the present active infinitive of a verb, or refers to a "past participle" in Latin needs correction. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you add an inflection to rabio? I'd be grateful. --Dan Polansky 10:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it's a third-conjugation verb, but it doesn't seem to have a perfect tense - EncycloPetey might be the person to ask. SemperBlotto 10:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have very serious issues with your abuse of your admin tools that I am addressing on the Wiktionary feedback page. Your contributions to the discussion are more than welcome. Also, I'm unsure if admins communicate to one another off-site through some means, but if you're doing that to look less egregious in the manner, I strongly advise you to stop and address the issue appropriately. 66.175.204.107 19:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is annoying whingeing, I don't deny it - but it is feedback. I object to this block, though if he/she abused your talk page I would remove my objection. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to unblock him, and deal with his rants. SemperBlotto 14:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Typo in page name? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No, in the headword. Fixed. SemperBlotto 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This Latin ending almost always bears a macron. The only significant exceptions I can think of are certain adverbs, pronouns, and duo. But for nouns, verbs, and adjectives (in all forms), it's a safe bet that an -o ending should have a macron. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Okeydokey. SemperBlotto 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Has this problem been fixed yet? We don't list compound forms of verbs in any language I'm aware of. That is, we don't have English entries for "am going" or "has been", and we shouldn't be doing it for Latin either. This will probably mean a lot of cleanup. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Such entries will no longer be generated. SemperBlotto 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is a subcarbonate and what is a trispyrazolylborate (Trispyrazolylborate isn't clear to me)? Equinox ◑ 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Definitions added. Wikipedia is not noted for its clarity. SemperBlotto 08:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You have just voted at WT:RFV#Hitler. A vote from you that matches your preference would also fit to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#Hitler. --Dan Polansky 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we have enough citations to add transpondian? (You used it the tea room.) No good hits on google-books but some raw googles. RJFJR 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lots of Usenet hits.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I heard it first here - and can't recall hearing it anywhere else. I'll try to find time to investigate. SemperBlotto 22:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's been used on Usenet for some time, as the above link shows. I've added it and the alt.cap. Transpondian.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - my take on the word is that it relates specifically to differences between usage, culture etc. on opposite sides of the North Atlantic. SemperBlotto 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fix it as desired, of course, but I think a transpondian difference or transpondian issue is often called just that, whereas "transpondian migration", "transpondian sortee" (misspelling of sortie), and "transpondian spat" appear among the first fifteen Usenet hits.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperB -- Well, I guess he was. But, you know, I kinda liked him this time around. I didn't see any obvious vandalism or unequivocally fatuous editing. Did you? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

He created a whole load of obscene nonsense entries just before he was blocked. Equinox ◑ 01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if SixTwo waited until being whitelisted to create the nonsense entries? (Nominating SixTwo for whitelisting would be my mistake — but until then he had just cited things.) Out of curiosity, why is he only blocked for a year? Is there any reason not to permanently ban WF accounts? — Beobach 02:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

He was blocked for only a year because I hit the wrong button in haste. SemperBlotto 08:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can never remember the bits, and where they go. I need more preloading stuff to be useful in adding the weird things that I dig up in the old stuff at Wikisource. Billinghurst 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought ah so was interesting; English has so few Japanese loan words (that aren't food). -- Kendrick7 04:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No ==language== section, no ===part of speech=== section, no definition. Apart from that, it was fine. SemperBlotto 07:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • It was certainly defined. But, so instead of fixing it, you delete it. Ah so. Ever heard the expression that it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness? I suppose not. Anyway, please copy the content to my user area; I'm happy to fix it myself. -- Kendrick7 02:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

See w:User talk:Uncle G#bibiography.

It was coined in 1973 in the Times Literary Supplement, and it has made it into a glossary of biographer's jargon written by professor and biographer Donald James Winslow. Is it attested? Uncle G 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

you asked for evidence -- I have heard it daily, casually, in life. It is slang, so it hasn't been recorded in valid literature - yet. If you need something somewhat concrete, the best I can provide are the following links:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=breezy+slang
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=breezy
• http://www.thesource4ym.com/teenlingo/index.asp?Letter=B (scroll down to breezy)
• http://www.chacha.com/question/what-does-the-slang-word-breezy-mean

• http://www.lyrics007.com/Nick%20Cannon%20Lyrics/My%20Rib%20Lyrics.html

If you need something rock solid, I will look harder. This was a good faith edit. Dylan Hsu 18:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

What the Wikimedia projects needs is listed here: WT:CFI#Attesation. Perhaps we should add the sense back and RFV it, there's a chance of Usenet having some uses. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am sure I can find two other songs (permanently recorded media) making use of the term "breezy" in which case I will assert that the term is truly attested and add the definition once more. Dylan Hsu 19:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please block 72.95.76.104? I feel threatened by his/her recent edit. Thank you, 71.66.97.228 05:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• IP has been blocked for simple vandalism. SemperBlotto 08:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Inflections of the noun and adjective don't agree, IMO moralisti is the masculine plural and moraliste is the feminine plural in both cases. Thanks, Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 18:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You deleted the Ulster Scots term Bogie for ghost (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ulsterscots/words/bogie) ... JasonSol 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• No I didn't. See bogie. I just formatted the entry properly. SemperBlotto 17:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ahh didn't see. Apologies :) JasonSol 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You blocked this user for bad edits to otherwhere. He has a good number of good edits and few bad ones, though he does need to learn our formatting. He's requested an unblock on IRC, and I'm doing the same here. I've informed him of a couple of our formatting standards on IRC.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

So why am I "disruptive"? Wōdenhelm 20:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

As I discussed with you on IRC, you reinstated bad formatting after it was reverted. Please go back to your (mostly good) edits instead of griping about your block. And please do read our formatting standards, linked to atop your talkpage.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added an English definition of the word invise. I had already talked to the user Mglovesfun (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Mglovesfun#Why.3F) and talked with him and he gave the OK for the English definition. You reverted my changes on November 17. Were you just not aware I was given the OK? May I ask why you reversed these changes? Thank you. — This comment was unsigned.

• Your edit made no sense. How can an English adjective be feminine? No such word in the OED. Your edit has been undone again. You would need to provide evidence of its existence if you add it again. SemperBlotto 08:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possibly this could be interesting:

http://de.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%B6rspiel&action=historysubmit&diff=1507837&oldid=1483054

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Audio_theatre

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Audio_theatre

http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=163112&idForum=1&lp=ende&lang=de

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#radio_drama

--Soenke Rahn 08:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this an Italian word? --Parttimer 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Added. SemperBlotto 14:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just created this entry for an abbreviation, but I'm not for sure I got the part {{en-noun|-}} correct for the entry...can you please double check me there to see if I got it right? Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C) 01:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I just wikified the definition. Not everyone likes these templatized section levels (me included). It may or may not be a noun. Who knows? SemperBlotto 08:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Mmk...I think it should be fine, but I guess the beauty of this being a wiki is if someone else comes along and thinks it's wrong, they can change it. Thanks for taking a look. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply