User talk:SemperBlotto/2011

After having a break from editing, I am thinking of returning, though I think we need better communication than in the past.

1. Regarding this edit here, I agree with the addition of a third principal part, but I'm struggling to see what the supine or some of the forms that come from the supine would mean with this verb (can't find many examples of the future active participle, though it should theoretically exist); also, there's the added problem of the current verb table on that page which adds passive forms, which do not make any sense to me with this verb. There are a few other examples where you have modified the verb tables, and we haven't discussed the individual cases (which I think we should have done, since some cases aren't clear-cut).
   • You are probably correct about supine - feel free to correct the headword template (and correct any other of my errors).
2. I think there are still a few macron problems as well; what is your source for macrons at the moment?
   • Lewis & Short (online).
3. If the macrons of an entry are changed, can the forms created by your bot be updated automagically as opposed to manually?
   • It would have to be done manually at the moment.
4. Is there a 'feed me' section for Latin entries for your bot?
   • There is now.
5. Have all previous issues been cleaned up regarding incorrect edits made by you or the bot (e.g. like that on retentum); if not, does this have to be done manually as well?
   • No. I'm correcting them as I come across them, but haven't made a broad-brush attempt yet. I think the easiest thing to do is just delete bad entries. Good ones can be created in the fullness of time.
6. Did you make sure that when you removed the attention tags from entries last year that everything was corrected on them; often there would be an attention tag with no description of what needed to be done (in hindsight, there should have been one). Unfortunately, I cannot check these now, because I don't know which entries there were on the list.
   • I couldn't see anything wrong with these entries in the state that I left them. (There are still about 300 entries in this category)

There are probably more unaddressed issues out there and I may update this discussion with more further questions later. Thank you in advance for your time and for creating so many entries whilst I was away! Do you reckon that you have got a good understanding now of aspects of Latin grammar (or at least noun, verb, adjective endings)? Caladon 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I still consider myself an la-1. I will certainly continue to make mistakes. What I found when building our Italian collection was that the best way to stop people adding bad Italian entries was to add good ones first (easier said than done). I am currently trying to add all words from the Vulgate - there are an incredible number missing. If I ever finish that, I would like to have a go at Latin numbers (all forms). SemperBlotto 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto, we had an anonymous user complaining about his block in #wikimedia-otrs. You blocked the user over this edit. This is just a newbie trying to do an edit. You shouldn't block users for edits like this one. You might want to read w:Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Multichill 11:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• That edit was disruptive (I had to undo it). All disruptive edits lead to a short block. Live with it. SemperBlotto 12:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Please be reasonably courteous to others. I can see the edit by the anonymous ip was to a template, and I understand that repeated edits to templates are extremely disruptive, so I must admit a short block was appropriate, however the language "All disruptive edits lead to a short block. Live with it." is quite rude and inappropriate behavior for an administrator. Fred Bauder 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Also "all disruptive edits lead to a short block" is not policy on any project I can think of. Neither is an edit disruptive simply because you have to undo it.Swatjester 01:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• A "disruptive edit" is one that disrupts me from building this wiki. If you think that "disruptive edits" should no longer be one of our standard blocking reasons then you should seek community approval for a change. Good luck. SemperBlotto 08:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Then I'm confused. Wiktionary's blocking policy says that "It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed." I'm curious what led you to believe that no other option was likely to succeed. Did you have off-wiki communication with the user? Is there more to the story than what appears to be here? This seems to me as if it might be a learning moment. Philippe (WMF) 12:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • I'm not sure if our blocking policy has ever been voted on. I just do what I think best. What are you all going to do about it? (None of you seem to be regular Wiktionary editors, but you feel you can tell us what to do.) SemperBlotto 12:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • • I'm only suggesting you be more courteous. You are the better judge of what is required with respect to blocking. If you're doing all the work, that's a problem too and needs to be addressed. Fred Bauder 15:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • It was voted on at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/New blocking policy. I think the convention is simply that none of it applies to SemperBlotto's blocks, since Wiktionary would mostly fall apart if he couldn't patrol as effectively. Tough situation, but there aren't enough RC patrollers to try and put restrictions on where and when SB can block :) . --Yair rand (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • SemperBlottoBot makes quite a lot of disruptive edits, but I've never blocked it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • If the bot does anything silly, please let me know. I'll fix it if I can. SemperBlotto 15:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • Granted, but I think what you really mean is "all disruptive edits by inexperienced editors result in a short block". If you're an experienced editor, or if you're a bot and your owner is, you're expected to clean up your own mess, which is of course not possible when blocked. Still, I try to avoid blocking new editors unless they persist with their bad edits. Time spent blocking users is time not spent creating/formatting entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I think I'm going to start a vote on exempting SB from the blocking policy, since he's basically 95% of the cleanup force and without his personal blocking policy, we'd be an utter fucking mess. — opiaterein — 16:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Perhaps Wiktionary would have more RC patrollers if you didn't bite the newbies so aggressively. How do you expect to get new contributors if you block everyone who makes a mistake while learning the ropes? Also, regardless of any efforts to exempt you from the blocking policy (which already seems to be the case), Wikimedia has six founding principles. One of these is "The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." Making this project toxic for newbie participation is not in line with that principle, nor is it helpful to the long-term health and sustainability of the project. Kaldari 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I shall continue to block all vandals and people who make disruptive edits. What are you going to do about it? SemperBlotto 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. Your user page says that you are a regular Wiktionary editor. This is not true. You made 3 edits in 2005, 1 in 2008, 11 in 2009, and 4 in 2010. SemperBlotto 08:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • By "regular" I meant I don't exercise any special powers or authority. You'll find this as definition #2 of the word in Wiktionary. Kaldari 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You blocked me after one minor warning (Primary spelling in Australia, and interchangeable in UK. Ok not UK primary spelling that's a mistake but not a blocking one. Mad with power more lax needed. And erasing discussion from your page is uncalled for if you are in the right say so. 92.233.71.47 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• You blocked me after answering a comment on an article discussion as tosh, reverted a perfectly good edit (molar was the infinitive of the slang word so didn't belong there) and then you systematically revert all my preceding edits on unrelated articles. If you are thinking of erasing my comment here like you did before I will have to report you. I believe you police wiktionary with grudge and malice and use your authority to that advantage. Of you are intelligebt you can play by the rules like the rest of us or use your time constructively please. 92.233.71.47 03:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
• After recently unifying my Wikimedia accounts, I discovered that my account (username Krollo) had been blocked by you in 2007. There were no more than eight or nine edits, and looking back none of them were obviously intended to be vandalisation and most mistakes were all either formatting errors or erroneous definitions of homophones of the intended meaning. To reiterate, none were meant to vandalise Wiktionary and from what others have said this is not the only case. I would be grateful if you could unblock my account. 84.92.151.119 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Done. SemperBlotto 17:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is a disruptive edit to you? It seems like it is any edit which you do not like. razorbelle 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It is any edit that causes me disruption; i.e. stops me from building the dictionary. SemperBlotto 21:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it also your policy to revert edits from other users without providing some rational for your decision? KlappCK 14:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's standard operating procedure. (Heck, the software even provides a mechanism for it.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There happen to be research posted just this week about the impact of biting newbies on Wikimedia projects (although I think Wikipedia served as the base for the research), check it out for more info on how this behavior harms the project's potential. I tend to agree with folks that comment that if SemperBlotto toned it down - he wouldn't be carrying so much of the burden alone. I suppose it's possible he's intentionally keeping folks away to build upon Wiktionary's apparent dependency - but that seems a bit too Machiavellian to be the case. --Varnent 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

AS A NON-DISRUPTIVE NEWCOMER only trying to make a contribution, I was blocked today (September 11, 2011) without comment by the appropriately-named SemperBlotto mere minutes after making a change that I thought might be helpful. I referred to my addition as a Predicate-noun. If I erred and it was really a Verb, or if I coded my entry wrong, a simple correction could have been made rather than a total reversion to the previous version. After all, the form of the word that I added: "laudanumed" is legitimate and I provided a literary reference to back it up. Since I don't plan to stick around to fight over my efforts to add information, may I recommend that you all discuss how best to insert the following reference properly into Wiktionary, given that my method of insertion seems to have been improper.

laudanumed

A state associated with or reminiscent of the taking of laudanum. "He was laudanumed to the scalp." Dashiell Hammett, Red Harvest, Chapter X.

Thank you and goodbye. (69.140.41.114 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC))Reply

You're dead wrong on at least one matter; there's no way to salvage that edit, every single character of it was wrong. Immediate roll back is the only reasonable solution. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was an error on erubesco. It seems to be quite difficult to decide on whether or not to go for the la-conj-3rd-no234 template (I thought I would be using the template more often), but if dictionaries list more than two principal parts, i.e. principal parts other than the 2nd principal part, I tend to go with the nopass template and sometimes I do a quick googlebooks check.

I also include this message, "* This verb is defective, with only those forms based on the first principal part." for those that use the la-conj-3rd-no234 template (because that's what EP originally used when he created the first 'model' -esco verb), and for those verbs that share verb forms with another verb like illucesco and illuceo, I use this message, "* The third principal part is shared with <verb>" depending on which principal part(s) is shared with which verb.

claresco looks right, plus you seem to have picked up on the macron on the 'e' of "-esco"; if you want to put a choice of conjugations, it's up to you, but if L&S doesn't list a third or fourth principal part, it's safer to go with just the la-conj-3rd-no234 template (I don't just use L&S to make a decision). Caladon 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks (I try to learn from my mistakes). clarui seems to exist, so I'll take the second option. SemperBlotto 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's this one? Some salt of antimony? Equinox ◑ 16:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's a salt of pentavalent antimony - Sb(OH)₄^-, most commonly encountered as a complex in the drug "meglumine antimoniate". SemperBlotto 17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my userpage? ~User:Supuhstar 05:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It had no usable content. You have made no other edits. We are under no obligation to keep such stuff. SemperBlotto 08:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the article about vowiski? If you don`t know it yet it is ok. But please don not delete things just you are not a explorer of the unknown. Voviski is a new drink in germany distributed since now just in hamburg. It is an alcoholic mix between different ingredients. So please remove the ban. Otherwise i don`t understand wikipedia anymore. You delete a real product who is based on myth and secrets without reason. This is marketing my friend, not a rule world. Kind regards the CEO

• Strange as it may seem, we are not a marketing agency for new products. Also, we are Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 10:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why exactly did you revert the definition of Arms by removing the "public hostel/hospital" thing? Google still lists it as a definition of "Arms", and indeed, it is used for major public hospitals. --99.157.108.248 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Very many words are used in the titles of institutions of all kinds. But usage is not definition. In this case of the names of pubs, it just means that a particular coat of arms was used as the outside sign. SemperBlotto 08:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have edited this based upon what I can find: there appears to be some evidence for the future active participle but I can't find any for passive forms. I have added macrons for the 'a' of 'trans', since in most cases trans + (verb) has a macron on the 'a', and a macron for '-fugi', since this is what we have on fugiō.

What was your reasoning behind this edit? In quite a few cases, the more appropriate verb table for no passive verbs is the pass3p one, but I can't get it to work for verbs which don't have any supine forms.

• I found a passive perfect participle in the Vulgate so chose the only template that I knew. I hadn't come across "la-conj-3rd-pass3p" as it is only used in a single verb (fundo).

Is it also possible for you to remember another macron change, that nouns ending in -itās and -tās of the third declension have a macron on the 'a' (see the respective suffix pages). There are some other confusing cases where there should be macron and L&S doesn't show it that I should probably make sure you are familiar with, so do you think it would be better if there was a list of these somewhere that you could refer to? Caladon 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes - a list would be good (as my memory is rather aged). Are all the various inflection tables described somewhere too? (at the moment, I just stumble over them) SemperBlotto 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

but all in this page are right. i think so and that is my opinion.

Palermo#Dutch If the English is wrong, improve it. Palermo aan de Maas? Google it. Learn Dutch User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've copied the material from the 1913 Webster Dictionary (you can see its entry here) and tried to cite it as my source, in much the same way I did with the term inutterable (this was after I inquired on IRC whether material such as this from the Webster was original enough to be copyrighted, and had received information that a 1913 dictionary was considered public domain). Can you please clarify to me whether or not copying which definitions from that source would be copyvio? TeleComNasSprVen 00:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it looks like copyvio to me. My understanding is that we shouldn't copy/paste from any source. I have added an entry using my own words. SemperBlotto 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The 1913 Webster is out of copyright so there is no copyright to violate. We have mass-imported words from it in the past. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we've mass-imported a load of 100-year-old crap. SemperBlotto 22:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, I've almost never seen anything from W1913 that wasn't a decent starting-point for an entry (if missing newer senses). Are you confusing it with one of the more dubious specialist dictionaries like the thieves' slang one? Equinox ◑ 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any idea? WP has Semipinacol rearrangement but it is sometimes used before other nouns too. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it's not really a word in its own right. It isn't the semipinacol||rearrangement, it's the semi||pinacol rearrangement. SemperBlotto 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Semper, I am in the process of talking to Mallerd about his block. I stand by your decision. However, if I can get him to understand your decision, would you consider unblocking him? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mallerd's last edit summary before he got blocked was "SemperBlotto, you are just fucking bullshitting me, over and over again. fuck you man...". In his place I'd just shut and and be glad I only got blocked for a month. Two, three or four months would seem justifiable. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was his abusive language, more than removing an RfV tag, that led to his block. I'm leaving things as they are. But people are welcome to supply citations for his disputed entry. SemperBlotto 08:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Had a complaint in on OTRS that you blocked this user; block seems reasonable but would you please kindly consider in the future warning users to cease and desist before blocking? Stifle 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No. I haven't got the time. SemperBlotto 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Then, with respect, perhaps you should not be acting as an administrator. I know there is no w:WP:BITE rule here, but this isn't the first OTRS complaint we've had about a block you've issued without a prior warning and I am concerned that you are giving new users a very negative view of whether their contributions are welcome here. I appreciate that sometimes people add inappropriate edits, but it would be helpful if you told them why they're wrong, instead of just that they're wrong. Stifle 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • You will need a vote. Feel free to start one. SemperBlotto 12:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I will be minded to do so next time I see an OTRS complaint. I appreciate you are way out in front in taking admin tasks here, and would not start a vote lightly. Stifle 12:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you check my request here, thank you in advance Mjbmr ^Talk 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my changes without reason. I added verb tables extra French and Spanish which I would expect you to be aware is commonplace in Wiktionary (look at latin). Please join orient discussion or otherwise when you revert non malicious edits plese add a short explanation so as to follow protocol. 92.233.71.47 23:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You made a complete mess of the entry. There was nothing else to do but revert. SemperBlotto 09:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• That's called destructive monitoring. I'm still in the dark about your reasoning. When I find errors in edits I simply correct errors inconsistencies or state reason for revert. Because people have something to add. The rest of the quick draw stuff is for bots. 92.233.71.47 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

excomborare comes from comburere. . --Diamondland 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No such Latin verb in my Latin dictionary. Nothing in Lewis & Short. Nothing in Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin/verbs. SemperBlotto 09:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You reverted this change but the form "deo" in italian language is old and obsolete (), besides the word "deo" have not the accent ( , the form with accent doesn't exist ). Please excuse my bad English, ciao. --Limonadis 11:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, on second thoughts you are correct. I have corrected our entry for dio (and corrected the feminine). SemperBlotto 14:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. You have deleted structural failure. I did make it because we had a long discussion on the Danish wikipedia about the exact meaning of the word here and there is an article on the English wikipedia about it. In the comment field you write sum of parts, bad definition but it is not just sum of the two word but a specific technical term and the definition is from the article on wikipedia so I dont believe that there is anything wrong with it. Please tell me why you did delete it. Kinamand 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Because I thought that it was a failure in a structure. It also had a poor quality definition (definitions do not start with "when" - that word defines a time). The definition was also different from that on Wikipedia - the essential part being the sudden failure to support a load. SemperBlotto 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Definition comes from the Wikipedia article, but was modified to change its meaning (either intentionally, or not) though I wouldn't have speedy deleted the entry. Any chance we can restore it and left the RFD run its course? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you were the deleting admin of a 'Child Neglect' page. I was curious if this article was deleted for reasons other than the closeness in association to Child Abuse? If not I am looking to add Child Neglect to the wiktionary as Neglect is completely different from abuse, in practice and in definition, and is also much more common than abuse. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter! TheGrouchWho 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No, I deleted child neglect - it contained a personal attack. SemperBlotto 10:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

How come you deleted "gencast"? are protologisms by definition deleted? Derekjdc 12:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. See Wiktionary:Protologisms. And please use the + button to add new talk sections at the end. SemperBlotto 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly I should be able to add septych to the Wiktionnary list of protologisms? As septych is not in regularly parlance yet. Is this correct?

Thxs1138 07:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, that's what it's there for. Very very few entries ever become real words. They (are supposed to) get deleted after a few years if they don't make it. SemperBlotto 08:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know this has since been fixed, but did SemperBlottoBot (talk • contribs) have some lines missing from its code for the accusative of adjectives? See calidum, avidum, etc. compared with odiōsum, which was made lately.

• I think so - I am constantly finding errors in it (only very minor ones these days).

On a separate note, I thought I should tell you that the macrons I was changing earlier were just because we decided on cons ---> cōns, conf ---> cōnf, inf ---> īnf, and ins ---> īns a while ago (some sources say that all vowels followed by 'nf' or 'ns' have a macron). Another one to take note of is the trāns- compound verbs, and also feminine agent nouns ending in -trīx. If I think of any further ones, I'll add them here. Caladon 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I'm trying to build up a set of simple rules (offline) for macron usage. SemperBlotto 19:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can the bot conjugate affermer and barder plz. thanks --Plowman 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. You can make requests at User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme. SemperBlotto 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • That page is locked for editting by brand-new users like myself. --Plowman 10:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Should be editable now (the system can't tell the difference between truly new users, and old users with a new ident). SemperBlotto 10:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Great. I won't need to bug you on your talk page anymore. I know that some people hate reading inane messages on their talk pages. Me, I can't stand it, having some newbies go on and on at me on my talk page to request something, then going on about their life story and their pet peeves. I think it stemmed back to when I was working in customer complaints. God, I got loads of dumb people sending me messages, asking me to improve this and give them money back for that. I didn't last in that job for very long. I became the chef in a submarine for the British Antarctic Survey next, that was really cool. I didn't get complaints then, and people just asked me to cook food, which is fair enough as it was my job and I quite enjoyed cooking anyway. --Plowman 10:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • If only there was a solution to the new ident problem. Im gonna stop bugging you now, honest --Plowman 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have answered those two questions on my talk page. If I may ask a question myself, I am a little lost for a list of Latin entries to create; therefore, would you mind if I helped create those that appear in your sandbox? We could do with a list like Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin/verbs, but for all the other parts of speech. Unfortunately, that list for verbs contains a number of entries which only appear in glossaries and are possibly unattested, so there is no definitive list anywhere of entries which are worthwhile filling in. Caladon 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Feel free to create entries from my sandbox. As a special treat - I can make it bigger (much, much bigger)! SemperBlotto 22:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

On an unrelated note, please could you hold off on creating forms for Amit6 (talk • contribs)'s contributions, because some of them need checking and macrons adding. Caladon 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I had already decided to ignore most of them. SemperBlotto 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure this is right? See . SpinningSpark 23:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I hadn't seen that. Definition corrected. SemperBlotto 08:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I don't do etymology (or pronunciation) so will let the community decide. SemperBlotto 11:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this an alternative romanisation maybe? I dunno, there are three citations on Google Books in English, and some in Spanish and French. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Dunno. I only looked on ordinary Google and didn't see much. SemperBlotto 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is of course correct. But not limited to eleven, the numbers three through eleven are all used this way. Numbers one and two less because the first two batsmen come out together. Perhaps this sort of thing is better in an Appendix:Cricket. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• But it is actually used in the real world (very much more than any other "number n"). You would say "He bats at number ten", but not use "number ten" as a noun to mean a cricketer. SemperBlotto 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • It's sort of only sum-of-parts if you understand cricket which is why I didn't rfd it. I'm pretty sure England have had some famous number threes in the past. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff, you reverted my edits on compliancy, where I tried to indicate that the word compliancy is not a correct English word, and very often is mistakenly used as the synonym of compliance, especially by non-native speakers. Subsequently, you even made the original, IMHO wrong lemma more elaborate. - are you not aware that compliancy is wrong, or is it that you have a different opinion? - what format should I have used in the compliancy article to indicate that it is a wrong word Thanks in advance for your help. Although reasonably familiar with WP, I haven't done much on Wiktionary yet, but am quite willing to learn. Wimvandorst 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC).Reply

• According to the OED (online version) compliancy is simply a synonym of compliance "the quality of being compliant". They give examples of use from 1643 to 1834. SemperBlotto 10:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Compliancy is the act of compliance and therefore not synonymous. It is synonymous with in compliance. 92.233.71.47 03:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this used in English? Was tempted to delete it, but I thought you might be better placed than me to decide. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's OK. I've made it into a proper entry, and added a few derived terms (probably more). Needs an etymology section by my Greek is crap. SemperBlotto 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know it has been a while, but could you please close this thread? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen 07:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mostly as an experiment, I changed some old French and Italian form entries from {{form of}} to {{conjugation of}}, like this one. Is that good or bad? Useful, harmful, harmless or pointless? --LA2 12:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It is definitely a nicer format. It is how I do Latin verb forms. If it is worth a massive botified change exercise, I don't really know. When I have time (!) I shall change all my Italian and French "template" files (on my hard drive) so that the bot does it that way. But they will all need checking, and it all takes so much time. SemperBlotto 15:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I have changed my file for regular Italian -are verbs (the great majority) and have tested it (manually) on parlare. I'll change the others as I use them. SemperBlotto 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

For now, I'm just changing some obvious entries, only well-formatted 1/2/3 person, singular/plural, present/imperfect, indicative/subjunctive. I leave behind those that say e.g. ]. This should make them easier to spot. Many older entries say "past historic" and "present tense", and I'm not even sure if that's the same as present/imperfect indicative or not, so I leave them as they are. --LA2 17:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

For French, I translate "present indicative" to "pres|ind" and "present subjunctive" to "pres|sub". For Italian, I translate "present subjunctive" to "pres|sub", but what should I do with "present tense"? One good example is the remaining form in scassiamo. Should these be encoded as "pres|ind" or just "pres"? --LA2 13:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suppose "pre|ind" is the correct form for Italian as well. SemperBlotto 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have made the following translations: present tense ⇒ pres|ind, past historic ⇒ ], future tense ⇒ fut, conditional tense ⇒ cond. I have linked past historic because this is the most common pattern in existing entries. See Template talk:conjugation of#Stats. I did not add "ind" to future and conditional, since these don't seem to occur in subjunctive. --LA2 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The third definition of perpetuate is a "feminine plural". Is this a noun form? Should it be under a separate heading? --LA2 13:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's the feminine plural of the past participle. SemperBlotto 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, of course. In alogenate I saw it was listed both as a verb form and an adjective form. I don't know if this is common, but it would be possible to track down these cases. For the Swedish entries, I mention the participle verb form in the Etymology section, but make the main entry an Adjective, which is a very practical way forward in Wiktionary. --LA2 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

During February 2011, according to Wikistats, the number of internal links in en.wiktionary fell from 4.7 million to 4.4 million or -7%, perhaps because the new {{conjugation of}} calls only link to the main word and not to the grammatic terms "singular", "first-person", etc. --LA2 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

When distribuite was created as an Italian verb form entry, the first verb form has distribuite both as link target and as link text, but the second form has distribuete as the link text. Was that intended? The result today is that the 3rd parameter to {{form of}} (link name) is set, and I don't convert these to conjugation_of. --LA2 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• That was an early bug. It was fixed, but there may be bad entries remaining. SemperBlotto 07:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are many entries with parameters ...|...ire|...ere but also many with ...|...ere|...ire, where the 2nd parameter is the link and the 3rd is the visible link text. Most uses of {{form of}} have no 3rd parameter. There are now 63,738 uses of the template with a 2nd parameter (after some 300,000 have been converted to conjugation_of) and 740 uses with a 3rd parameter. Of the latter, 147 end in -ire (aboliste, partiste, puniste, punisca, zittiste, zittisca, abbellisca, abolisca, abortiste, abortisca, agisce, agiste, agisca, definisca, seppelliste, seppellisca, preferisca, deglutiste, deglutisca, farciste, farcisca, colpiste, colpisca, digeriste, digerisca, tossiste, tossisca, starnutiste, starnutisca, fioriste, fiorisca, pulisca, feriste, forniste, fornisca, favoriste, favorisca, deferiste, deferisca, riferiste, spariste, sparisca, proibiste, proibisca, periste, perisca, suggeriste, suggerisca, subisca, stupisce, stupiste, stupisca, trasferiste, trasferisca, riuniste, riunisca, attribuiste, attribuisca, diminuiste, diminuisca, demoliste, demolisca, costituiste, costituisca, garantisca, arricchiste, arricchisca, arrossiste, arrossisca, chiariste, chiarisca, coloriste, colorisca, condisce, condiste, condisca, custodiste, custodisca, esauriste, esaurisca, quarisci, spediste, spedisca, guariste, guarisca, stabiliste, stabilisca, esibiste, esibisca, esordiste, esordisca, gradiste, gradisca, guaisca, impallidiste, impallidisca, impazziste, impazzisca, impediste, impedisca, infastidiste, infastidisca, ingeriste, ingerisca, inseriste, inserisca, restituiste, restituisca, istruiste, istruisca, patisce, patiste, rapisce, rapiste, patisca, rapisca, tradisce, tradiste, tradisca, differiste, differisca, recensisce, recensiste, recensisca, eccepiste, eccepisca, requisiste, requisisca, serviste, seguiste, vestiste, bolliste, eseguiste, mentiste, proseguiste, divertiste, anneriste, diluiste, diluisca, induriste, indurisca, costruiste, assali, riassali, risali, contradiceste, contradi') and 350 end in -ere (postscriptum, agite, ammonite, punite, puniscano, fallite, approfondiamo, approfondiamo, approfondite, falliscano, approfondiscano, zittiscano, abbellite, abbelliscano, abolite, aboliscano, abortite, abortiscano, agiamo, agiamo, agiscano, definiscano, seppellite, seppelliscano, uniamo, uniamo, uniscano, preferiscano, deglutite, farcite, deglutiscano, farciscano, colpite, colpiscano, digerite, digeriscano, tossite, tossiscano, starnutite, starnutiscano, fioriscano, ferite, puliscano, feriscano, fornite, forniscano, favoriscano, deferite, deferiscano, riferite, riferiscano, sparite, spariscano, perite, proibiscano, periscano, suggerite, suggeriscano, subite, subiscano, stupiamo, stupiamo, stupite, stupiscano, trasferite, trasferiscano, riunite, riuniscano, attribuite, attribuiscano, diminuite, demolite, diminuiscano, demoliscano, contribuite, contribuiscano, costituite, costituiscano, garantite, garantiscano, arricchite, arrossite, arrossiscano, chiarite, chiariscano, colorite, coloriscano, condiamo, condiamo, condite, condiscano, custodite, custodiscano, distribuite, distribuiscano, esaurite, esauriscano, spedite, spediscano, guarite, guariscano, stabiliscano, esibiscano, esordite, esordiscano, gradiscano, guaite, guaiscano, impallidite, impallidiscano, impazzite, impazziscano, impediscano, infastidite, infastidiscano, ingerite, ingeriscano, inseriscano, restituite, dimagrite, restituiscano, dimagriscano, istituiamo, istituiamo, istituiscano, istruiamo, istruiamo, istruiscano, marcite, marciscano, munite, muniscano, obbedite, obbediscano, ubbidite, ubbidiscano, patiamo, patiamo, patiscano, rapiscano, reagite, reagiscano, deperite, deperiscano, sostituiamo, sostituiamo, sostituiscano, sbalordite, sbalordiscano, smarriamo, smarriamo, smentiamo, smentiamo, smarriscano, smentiscano, svaniamo, svaniamo, svaniscano, tradiamo, tradiamo, tradite, tradiscano, trasgredite, trasgrediscano, usufruite, tornite, usufruiscano, torniscano, insaporite, insaporiscano, applaudiamo, applaudiamo, applaudiscano, assorbiamo, assorbiamo, assorbite, assorbiscano, inghiottite, inghiottiscano, nutriamo, nutriamo, nutriscano, concepiamo, concepiamo, concepite, concepiscano, intimidite, intimorite, intimidiscano, intimoriscano, impaurite, impauriscano, imbottiamo, imbottiamo, imbottiscano, imbrunite, imbruniscano, destituite, destituiscano, impartite, impartiscano, sbigottite, sbigottiscano, impoveriamo, impoveriamo, impoveriscano, differite, applaudano, assorbano, differiscano, bandiamo, bandiamo, bandite, inghiottano, nutrano, bandiscano, recensiamo, recensiamo, recensite, recensiscano, eccepiscano, conferiamo, conferiamo, conferiscano, requisiscano, partiamo, partiamo, partano, serviamo, serviamo, servite, servano, seguite, seguano, vestano, bollite, defluite, avvertiamo, avvertiamo, avvertite, avvertano, eseguano, conseguiamo, conseguiamo, conseguite, conseguano, consentiamo, consentiamo, consentite, consentano, mentite, mentano, proseguite, proseguano, invertiamo, invertiamo, invertano, convertano, ridefinite, ridefiniscano, divertite, divertano, aggrediamo, aggrediamo, aggredite, aggrediscano, predefinite, predefiniscano, inferite, inferiscano, interferite, interferiscano, annerite, anneriscano, diluite, diluiscano, indurite, induriscano, costruite, costruiscano, abbelite, acuite, ammoniamo, ammoniamo, appassite, assopite, fluiamo, fluiamo, fluite, ghermite, grugnite, guarnite, imbaldanzite, imbarbarite, imbastite, imbellite, imbiondite, imboschite, impiccolite, impietosite, impigrite, impreziosite, imputridite, inacerbite, inasprite, incattivite, incivilite, incollerite, infarcite, infittite, infoltite, ingagliardite, ingentilite, ingiallite, ingrandite, insecchite, inselvatichite, insuperbiamo, insuperbiamo, insuperbite, intenerite, intiepidite, intontite, intorpidite, intristite, inumidite, invelenite, inviperite, ordite, partorite, ribadite, ringiovenite, risarcite, riverite, schernite, schiarite, scurite, sorbiamo, sorbiamo, sorbite, sortite, squittite, vagite, scolpite, offerite, sofferite, assalite, riassalite, risalite, aderite). I don't speak Italian, but I have noticed many infinitives end in -ire. Are all the -ere wrong? --LA2 10:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Infinitives of Italian verbs end in -are, -ere or -ire (plus reflectives ending in -arsi, -ersi or -irsi). The bot bug was that some entries had a strange mixture of the two because of a copy/paste error by a human (me). SemperBlotto 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Text such as "abolere|abolire|" should really be "abolire|abolire|"
  • Text such as "esordire|esordere|" should also really be "esordire|esordire|"
  • Some of these entries have text such as "contradire#Italian|contradire|lang=Italian" - i.e. #Italian as well as lang=Italian (this used to be OK but doesn't work now)

Thanks! I'll try to fix some of these. --LA2 14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've done a few manually - any you can't easily fix I'll get around to some day. SemperBlotto 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I must take slight issue with your clean up of my post for "infocracy." While I appreciate your efforts, I believe your interpretation of the meaning is not completely accurate.

Your version: The democratization of user-generated information in social networking sites etc. My version: When un-censored, the potential outcome of real-time social media. (The full democratization of user-generated information.)

What troubles me is the use of "in" social networking sites with your version. This implies that the information is being liberated within only the context of a social networking site. This does not accurately reflect the intended meaning. An "infocracy" is created as a consequence of the the user-generated content being uncensored and shared with the world, OUTSIDE OF THE SOCIAL NETWORK ITSELF. I.e. it is not about what happens INSIDE the social network but about what is created OUTSIDE of the social network.

I believe a fair compromise would be to edit your version to read "through" rather than "in". Do you agree? — This comment was unsigned.

• What would be even better, would be to find some citations (e.g. Google book search, or the blogosphere) that demonstrates the meaning of the word. SemperBlotto 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

LOL. Wordnik copies a lot from us (and Century and Webster 1913 and Wordnet). I don't remember seeing anything from them that is their own. OTOH, their presentation is good and the abundance of current usage examples is often helpful. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Won't get fooled again. SemperBlotto 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Who said that? (See adianoeta.) DCDuring TALK 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Who - saw them live at the Hammersmith Odeon(?) in my youff (absolutely amazing). You should see my air guitar. Don't know if it deserves an entry though. SemperBlotto 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw them at the late, lamented w:Fillmore East in NYC long ago. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Technically he/she has a couple of contributions, I just speedy deleted them as protologisms. Don't really see the value of deleting user pages unless they excessively silly or offensive - it's time I can spend doing other things. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Why did you revert my edit to protectionist? Was it for content reasons, or because I did something wrong? It was my first edit, so I would find it useful if you could point out where I went wrong. Best wishes, Fruit Flies Like a Banana (Talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Many nouns can be used attributively in place of an adjective. That doesn't make them adjectives. SemperBlotto 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • But, in this case, it's clearly an adjective (e.g. in protectionist trends, it's not a noun). Look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protectionist if you are not convinced. Lmaltier 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was going to make a similar point. In, for example, the arena of international trade "protectionist" is commonly used as an adjective in much the same way as words such as isolationist. While I take your point about the attributive use of nouns, in this case I feel that the word genuinely is an adjective. Fruit Flies Like a Banana (Talk) 22:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

google books:"is|was protectionist" gets almost 5000 hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There have appeared at the list of uncategorized pages a large number of Italian entries, which seem to appear there by virtue of having lang=Italian in a template instead of lang=la. I assume this is because of some reform in the internal operations of the templates. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Damn I never thought of doing it this way. It's either my chance to {{plural of}} (which I've reviewed and if it is, I can't see why) or a change to {{catlangname}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was right, it's this edit by Prince Kassad. Though if you want to wait to undo it, I can fix some lang=Italians to lang=its (so to speak) using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Italian. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bot has been using lang=it for some time now. There are (only) a few hundred entries to be fixed (by whoever can be bothered). SemperBlotto 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Weirdly, the bad edit allowed me to find about 5000 broken pages (of which 4000 in Italian). But I've undone it anyway as I'm pretty sure I didn't find all the broken pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I changed a few language names to language codes (~10-20 entries), but not the numerous Hungarian and Italian entries that had the problem. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

When LA2-bot is changing from {{form of}} to {{conjugation of}}, it also changes lang=Italian to lang=it. But it doesn't currently change {{plural of}}. --LA2 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you please delete extimescor (created by SemperBlottobot) and all its derivatives (extimesceris and so forth), because the verb is intransitive and has no passive. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done (after testing a representative sample versus Google book search) SemperBlotto 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you appreciate this notification? Or do you prefer that I no longer send you notifications? --Dan Polansky 10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It just stops me from building the dictionary - please stop. SemperBlotto 10:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

voltandosi, voltandoci and voltandoti claim to be gerund of voltarsi, but that entry doesn't link back to voltandoci and voltandoti. Should either be fixed? I'm leaving the gerunds as they are. --LA2 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, voltandomi, voltandoti, voltandoci, voltandovi are all forms of the gerund voltandosi. Some time ago, Barmar and I decided that the actual verb (in this case voltarsi) should only show the impersonal form (voltandosi) and that the other forms would just be listed from there. We do similar things with the present and past participles (but the related forms are much rarer in those cases, so we don't normally create the related entries). SemperBlotto 14:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The proper term for "civil war" in Latin is bellum civile of course, where the adjective civile modifies bellum. But I had bellum civilis in my ear, and created bellum civilis without thinking. Then I realized there was a Bellum Civilis, referring to the Batavian rebellion led by a man called Civilis, so I thought I had made a mistake and asked for deletion of the page.

However, on further reflection, I find that bellum civilis is indeed used as an alternative term for "civil war", here civilis is not an adjective that modifies bellum, but a substantivized adjective meaning "public affairs" or something. So I am going to recreate that page to try and clear this up for future reference. --Dbachmann 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've added the substantive form of the adjective civilis (I would call it a noun, but what do I know?). SemperBlotto 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • ah, wait. I was wrong again. Sorry. Please disregard all of the above, I think I must be barely awake. It isn't true that bellum civilis is used at all. I just looked at google books snippets, a dangerous habit if you don't know what you are doing. What I was actually looking at were grammatical exercises from the 18th century (the idea was that you were supposed to construct correct Latin from the base form). --Dbachmann 12:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my work? (e.g. ) 98.218.118.100 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The first example sentence didn't explain the meaning of the word. The second example was of an adjective. SemperBlotto 07:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and sorry for bothering you again. I would like to ask you to reconsider your opposing vote, since you do not really seem to oppose the proposal. From what I understand, you were annoyed by me posting you a notification to your talk page. (And now you are probably annoyed again.)

As an explanation or excuse: I did the posting using a process that selected some people to whom the notification should be sent, based on objective criteria. At that time, there was no way for me to tell that you do not want to receive any notification, so I could have excluded you from the list only on the whim, which I did not want to do. OTOH, above on this user talk page, you have already said that you were not doing etymologies. That would be an indication that no further notification should be posted, but that is an uncertain inference, and I wanted to be on the safe side lest someone accuses me of selectively posting the notifications only to some users. Now that you have confirmed that you do not want any notifications, I can safely exclude you from the notification list.

You may have the impression that I am pushing the vote too much. I admit that I am pushing the vote a lot. To me, supporting the vote seems the most sensible option, but other people obviously think otherwise. In the vote, I have supported the formatting option that was not my personal preference. I am struggling here to achieve a unification of formatting that is actually possible, but this needs at least a poll, or else it is hard to detect what people prefer or want.

Thank you for your attention. --Dan Polansky 10:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'd say that you were well on the way to being blocked for disruptive edits. LEAVE ME ALONE! SemperBlotto 11:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I took a run at a Latin entry for this that meets some of EP's objections, except for his ignorant-author objection, of course. What do you think? DCDuring TALK 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It is probably nearer the truth. I don't mind either way, as long as we have decent entries for the terms. SemperBlotto 11:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I initially made the error of thinking this was an adjective rather than the genitive of the noun. EP had warned that this is sometimes not so obvious. I am not 100% sure that it is correct as noun, but that should become clear if the form doesn't differ for a feminine genus name. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You deleted aptly yclept while I was busy creating a page for it with the explanation:

"bad redirection / residual from move"

Which move?

I intend to recreate it.

The idiomatic phrase aptly yclept redirected to yclept which is mostly found only in that set phrase in modern English (aside from deliberate archaisms, like Yclept:Berr 08:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• See Wiktionary:Redirections. The phrase "bad redirection / residual from move" is one of our standard deletion messages - the "/" stands for "or" in this case. SemperBlotto 08:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• All right, sorry about that. It's a moot point anyway since I decided to make a page for it for exactly that reason. (I just didn't realize it was policy) namely, the part that says redirect from one form of an idiom to another is requested but redirect from one usage to another is discouraged.) Hope you don't mind if I proceed. Yclept:Berr 08:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Feel free to create a proper entry for it. SemperBlotto 08:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jeff, I'm sorry but I'm likely to doubt if your own page may ever be on your own watchlist:-D As being a bit newbie here, I've decided to express a kind of gratefulness to you as a kind of newbie to answer to me:-D

Thanks:)

(«Wiktionary talk:Requested entries»)

Lincoln Josh 16:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have posted to a conversation between me and Mglovesfun, so it appears you wanted to actually talk to me. I will immediately give in to "stop posting to my talk page or I will block you" and the likes.

Now regarding your "I believe that we inherit the scokpuppet policy from w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - seems OK. SemperBlotto 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)"

How do we inherit a WP policy? You are the first to eagerly claim that "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia".

Let us, for the sake of discussion, accept w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as Wiktionary policy. Which sentence or section have I broken?

--Dan Polansky 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I had always assumed (maybe I read it somewhere) that, in the absence of our own policies, we inherited policies from Wikipedia. It is possible that I am mistaken (I often am). SemperBlotto 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Have you not often claimed that "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia" when newbies point you to Wikipedia policies?
  • Have I actually broken w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry?
  • I will immediately give in to "stop posting to my talk page or I will block you" and the likes. --Dan Polansky 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is another note that comes to mind. Your "I'd say that you were well on the way to being blocked for disruptive edits. LEAVE ME ALONE!" was an unjust threat that has contributed to MG's having blocked me. I have always respected you very much, but this behavior bites a significant dent to that respect, as it is plainly unjust and, in addition, hard to explain. --Dan Polansky 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

А чего потер, я по делу все написал, там надо было ударение поправить? ENG: Why was deleted the discussion page of the article "kher" (ru:хер)?
I posted there my suggestion about declension of this Russian word, and I think it should be changed. -91.76.99.210 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Уже изменились, были исправлены. Already changed. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. -91.76.99.210 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You might want to see this per my notification policy: . TYelliot 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Your loss, not mine. SemperBlotto 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I wouldn't surmise that the deletion of an unencyclopedic article from an encyclopedia would be a loss to that encyclopedia. I would consider it a victory of truth and integrity. I feel very sorry that you expended so much time writing it. Yours. TYelliot 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hullo Mister Knaggs.

¶ You seem to know Latin quite well. May I please know why our definitions of Latin verbs always start out with “I”? This is not something I will protest, but every‐time I read it, it looks so amateurish. These additions virtually personify this dictionary. I think it looks silly. 75.142.190.21 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Unlike most other languages, the lemma form of Latin verbs is the first-person singular of the present tense rather than the infinitive. That translates as "I ..." rather the "to ...". SemperBlotto 08:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! :D --Moonriddengirl 16:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It says here that you deleted "strictly from hunger" as being an bad or unnecessary redirect to to from hunger. In my opinion "strictly from hunger" is the more common term than just "from hunger" (see Wikipedia article for three uses of the former], and at least as likely as a search term. Herostratus 05:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you do a concordance of the poems in s:fr:Catégorie:Œuvres de troubadours? Basically it's all the (categorized) Old Provençal on the French Wikisource. Would help. If not, I'll go the Grease Pit with it. Cheers, Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• User:Mglovesfun/to do/Old Provençal created. Will need postprocessing to remove things like Latin numbers, nonsense produced from strange punctuation etc. SemperBlotto 10:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looking through some Angelucci contributions, this one looks curiously like errore + macroscopico. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Definitely sum of parts. Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SemperBlotto. I see that you moved cape ann to Cape Ann and deleted the redirect. Per the Dictionary of Newfoundland English the common noun (the hat) is written in lower case. Maybe the redirect should be left in place. Cnilep 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Article has been split into capitalized and uncapitalized forms. We don't like redirects. SemperBlotto 08:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

With all do respect, why are you such a pain? We are just trying to learn about language. Please get another hobby if you can't stop bothering ordinary people here. — This comment was unsigned.

• Would you like to be a bit more specific? SemperBlotto 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, you are deleting everything and blocking everyone without even giving us a chance. Fnidner 11:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I think he's trying to single-handedly prove Sue Gardner right. Kaldari 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Newbies are always welcome. But I will continue to revert vandalism and stupidity, and block vandals and the stupid. SemperBlotto 07:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, i was just going to advise that maybe you should have discussed your objection on the talk page. But now i see the entry has been deleted. From requesting verification to deletion!? Can you please explain? Otelemuyen 22:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why you jettisoned this one; its absence feels odd :D — Laurent — 18:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's original content was wrong (the result of a bot-exploded human error that I still haven't completely corrected). SemperBlotto 18:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in the article coloramento i add a link to scoloramento under "related term", beacuse i am not sure it is an antonym. what do you think? Jobnikon 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I think you did the right thing. SemperBlotto 09:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
• p.s. You don't need to add plurals manually - we have a bot that adds them automagically. SemperBlotto 09:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

cool:)Jobnikon 10:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, brogliare is a rather rare as indicated by and the fact that it is not in wordreferece. is it acceptable to indicate this in wiktionary? Jobnikon 10:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You could add {{rare|lang=it}} at the beginning of the definition line if you want. It is in the online dictionary that I sometimes use. SemperBlotto 11:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I could not find gallare in wordreference nor google translate, do you think this is sufficient to mark it as a rare word?

I've heard some rap songs where rappers pronounce the word "hundred" this way (Juiceman for instance). Why'd you revert my edit?

• You would need to provide evidence (from a printed source). SemperBlotto 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Songs' lyrics?

Do you have any idea why we have any passive forms for this template if we use it on entries like albēscō (“become white”)? Also, I don't see why we can't have the infinitive for these, since albēscere is clearly found on googlebooks . I've found one example of passive forms with , but this is in the 3rd person, and I can't find any for the other persons. Caladon 11:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I can find a very few passive hits (on Google books) for some of the verbs that use this template e.g. veterasceris, extollor. But it's probably best to remove them (and stop the bot from creating them). The infinitive looks good - we should add it. SemperBlotto 11:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi i'm Jiròni administrator at the occitan Wiktionary. Why have you delete my contribution on entrò ?Jiròni 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• First edit by a new anon - no formatting, no categories. Feel free to add a proper entry. SemperBlotto 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Well, you made a mess of that. Why did you double the Italian entry? I have fixed it for you this time. SemperBlotto 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am new to this site and attempted to insert a word called cymatic theology. It was deleted immediately. Perhaps I should not have said that it was "coined" by anyone (protologism) . It is a word that is not often used in general conversations, except in metaphysics and cymatics including a study around scientific theology. One only has to google it to see how and where it is used. Would you reconsider it. I also placed it in capitals, which probably compounded the matter of deletion?

(Infrasupra 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

• Capitals were certainly wrong. But, basically, the definition didn't seem to make any sense:- "A study on sound, light and biblical creation." SemperBlotto 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, do you mind if I have another attempt?

(Infrasupra 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

• Feel free. You might like to include some examples of its use from the real world. See Wiktionary:Quotations for how we like these formatted. SemperBlotto 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks, I have re-created it cymatic theology. Please would you have a look and let me know your thoughts. Also, anyone that can help with it, would be appreciated.

(Infrasupra 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

• If you leave it alone for five minutes, then I won't get edit conflicts! SemperBlotto 07:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • OK - I've cleaned it up, removed the pointer to Wikipedia (no such article) and sent it to RfV. Feel free to add more evidence. SemperBlotto 07:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, your help is much appreciated

(Infrasupra 07:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC))Reply

Could you please provide an explanation of your revert of my edits on cuddy if you believe them to be warranted? Mnmazur

• Sent to RfV. Feel free to supply evidence. SemperBlotto 07:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Since you are one of the few active bureaucrats, I'd like to ask you to have a look at Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-04/User:Flubot for bot status and do whatever you think is appropriate so that my bot begins to edit with the bot flag. Thank you in advance. --flyax 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 12:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I see my bot in the bot list, still half of its edits are visible in the recent changes. What's happening? --flyax 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Beats me. SemperBlotto 12:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled across this because -ol lacked an inflection template and noted that the "oleum" etymology was not there. My chemistry is negligible, but not all of the derivatives shown under ety 1 seem appropriate. There also seems to be some overlap between "alcohols or phenols" and "oily substances", so one cannot rely on either clue in the definition to reliably guess the etymologies. Furthermore, some of the words may be derived from German or French words. I have inserted a few {{rfe}}s, but didn't include a note. HTH. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Your modification to -ol is pretty good. As far as substances go, I think single organic compounds should go in the first etymology, and other natural products (mostly complex mixtures) should go in the second. I'm not sure if we need a ol- prefix to take care of words such as oleum - I'll have a ponder. SemperBlotto 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

what's the problem with the brackets at properest? They come from one of the quickload templates. --Porelmundo 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You are making the system load and interpret a template, just to provide a dumb headword. You can do better after all these years. SemperBlotto 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not sure the first sentence means. Plus, I've only been here for one month! --Porelmundo 16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I'd be in favor of not allow templates such as {{new en plural}} as preload templates; for some reason, it leaves trailing wikisyntax like {{{2|'''headwords'''}} where using {{subst:new en plural|headword}} does not. It's a mystery to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, let's get rid of them. SemperBlotto 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not a protologism or creative invention. I labelled it as "obsolete", and it is obsolete, it hasn't been used commonly in over 50 years.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=y0GAm9533RIC&pg=PA14&dq=%22second+disease%22+scarlet+fever&hl=en&ei=KC60TdHrL--M0QGFucTJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=29&ved=0CMIBEOgBMBw#v=onepage&q=%22second%20disease%22%20scarlet%20fever&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=F31xxchl7yQC&pg=PA134&dq=%22second+disease%22+scarlet+fever&hl=en&ei=KC60TdHrL--M0QGFucTJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22second%20disease%22%20scarlet%20fever&f=false

Second Disease!

65.94.45.160 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Even in that book, I can only see it in a table, not in running text. SemperBlotto 14:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
• In the second book they are only "mentions", not "usages". Can you find a text in which they are used naturally without having to be defined or explained? SemperBlotto 14:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's going to be pretty hard to do, considering the generic use of "first disease" /etc versus the specific usage in pediatric medicine of the (distant) past, and that they've not been used widely since the early 20th century, except as terms of the past in medical texts that use their more modern names usually for these numbered exanthems (the "Six Diseases"). 65.94.45.160 05:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's no hurry. SemperBlotto 07:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm Deadlynightshade and you deleted my page!!! Why?!!!! you person you deleted my page. Why?!?!

You deleted my page!!! Why???!!! — This comment was unsigned.

• User talk pages are for other users to talk to you about your contributions. So far, you have made no contributions whatsoever. Also, nobody has an absolute right to a user page. You would be allowed one if you ever became a contributor. SemperBlotto 06:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SemperBlotto. I don't often edit here and so am likely to make errors. You deleted shadi and noted "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI: wrong script". CFI says to include all natural languages, but your edit summary suggests to me that languages written in scripts other than latin should not be included on en.wiktionary. Have I got that right? Should they be included in sister projects instead? Thanks as always for your help, Cnilep 10:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• We welcome ALL words in ALL languages. Hindi words (as an example) should be written in the Devanagari script (see अंगूठा as an example. Urdu words should be written in the form of Arabic? script (see آئینہ) and so on. SemperBlotto 10:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Nevermind, I think I got it: don't transliterate, use Nastaliq, Devanagari, etc. Cnilep 10:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You deleted plebvision. Have you checked the usage of the word?

I can find a reference to it as far back as 1994:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.british/msg/6c2436ab293db116?dmode=source

A search of Usenet shows the word used almost continuously since then, with 'Plebvision' racking up over 370 references - just on Usenet.

• Well, I deleted it for two reasons, Firstly, I could find no hits at all on Google book search. Secondly, I couldn't make head nor tail of your "definition". Feel free to add it again, putting the etymology in a separate ===Etymology=== section, add a reasonably short definition, and include a few quotations from permanently archived sources. SemperBlotto 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I've restored it and formatted it basically correctly. The etymology that was there is, I'm guessing, false, which is why I removed it (presumably this comes from pleb and television, no?) and I've removed the terribly formatted citations. Note that the "permanently archived sources" SB refers to can include Usenet cites. WT:QUOTE, while not completely up-to-date, will give you a general idea of how to format citations.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The formatting here is, well, questionable. One possibility is to separate i nostro from nostro. Or use usage notes as I find the headword line right now hard to read. The Esperanto la mia passed rfd which makes me think this and French equivalents like le nôtre aren't sum of parts, or at least, wouldn't fail an RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, it needs some work. The various forms exist without an article as adjectives, and with them as possessive pronouns. They also exist as simple nouns, mostly in the plural, to mean things like "our parents", "our friends" - the meaning having to be figured out from the context. SemperBlotto 10:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do feel free to check ant of my edits to the uncategorized Italian entries. For the nouns I'm gonna assume regular Italian declension, like this edit to borra. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No probs. You are generally better than bloody Angelucci. SemperBlotto 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey SemperBlotto. I've just got my hands on the 2008 article where the orthography for the Hunsrik language is defined; can I add words from it in the Wiktionary? It includes two short stories so I have what to quote from. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Probably. Try a few at first to see if anyone objects. SemperBlotto 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Surely we just need a definition of pieno and this can be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did tagged an Angelucci (talk • contribs) entry for speedy deletion once, but when nobody delete it, I detagged it. Seems to be either unwilling or unable to add genders to Italian nouns, and other things that could be called 'problematic'. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gone. (Anyway, it is normally "essere pieno zeppo") SemperBlotto 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm gonna leave how to deal with Angelucci to you; WT:Blocking policy says "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary." Doesn't mention intentional versus unintentional. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Difficult. Most of her edits are OK. It's only when she creates new entries that all hell breaks loose. She seems incapable of learning. Deleting bad ones are OK (you beat me to it). SemperBlotto 15:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

FYI, he's made several other colorful entries besides the ones you deleted; as to whether or not they are attestable might be questionable. Not sure if the other ones merit deletion, which is why I've raised one of them at RfV. TeleComNasSprVen 06:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto

Who can/could help me to create English plural forms on Kurdish Wiktionary. I have not got a Bot. Hopefully you can help me.George Animal 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I've got far too much work to do on this wiki! SemperBlotto 16:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Could I please know why neither this talk page or this user page were deleted? Thank you, sir. --Pilcrow 18:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Why are you asking me? SemperBlotto 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ Unless I recall incorrectly, you should delete pages which look exactly like those; I requested that they should both be deleted, but my requests were reverted for no apparent reason. --Pilcrow 18:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well 1) it wasn't reverted by me - ask the person who reverted. 2) you can't tell any of us what to so - we are all volunteers and more-or-less do what we want. SemperBlotto 18:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ I assumed you had a tendency to delete entries more freely, but I admit that it was irrational to approach you over a subject of someone else’s responsibility. I am sorry. --Pilcrow 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have you been into philosophy? No? No probs, just don't delete stuffs you're not sure to be deleted. Rite? Transcendental is a universal word for the opposition of mundane. Look around it, don't make mess! — This comment was unsigned.

• No it isn't. SemperBlotto 15:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this a synonym of batterio or an obsolete form of it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I am not an etymologist, but as far as I can tell, it came to Italian directly from the Greek ("bakterion"). My dictionaries all seem to agree that the two forms are synonyms (or, better, alternative forms), the version with "tt" seems to roll off the Italian tongue more easily. SemperBlotto 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't find a Deletion Request for this article - what are your reasons to delete it? Do you think that wikipedia:Wiktionary:TourBusStop works well on Wikipedia only, or at Wikimedia in general? --Gryllida 11:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I don't know anything about Wikipedia. It didn't seem to make any sense, and has also been deleted from Wikinews. Try asking at the Beer parlour if you want to readd it. SemperBlotto 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Done at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Wiktionary:TourBusStop - thanks for redirecting. --Gryllida 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you created this article 2 years ago. You have written this word meant meson. Indeed, I find some attesations with this meaning but I find also attestation with the meaning of muon Do you agree? Pamputt 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I can only find the meson meaning in other dictionaries. Feel free to add the muon usage if you are confident. SemperBlotto 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you please remove Interwicket's bot flag ? It is inactive for a long time and will never run again (please see this note on owner talk page). (if my request is not in the right place, feel free to move it)

Regards, -- Quentinv57 ✍ 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 21:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You could also do Tbot, UllmannBot, AutoFormat and Dawnraybot - Dawnraybot is Wonderfool's permanently blocked bot. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • All done. SemperBlotto 07:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why you undid the {wikipedia} template in bull trap ?

Is it not allowed? Sailorsun 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The article w:bull trap does not exist. SemperBlotto 08:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes it does w:Bull Trap Sailorsun 07:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you not see the difference? You linked to lowercase when you should have linked to uppercase. SemperBlotto 08:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo the addition of hunch as "lump" as used in a "hunch of bread"? Not only is this a meaning that is not guessable from the meanings currently listed, but it was formerly a common idiom and also receives its own subdefinition line in other dictionaries.

How do you make the entry for cross compatible redirect to cross-compatible? Many people don't use the hyphen so it'd be good if they were redirected to its appropriate spelling. Thank you. boozerker 16:37, Jun 1 2011 (UTC)

• We don't use redirects here very much. If people type in the unhyphenated version and press "search" then the system will find the hyphenated version (or it will when the indexes get rebuilt overnight). If you think that the unhyphenated version is actually used (and can provide evidence) then we would allow an "alternative form" entry. You could also add the hyphenated version to the "Derived terms" section of compatible. SemperBlotto 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, SemperBlotto.

08:02, 2 June 2011 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:lad:Italian derivations" ‎ (not a category)

Why isn't this a category? It still has 2 member which you forgot to remove. Thanks, Malafaya 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The content was ==] etymology==". There's no reason not to create the category if it is used. The only time not to create a previous deleted category is when it says "failed RFD or RFDO; do not re-enter". Otherwise, do re-enter! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, feel free to recreate with proper content. SemperBlotto 14:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

¶ May I please know why you reverted ‘lmao’ as a synonym? --Pilcrow 06:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Only because it was a red link. Feel free to revert if it really bothers you. SemperBlotto 07:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gday. I had been building a list of words that I have found from old books, and it took me to today to notice that they are no longer redlinks, and that seems thanks to you. That either means that they appear somewhere and you notice and fix, or you are watching the page where I build them, not that I mind either way. What I have also been doing is record the page where they are found at Wikisource so when I have finished transcription of the work that I can add that reference to the work/chapter. I am planning to link to them as citations, though there seems a variety of means to do so, and not really done so to this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Hi there. One of my tasks as a sysop is to patrol "Recent Changes". I just happened to see you updating your user page and had a quick look. Not being very busy at the time, I decided to turn some red links blue. By the way, "enconiums" just looks like a misspelling of encomiums. SemperBlotto 07:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Very sweet about both. Have {{SIC}}'d the word at enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://wrestling.isport.com/wrestling-guides/wrestling-glossary

"A short workout or series of workouts used to build wrestlers’ skills regardless of team or any other affiliation."

• To me, this just looks like a specific example of our existing sense #3. SemperBlotto 07:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please check this edit . I'm only guessing here.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Correct (my bad eyesight strikes again). SemperBlotto 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello chap. Two more mystery words that might be clear to your chemical eye: protosalt and persalt. I believe both are archaic. Equinox ◑ 01:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. However, the definition given in other dictionaries for protosalt is either wrong or confusing. For instance :-
  • Ferrous sulfate - FeSO₄ and ferric sulfate - Fe₂(SO₄)₃
    • Ferric sulfate has the lower proportion of iron (2:3 versus 1:1) and is therefore the protosalt.
    • Ferric sulfate has the highest valency of the base (3 versus 2) and is therefore the persalt.

Hope that helps! SemperBlotto 07:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. What about hexamethylenamin (in medical texts circa 1910-1930), possibly used to treat pyelonephritis and/or other things? Equinox ◑ 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. SemperBlotto 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are the 'gerunds' in Venetian really gerunds (verbal nouns) or are they participles (verbal adjectives)? Judging from how they are inflected, they seem to be present participles... —CodeCat 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not all gerunds are nouns, not all participles are adjectival. Some participles are adjectival, some are verbal, some are substantives. Some are all or a mix. They may be interchangeable in venetian. It's really not uncommon in Romance languages for adjectival words to be used like nouns. I've seen languages where "gerunds" are only adverbial. Main point: Whatever these gerunds in question are called in Venetian grammar is what the preferred label here should be. — Laurent — 13:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

See also gerundive. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree, but it kind of messes up the categorisation. We categorise 'participles' under 'adjectives', and we would also categorise 'gerunds' under 'nouns' if that category existed. The current category system doesn't allow for each language to categorise differently so that the category structure is the same for all languages. —CodeCat 14:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's fucking retarded and needs to change. Duh. You can't honestly be looking at it from the point of view that, well since we categorize it like this, we have to change our grammar? — Laurent — 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, since I'm a vec-0, it is not much use asking me. However, have a look at Gerundio on the Venetian Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 14:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Going by w:Gerund, it seems that there are too many different definitions of what a gerund is to really be able to use it in a consistent way on Wiktionary. The only thing all definitions seem to have in common is that they are non-finite verb forms. —CodeCat 14:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

However, I had assumed that the usage was the same as that in Italian:- either 1) in progressive verb senses e.g. "sto parlando" - "I am talking", 2) (the more usual) to form the sense of "while" or "by" doing something e.g. "sbagliando si impara" = you learn by making mistakes. SemperBlotto 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I am not creating the inflected forms of Venetian verbs until I am absolutely sure of the conjugations. There seems to be many spelling variations and not to many textbooks to look at. SemperBlotto 14:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've made a list of all the affix categories that are listed in 'wanted categories'. Can you see what you can do about the Italian categories? There are quite a lot of them, and they may need to be checked because some of them could be compounds or not real affixes. It would be nice if we could at least fix most of them. Thank you! —CodeCat 00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There is a massive amount of work there, and I'm off on holiday in a couple of days. I'll add it to my ever-growing list of things to do. SemperBlotto 07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • As an example of the work involved - it took me 44 minutes to deal with -terapia (mostly by adding or improving etymology sections). Now the category contains 56 entries, rather than the 1 that it had before. SemperBlotto 07:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I was referring more to creating the categories, or fixing the entries that contain them in case the categories shouldn't really exist. Actually filling them up isn't really needed, yet. —CodeCat 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • But without content they aren't any use to our users. SemperBlotto 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • But they all have at least one entry, otherwise they wouldn't be in the wanted categories list. I don't really mind categories that have just one entry, it encourages others to add more to them. —CodeCat 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Terribly sorry if this is wrong, but I am fairly new here and do not quite know anywhere else to put this. I notice you have reverted my edits on the page gumbo. I pointed out that it was the Ikalanga word for foot. I simply want to know why you did this. Is it against the rules? I can justify my addition if you like. 86.128.115.123 17:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, this revert was completely inappropriate and I have restored the edit. Thank you for contributing to Wiktionary! Kaldari 18:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the freedom I've been given the last couple of days

yours WF

Hi SemperBlotto. Sorry to bug you with this undictionarious concern, but User:Jennifersalerno has no contributions other than a lame piece of user page spam. I'm new here, but would it be right for me to blank stuff like this if I encounter it? Thanks, Salmoneus Aiolides Χαῖρε 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Really English? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OED has:-
  • agrément, n.
  • Pronunciation: /agremɑ~/
  • Forms: Also (pl.) agrémens.
  • Etymology: French: see agreement n.

This word isn't in the OED (1st ed.) that I have, and it seems to pertain to physical properties of chemical surfaces in a way that I can't quite grasp. Please, could you create the entry? --EncycloPetey 20:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've had a go. SemperBlotto 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wondered this too; go to WT:TR and type something in Search in the archives of Tea room. You'll soon see! --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There you go! SemperBlotto 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, why would you delete a newly create word? If it would define a set of people & would be in use to define a set of industries, why shouldnt it be defined in the dictionary?? --Dhanurved 14:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• See Wiktionary:Protologisms. SemperBlotto 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw that, but my question then, would be, how would we define new words, from which phrases/sentences can be coined/cited & how do you accredit the author/creator for his thought & where? --Dhanurved 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering whether you could tell me how I can help against fighting vandalism on Wiktionary? --Thepoliticalmaster 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Become a contributor. Monitor "Recent Changes" and undo any vandalism. In time you will become trusted and could be given extra powers and responsibilities. SemperBlotto 16:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've had rollback privileges before if that was what you were suggesting. OK Thanks a lot. I was told you were the head poncho for vandalism fighting on Wiktionary you see. What sort of times of the day do you come on here (we're both GMT)?--Thepoliticalmaster 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

SB can you clarify the above please? -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to revert vandalism. You won't get rollback until we can trust you. For instance, why did you revert a valid change to verandering? Do you even know any Dutch? SemperBlotto 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don' know any Dutch. :-* It was flagged up on at #cvn-wt-en (on IRC), the edit summary was the fuck so I reverted it. :-). But check the rest of my contributions, which I think would give you a better example of what I have been helping to fight against. Also got a couple in at the Vandalism in Progress page. Thanks a lot. Seems a nice place this, friendly and quiet. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reply to above please? :-) -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 19:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you use IRC? -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 14:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good God no! SemperBlotto 14:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to notify you that if you do decide to block him, you should supply some kind of reason, otherwise, he won't know what he's done wrong. -- Liliana • 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes he does. His editing has been restricted on Wikipedia for the same sort of trolling, and generally getting on people's nerves without ever contributing anything useful. SemperBlotto 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what definition of "protologism" you were using when you unilaterally deleted beer o'clock, but I think you'll find that it is in quite general usage and was used as early as 1986 by Steven King in a Time interview. Did you even look at the quotes or search for uses? If you did you'd have seen that it made it into Collins in 2009. Please restore it, or else let me know the appeals process if you're unwilling to admit your error. Fences and windows 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've restored it, added ==language== and ===part of speech=== sections, wikified it and sent it to RfV. SemperBlotto 07:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks very much. My formatting was rubbish, apologies for that. I'll try to read the formatting instructions in more detail; I find Wiktionary hard to get to grips with despite being a Wikipedian for a few years. Fences and windows 19:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

a cricket term?

Wouldn't think so, never once heard it used at cricket nor would it fit the vernacular. Generally more a figure of speech to indicate that something is going up, so more figurative. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

To hit the ball on the up. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I heard it on the radio at least twice today in the England v India test match. SemperBlotto 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun is right, this is a cricketing term, I can confirm that. I am always watching cricket and I used to play for the County A Team. :) -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 11:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please use edit summaries on your revisions. Thanks! 66.175.205.69 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

So, are we missing a sense at homeliness then? --EncycloPetey 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is peer of the realm too SOP to have its own entry? It seems to be a specific thing. 81.142.107.230 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Added. SemperBlotto 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Might I ask you to unblock this IP ? In the page he created he has chosen the wrong language (English) and put the meaning in curly rather than in square brackets but this may reveal just his inexperience. One reason which deters me from assuming his malevolent/disruptive intention is that the translation of the Georgian verb provided by him, albeit in the wrong brackets, appears to be (I would refrain from asserting that, but it is listed at beget#translations, therefore the Template:attention) valid. In my opinion the page is admissible in its current, already well-formatted shape. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• He was blocked for 1 day for "disruptive edits". Are you saying that his edit did not disrupt me? or that "disruptive edits" should not be a reason for short blocks? SemperBlotto 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. The entry still doesn't make much sense.Reply
  • I always think 'disruptive edits' should mean just that, more than one disruptive edit. If you block 'em straight away, they don't have a chance to correct their edits, or learn how to edit better. On the other hand if they do make multiple bad edits (like Girish.iiser (talk • contribs) just now) then you should (that is, one should) block them to stop the series of bad edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with Mglovesfun here. The IP created an entry in the Georgian script with poorly formatted, but apparently valid translation (beget) and with the wrong language caption (which may be due to the default setting), but in my opinion similar manifestations of inexperience may be reduced by appropriately formatting the entry, so that the inexperienced user/IP may begin to learn and overcome said inexperience. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Why was the word deleted? It is a real word used rarely.

Minneford 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Zero hits in Google book search. Crap definition. SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You seem to get a lot of complaints from people for unwarranted undos, deletes and blocks. I feel compelled to add my voice to that chorus. I've been doing Wiki edits for a long time, although rarely on Wiktionary. I don't mind when people quibble with biases that may creep into encyclopedic articles--we all have them and sometimes are blind to them. But I've spent hours verifying information that I put into several Wikt. articles that I've been working on last night, looking through two dozen dictionaries and exhaustive Google Books searches. I have bibliographic data to prove every claim. I may have made some errors in templates, but, I figured, this can be easily corrected by the next editor. Instead, imagine my surprise at finding that some imperious jerk simply deleted the entire work with a single click within hours of the original post.

And I am not saying that you are an imperious jerk, but I can't ignore that possibility either. For all I know, you could be an expert polymath. I usually give the benefit of a doubt. I am perfectly willing to discuss any issues that my changes might have raised. "Undo" is a response of someone who's either too lazy to sort the wheat from the chaff or someone who has a particularly high opinion of himself. Except in cases of obvious vandalism, it is rare to find work that is so devoid of merit as to warrant deletion. But I'll be happy to listen, provided you offer some explanation. I'm perfectly willing to accept your expertise in Wiki matters, but I need some substantive evidence that this is in fact the case. Without an explanation, I'll be forced to consider your act a procedural violation. Alex.deWitte 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'ven't

The RFV discussion for this word has been resolved. Its heading has been struck, indicating that it's passed RFV. Could you tell me why you reverted my removal of the RFV tag from its page? 86.159.130.14 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Because I couldn't see evidence that it had been resolved. I didn't look back far enough. SemperBlotto 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please undelete my userpage and talk page. Per your prior comments, if there is no Wiktionary policy, we should defer to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy clearly states that your deletion was inappropriate. I cannot find anything in Wiktionary's userpage policy that supports your requirement of a prior edit being necessary. Unless you can cite a different Wikimedia or Wiktionary polciy, I request that you undelete my user pages.

Furthermore, I am concerned that you have repeatedly committed this abuse and enforcement of a personal agenda rather than administrator policies - which seems to be a recent trend from looking over your logs and this talk page. You previously challenged a fellow Wikimedia volunteer to recall your bureaucrat and admin privileges - and while I generally think such actions only hinder the actions of great volunteers - I'm starting to think in your case it's only a matter of time before someone is pushed over the line and calls for it. Some of your actions are likely to cause even more volunteers to opt out of participating - which seems counterintuitive to your repeatedly stated goal of "building the dictionary". Wikimedia projects have consistently upheld that community consensus and the needs of the many are a higher priority than any individual volunteer's agenda - no matter how much of a star contributor they may be.

I don't think anyone really wants to lose admins - especially not one that's done so much and been around for so long - but I do think your behavior is cause for concern. While a desysop here seems historically rare and unlikely to happen - ask any recalled politician and they'll tell you that if you piss off enough people...it can happen. I implore you to please listen to those that have chimed in on this page and consider modifying your approach to "handling" other volunteers - especially given your role as an elected and respected community leader.

--Varnent 09:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No. Feel free to create a simple user page, ideally containing babel boxes. SemperBlotto 09:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Apart from us not being Wikipedia (a common mistake, I admit) there is a policy, WT:USER. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • SemperBlotto - Why are you unwilling to undo your own mistake? It's a simple set of mouse clicks for you. That seems condescending and rude. I see no reason my userpage log should show a deletion that was in violation of policies with no admin correction.
      Mglovesfun - I did reference the WT:USER page in my post - but it doesn't say anything about being required to post a contribution first. Hence why I then referred to Wikipedia's policy stating that userpages should not be deleted simply because a contribution has not yet been made as it hinders future participation. SemperBlotto has previously stated that his understanding was when Wiktionary doesn't state a policy on an issue - we should defer to Wikipedia or Wikimedia - which is what I did. As far the criteria of the userpage contributing to Wiktionary - ironically all my userpages did was indicate that I use a SUL and to please contact me at Wikipedia - which is indicated on the userpage policy page as an acceptable use. --Varnent 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no. The user page you created contained only two dead links to Templates that do not exist. It therefore contained no usable information. Now that it has been restored, it again contains no information. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It appears that this admin has also deleted those templates. If those were undeleted as well - you would see that minus one typo - my userpage functions fine. If a problem with those templates was in fact the reason - why was that not stated rather than "you have not made any contributions yet"? --Varnent 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This admin did no such thing. Two other admins deleted those items in accordance with WT:USER, which you said you had read. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes - I apologize - the notify me template was deleted by two others. The three other broken templates (rounded corners and supported...because we don't like style?) were deleted by this admin. I have fixed one with a redirect and re-added the other as it clearly falls within the spirit of WT:USER. --Varnent 04:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

But please link the template directly. Wiktionary regularly cleans up and removes redirects for templates and other such items. With a smaller staff than Wikipedia, much of this cleanup is tagged and handled by bot. There is no need to introduce a redirect when you can edit your user page directly. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay...we apparently don't like redirects or templates either - so I changed the link and added the text to my own page. Not even going to attempt to fix the other templates - or make any other contributions to Wiktionary for awhile for that matter. Good luck keeping editors active on this project. --Varnent 04:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, grazie! :) --Spinoziano 08:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you know something I don't, but how did you determine this user was a Wonderfool reincarnation? I was commenting on IRC that it's an odd name for a user and that his behaviour is atypical, but I don't see anything definite. Tempodivalse 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I thought it was obvious from his first edits (and his pretend conversation as a newbie). Then he started on Catalan, and it was confirmed. SemperBlotto 20:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Come to think of it, that's the exact same behaviour exhibited by Special:Contributions/Lol to face, so it would make sense. So I just wasted a whole hour coaching a "newbie" on my talk page? Great. Tempodivalse 20:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

On WT:WE, what do you mean by "back to one line"? Do you have a very small screen? I've never seen the requested word list (above Recent Changes) larger than about 75% of the width of mine. Equinox ◑ 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Probably smaller than most (logical, not physical) due to poor eyesight. SemperBlotto 17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please undelete it;it is a way to get around from wiki to wiki,organised by MeatBallWiki TheBestGuyHi 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree - this should be undeleted. They exist on many of the other Wikimedia projects. I know Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia...but it is still a Wikimedia project right? I'm curious what the logic is behind removing it from the Wiktionary namespace. Which policy is it against and how can an exception be sought or amendment to that rule? Not allowing Wiktionary to participate in projects designed to increase traffic of wikis seems illogical. Has any follow-up with TheBestGuyHi occurred? If not - why? --Varnent 07:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Ask at the Beer parlour (explaining what it is supposed to be). SemperBlotto 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my meaning for busted ("ugly female")? You didn't even put a reason. Maybe you should ask before you delete something.--175.209.230.247 06:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Maybe you should learn some grammar before contributing to a dictionary. "Bustd" is an adjective, "ugly female" is a noun. SemperBlotto 06:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Perhaps you could have fixed it instead of undoing the entire thing wise guy.

Hello SemperBlotto! I have been trying to add some examples to -ata but I had no success with meanings number 2, 3 and 4. I simply didn't understand the English definitions :-( What do you think about adding the missing ones? --MaEr 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff:  I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, and, at this point in time, I'd prefer not to take the time to review all Wiktionary rules in order to make sure I do things correctly; so I thought I'd just refer this back to you, the entry's creator.  You created an entry for semitism; cool, expect I believe it's Semitism, derivative of a proper noun (See: Semite and Semitic).  I also note that semitisms was created by TheCheatBot, and is linked in your entry, so if you wouldn't mind also fixing that entry if appropriate.  I note from talk point 64. Deleted Word {above} that improper capitalization may be, at least in some cases, possible grounds to delete; but, like I said, I don't know Wiktionary procedures.  Thx  — Who R you? 17:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)   P.S.: I don't think I can watch your talk page so please post a note on mine @ WP as needed.  — (WP User:Who R you? (Talk)Reply

• Well, you are half right. It should be capitalized (done), but it is a noun, not a proper noun (name of a place, person etc). SemperBlotto 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You work so quickly!  Excellent.  Not that it matters, just a curiosity, but wouldn't Semite (Arab persons or Jewish Persons) be a proper noun, being a name for the group?  I guess I'm just wondering, if it's not a proper noun, why is it capitalized?  Or is it some other special class of noun that I just don't know of, seeing as I can only come up with proper or regular.    And if you're not sure of the answer off the top of your head, don't worry about it and just ignore this; like I said, I'm just curious.  Thanks & keep up the good work.  — Who R you? 08:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Looks like an ordinary (US regular) noun to me. But feel free to ask at our Tea room. SemperBlotto 09:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. A bit of advice please, if you have a moment. I have a back burning project to list all phrasal verbs by "particle". I could, I suppose, put a category for each particle (in, out, by, with, from, etc) and categorize each entry manually, but unfortunately I wasn't born anywhere near China. Is there some quick (maybe bot assisted) way of doing this? I'm not experienced in wiki programming, but I could possibly learn some basics if I had to. Thanks in advance. -- ALGRIF talk 10:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. Let me have a think. I could probably group the contents of Category:English phrasal verbs by the second part (as a first step) without too much bother. I wouldn't know what to do with ones like "be on about", "be on to" and "be there for" though. Thinking . . . . SemperBlotto 10:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Yes, there would have to be a way to weed out the oddball entries. That might well have to be a manual task. -- ALGRIF talk 10:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC) -- (addendum) -- However, where there are two particles, the interest is always on the first of the pair anyway. It's only the non-standard forms that could be a minor problem .. eg "be there for" or "dip a toe into" (is that a phrasal verb?). -- ALGRIF talk 13:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OK, I am nearly ready to update our phrasal verbs with a category based on the second word of the verb. These are :- aback about across after against ahead along apart around aside astray at away back before behind between by clean clear down even for forth forward from go hold in into like low of off on one onto open out over rid round through to together towards under up upon way with without. Verbs with multiple particles could have a second category added manually if you can be bothered. Let me know what you want the categories to be called. I'll let you create them. In the following verbs the participles are not the second word - I'll let you do what you want with them manually :- be there for can do with dip a toe into get one's leg over get outta get the lead out make common cause put oneself across put someone down as, take a crack at. SemperBlotto 09:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• That's really great. Thanks again. How about Category:Phrasal verbs with particle (X) ? Can you think of a better or more succinct title? -- ALGRIF talk 11:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• I think it ought to have the word "English" in it - so I'll go with Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (X)
  • The bot is running as I type. I have created category - Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (by). SemperBlotto 13:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (and also ones for back, before, behind and between)Reply
  • Looks like they're all done. Sorry, I've been having to do two things at once, so in the end I see you did most of them. That's really great. These lists will be so very useful for study, and for weeding out bad ones and adding new good ones. -- ALGRIF talk 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

you have been blocked on it.wikt because you asked to be renamed, now I remove the block--Wim b- 16:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. azido- has been in WT:REE for about a year. Do you know what it means? How does it differ from azo-? Equinox ◑ 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Added. Also updated azo- to add organic chemistry meaning. SemperBlotto 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Apart from using {{infl|zh|noun}} instead of {{cmn-noun}}, this is correct isn't it? The one's I deleted were all uncategorized, while this one wasn't. Having said that, user is known for getting the tone wrong in Mandarin entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've no idea. I just "assumed bad faith"! SemperBlotto 10:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Feel free to unblock today's dynamic ip address. SemperBlotto 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • May as well, though if the user has access to infinite IP addresses, he may not even notice we've unblocked it... Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm pretty sure that he doesn't get to choose his address - it is generated at random (or by some esoteric algorithm). SemperBlotto 10:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a template that can be used to better express the fact that repellant is an alternate or variant of repellent? I am unfamiliar with Wiktionary markup, though I have more than 64k edits on English-language Wikipedia.

My hardbound dictionaries Webster's New World and Webster's New Collegiate both list repellant as an alternate spelling of repellent. My copy of Oxford Illustrated does not mention the alternate spelling, leading me to believe that perhaps the alternate is only used in America. At any rate, the repellant spelling cannot be a misspelling if it is listed in Webster's and Merriam-Webster Online. Cheers - Binksternet 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've done it. Equinox ◑ 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Sorry for the edit conflict I caused, following your correction. Binksternet 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my user page and talk page?--Jimbo Wales 08:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Because they were not created by you. I assumed that they were not real. Feel free to recreate them. SemperBlotto 08:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not very familiar with the current customs around Wiktionary, but why is that considered a valid reason to delete anything? I can tell you that it feels very off-putting and unwelcoming.--Jimbo Wales 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • We are rather different from Wikipedia, mostly because of having far fewer sysops, in being rather less formal in our procedures. In this particular case a new user (who had made no other edits) created your talk page. I assumed (wrongly) that it was mischievous and so deleted it. Feel free to join the Wiktionary community and learn more about us. SemperBlotto 10:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could I ask you why you did this? An editor since 8.28.2011. 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• We don't merge different things here. Different words (even if similar) get their own definitions. SemperBlotto 14:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fine. An editor since 8.28.2011. 14:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's an oxysulfate or oxysulphate? Equinox ◑ 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can this be a verb? How does it inflect, or is it only/chiefly used in the infinitive? Mglovesfun (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I can see the following on Google books.

• Adams took an unbelievable catch at short leg to dismiss an aggressive on-driving Taylor off Walsh,... - adjectival usage - can't see a verb usage
• But Lee returned and unseated first Jones and then Giles, who just escaped decapitation, then gallantly on-drove for four, before treading on his leg stump. - verb (hyphenated)
• But Brian Lara limboed and on-drove his way to 1 1 2 at Old Trafford,... - as above

It does not seem to be common, and mostly hyphenated. SemperBlotto 07:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this worth an entry here? I've only ever come across it in Wikipedia, but that may be because the concept is so rare (two occurrences in over 100 years). Mglovesfun (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I think it would be "sum of parts" as we only have a single definition for Test (capitalized). I've added an extra definition to tied. SemperBlotto 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I don't think I fully understood your message on my talk page. Why is the format you suggested superior to the one I have previously used? I have trialled both of them at potrzebuję, and they both produce identical results, but the one I have used uses less characters. I hope it is not necessary to change them all. P.officer 12:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

In actuality, verb forms should be added by bot. Adding them manually leaves too much room for error. — — 13:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

How do bots add them? --P.officer 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't suggest that format, just stated that it is preferred by the community. Don't ask me why. SemperBlotto 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems not at all useful to change the format just because the community prefers it. It might be wise to try to change the community's preference rather than the format. --P.officer 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Several bots use the same method. See User:SemperBlottoBot as an example. You could conceivable use one of your userids for the bot and the other for human activity. SemperBlotto 14:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That looks great. I think that's exactly the type of thing I was looking for. I doubt I will be able to run the bot, but I'll have a look and see if I can use it. The subpages I made look like a good base, and I can tweak the format and re-check they are all still good articles, I'll work on this when I've got some time on my hands. Probably today, in fact. --P.officer 14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Running a bot is much easier than I can explain, because I don't understand how exactly the bot works... I just tell it what to do and it does it. I run my bot for a variety of languages, some requiring more complex input than others (like Lithuanian). Different people like their bots to include different things (like personally, I prefer for mine to include pronunciation if it's possible) but the more you want it to do, the more involved your "templates" will have to be. If you'd like to include that kind of stuff, I can give you tips on how I do it, if you like. (The forms of žinduolis are one example of the potential output.) — — 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that buon Natale and buona Pasqua have a lowercase b. But what about the last two words? Is it customary to capitalize the Anno as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Results of a Google search of it.wikisource.org
  • "buon Natale" almost exclusively (Buon Natale if first or only words in sentence)
  • "felice Anno Nuovo" - 1 hit
  • "felice anno nuovo" - 2 hits (Capitalised Felice as above)
• Results of a Google book search
  • "felice Anno Nuovo" and "felice anno nuovo" roughly level pegging.

• For complete phrase:- mostly as we have it, sometimes with "Felice", sometimes with "anno nuovo". SemperBlotto 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm asking about the 'correct' capitalization, I've just realized I haven't mentioned that yet! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Who knows. See Barmar's notes at felice anno nuovo (Barmar now absent for a year) SemperBlotto 21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

2,600,000 has been passed. How do you view the "edit numbers" to see which edit was the milestone? Equinox ◑ 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I look at "Special:New pages" and count back. I don't this is feasible in this instance. I have taken it upon myself to extend the distance between milestones to 250,000! Do you think that it too much? SemperBlotto 07:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nah, it's not a very important page. I thought my minerals stood a chance though :) Equinox ◑ 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have made a second attempt to continue discussion on the subject with you at the VDL talk page. Please take the time to respond thoroughly.KlappCK 15:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Check the talk page. Let's wrap this up.KlappCK 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Back to you again.KlappCK 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey thanks for fixing my entry, I really didn't know how to add it in right. Do initialisms not have sentence examples? And Is it possible to create a EMT or Emergency Medicine category?Gtroy 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, you can have example sentences. Have a look at words that have them so you can figure out a reasonable format. You could probably have a Category:Emergency Medicine hanging under Category:Medicine. SemperBlotto 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are right crepitous is an adjective but in emergency medicine we also use it as a noun when doing a patient assessment, for example "did the patient have any crepitous present during rapid assessment" So I believe we can put it down both ways on the page for it but I don't quite know how. And cool I will try to create it then. Thanks for the help.

there doesn't seem to be a tutorial here at all so hands on is the only way i am figuring it all out but i am not abandoning any of the entries i am creating.

Is there a way to create an appendix of emergency medicine terminology/jargon?Gtroy 19:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• On the Front Page, near the top right, can you see the word Appendices? And your formatting is not getting any better. We need a ==language== entry, a ===part of speech=== entry, a headword, then a definition line starting with a #. SemperBlotto 21:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• You know it really wasn't necessary to block me, I was sincerely making an effort to learn the ropes, I hope you have a nice day.85.17.190.71 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Gtroy.Reply

• There was no other way to stop you. You were making mistakes (as any newcomer does), but you were not learning from them. You continued to add entries with no ==language== section, and no definition line (begins with a #). By the way, I have created an {{emergency medicine}} template that you can use instead of {{medicine}} (after the # and before the definition). It generates the context label and adds the term to the correct category. I have also created a definition for emergency medicine. SemperBlotto 07:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not need to be "stopped" I would have made the corrections as quickly as I made the entries, you never thought to inform me on my talk page that I could add the language or what fixes needed to be done but you took the time to ask others to help you clean up my mess, a mess i would have been happy to learn to fix. That is why I was dialoguing with you in the first place and I noticed the response on your page but you didn't tell me you did and I did not notice it until I had been blocked. You did not give me time to learn from anything. I even asked you in an edit summary "better?" and all you said was "nope", clearly I was seeking approval and you could have explained what was wrong with the entry and let me fix it instead of immediately deleting it. I think you overreacted, are too draconian, overprotective of this project and are impatient and impulsive with your administrator's privileges. I have been using wikis for a while and you are not going to scare me off but your dismissive, elitist, omnipotent, callous tone could (and by the looks of you talk page have) scared away newcomers. Instead of saying "wrong" you could take the time to say "x is wrong, if it were y it would be correct, he is an example of y)" instead of unduly mocking someone. I doubt you will take what I just seriously but I guarantee people will be more than happy to help you stop "messy" people in their tracks and make them better contributors and collaborators if you took out time complaining about them to other editors and instead gave a reasonable amount of direct criticism there way. Thank you for adding emergency medicine and creating the template for it, that is very helpful-keep being that way. =)Gtroy 20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

So #: not #!, is that right? Does #! ever get used for anything? Please don't block me for this.Gtroy 21:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, "#!" doesn't seem to have a use in this wiki. That was the only thing that I could find wrong in that article! (Some people like to use "#*" which formats quotations slightly differently) SemperBlotto 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. I am going over the edit summaries of the articles you have edited that I have worked on. For the abdominal thrust maneuver I copied the proper noun use on Heimlich but I see you have changed both, do I get a pass since I am assuming the semantically identical term I used as a template was wrong?Gtroy 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the formatting changes you made in this edit, could you explain or direct me to where I can find it out?Gtroy 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I responded on my talk page.Gtroy 18:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

So based on your feedback I found it relevant to add the OPQRST/medical meaning to the related terms but you removed them on the RST part, why?Gtroy 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also the way you editing bodily fluid and bodily fluids leave neither with a definition.Gtroy 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why should "sexual intercourse" be included and "sexual contact" be excluded, SC is used extensively in definitions for several terms here i.e. sexually transmitted disease and is certainly widely used in legal definitions on lawbooks. How is SI not a sum of parts but SC is? Also is there a particular part of CFI that is most relevant to this term?Gtroy 22:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe that sexual intercourse is included because of its very extensive use, and because few people now know the meaning of intercourse by itself. SemperBlotto 08:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing up the body fluid entries and indirectly schooling me on humor/humour and the four body fluids.Gtroy 22:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, did I fix it correctly and is there a Chile template?Gtroy 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• There doesn't seem to be. However you can use {{context|Chile}} (or tag it on to an existing template). SemperBlotto 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now I know why you don't talk too much. Good grief.Gtroy 09:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is that really policy, and even with arcane terms such as hypoxia?Gtroy 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• In your welcome links there is one called Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. You will find the policy in the "Example sentences" section. SemperBlotto 08:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. I've responded to you on Caladon's talk page. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've still got the bot-ready template for the -yer verbs. I pasted it at User:Rockpilot/yer. If you want the others, most of them will probably be in the subpages of Dawnraybot (talk • contribs). If not, let me know: I have on my computer the bot-ready files for -ayer, -cer, -courir, -dre, -e-er, -é-er, -éger, -enir, -er, -ger, -ir (s), -ir, mettre, -re (gn), -uire, -vêtir, -xx-er, -yer (which read the same-named conjugation templates e.g. Template:fr-conj-uire. I can post any of them here if you're missing them. I don't have one for -voir. --Rockpilot 13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Dawnraybot stuff got moved to MglovesfunBot. I can't see one for -pourvoir. (I've copied -yer - thanks) SemperBlotto 14:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You're welcome. I hope this harmonious relationship can continue. By the way, I still have Dawnraybot's Portuguese templates. I should probably donate them to the site too. This is a reminder more to myself than you. I'll upload them here later on. --Rockpilot 14:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have a vague memory then when in cricket the batsmen are attempt a run and one of them doesn't cross the crease and no run is credited, this is called a short run. But I can't find it anywhere so I'm pretty sure I'm wrong. What is this called? Do we have an entry for it?

• If you didn't know it, you would never have guessed one short. SemperBlotto 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly a bit biological for you, but do you know what these are? Equinox ◑ 00:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why are you removing Jalpi Turkic translations? --88.234.91.144 08:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No such language. SemperBlotto 09:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Special:WhatLinksHere/Jalpi Turkic. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

--88.234.91.144 11:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• None of those sources define the term in English. Feel free to do so yourself. SemperBlotto 11:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see them lower case all the time, they really have been mainstreamed, I didn't even know they were brands. If brands have to be capitalized then move them. But is that always the case, such as white out or botox for example?Gtroy 09:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's no big deal. All you need to do is provide evidence. You might also want to look at Wiktionary:BRAND in this particular case. SemperBlotto 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can do.Gtroy 09:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ciao, ti avviso che abbiamo, da poche ore, iniziato la procedura per aprire vec.wikt. Per ora abbiamo iniziato con la test wiki su incubator: vedi qui. Se la cosa funzionerà fra un paio di settimante faremo la domanda anche su meta. In tal caso contiamo sul tuo supporto.--GatoSelvadego 16:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Grazie per la segnalazione. Non sono pratico di wikt e non sapevo andasse tutto in minuscolo.--GatoSelvadego 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Buona fortuna. E' difficile da usare nella "incubatrice". Io aspetterò fino a quando è "live". SemperBlotto 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per ora stiamo mettendo tutti gli accenti (anche dove non servono, ad esempio in marti/màrti). Poi quando avremo la versione ufficiale la comunità deciderà se tenere o meno gli accenti superflui.--GatoSelvadego 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's legged in Modern English, is this perhaps an Early Modern English form, or a misspelling? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Oh yes. Probably both. Will need a statistical analysis of usage. SemperBlotto 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Visviva's website . Mglovesfun (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto. While wiki-wandering, I stumbled upon tuttorondo (which you created) and I haven't been able to find any counterpart on the Italian WP. Yet, a similar entry exists on the Italian WT (in English, though) but it appears to me that you are also the creator. On the other hand, there is tutto tondo on the Italian WP, which match your definition of tuttorondo, and this spelling returns much much more results on Google, and especially Google books. Isn't that a misspelling? — Xavier, 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I think that it is wrong. It should be tuttotondo (sometimes two words). See, for instance, . I shall investigate further.

Now, the problem with it.wiktionary is that they imported very many Italian words from the English wiktionary (including edit history) and didn't even convert them to it.wiktionary standards or translate them. That is why you will find very many of "my" words there (even though I have made very few edits there). They should all be deleted or fixed - but not by me! (many of them are now flagged as such) SemperBlotto 07:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm new here but made a few Indonesian entries. I was wondering why they were deleted? I'm only trying to help... so it seemed a bit harsh for them to be deleted within hours of being made. How could I improve them so they will make the cut? — This comment was unsigned.

• They didn't make any sense. Why not look at other Indonesian words and see how they are formatted. Somebody else (with more spare time) has had a go at some of your entries - see nah as an example. SemperBlotto 09:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see now. I only started today so still getting used to editing. I'm glad Stephen G. Brown edited lho but perhaps that could've been done with the others as well instead of being deleted? Is it possible they could be brought back? I spent a lot of time writing them and do hope to get better with proper formatting. With a few more examples of the Indonesian entries concerning the type of words i'm editing/adding it will be very helpful. Thanks for your time!

Hi Jeff! You speak Italian, right? Do you suppose this is vandalism? The only thing I can find on Google Groups or Books that isn't a capitalised name is "mi ha fatto uno schifarti e alla fine c'era del giulianone dappertutto", and I'm not sure even that has anything to do with froth. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, creative invention rather than vandalism. It is derived from w:it:Giuliano Ferrara, an Italian politician - but isn't in general use yet. SemperBlotto 07:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you deleted does the Pope shit in the woods? as a protologism. I'd like to point out that it gets around 200 Google Book hits excluding dictionaries so you might want to reconsider. Fugyoo 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hm, looks like he's got a point, Jeff, the oldest one on the first page at least is 1986. But Fugyoo, if you re-add it, don't use the question mark in the pagename. Don't ask, I don't know why we don't do it, we just don't apparently. — — 11:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

does the Pope shit in the woods cleaned up and added. SemperBlotto 12:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

AIUI we don't do it because the punctuation isn't part of the phrase. You might say "does the Pope shit in the woods or am I mistaken?" Same as how we don't include the full stop/period on a non-question phrase. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

We also don’t do it because it does not work. The ? is read as a code in a URL. If you type in, for example, apa kabar? after en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/ in the URL, it will go to apa kabar (the ? is ignored), but it will not find apa kabar? (which is a redirect). The only way that you can get to apa kabar? is by clicking a blue link or by typing in apa kabar%3F. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

so where exactly is the etymology section supposed to go for was it supposed to be triple equals and not double?Gtroy 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry if my original user page came across the wrong way; I was really just writing a sort of prototype to it, and tried to provide information on why I might be editing certain pages... I can see how it may have looked bad, and I sincerely apologize for my bad first impression. I just didn't have time to write up a proper user page when I first wrote it up, so I just wrote the basics, and kinda added in a sort of friendly nature to it out of bad habit. I made an account here because I use Wiktionary so often that I figured it was about time I started helping to improve it myself, and I do not believe I have any misconceptions about the general nature of the site. However, thank you for alerting me to what I shouldn't have done, and I'll take that into consideration when I write up the proper user page. AR3891 09:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not true; just a lot of vandalism right now. The deletion log shows 19 deletions between your deletion of Xxx this morning and Plisi just now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I'll stop patrolling for a day, and we'll see what happens. SemperBlotto 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd rather you didn't, for obvious reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's not a very glamorous job (actually it's completely lacking in glamour), but as I've been fantastically slow in my editing recently, I guess I'll have a look at RC here and there. — — 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
• I saw this as I was patrolling them. :P Stephen and I both revert vandalism when we see it (I see reverts by him when I patrol). I don't often mark good edits as patrolled, though. I suppose I should do that! - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Most sysops do patrol recent changes while they are editing, but don't catch the vandalism that happens when there are no such sysops around. What I do at the beginning of every editing session (except this one, of course) is patrol from the time of my last edit. If others did the same it would save me a lot of work. SemperBlotto 18:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • I usually only patrol my watchlist, which has 25,270 pages in it... (I thought there were more, but I guess not) — — 18:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Remember, if you see an é towards the end of a verb, it is probably an é-er verb, {{fr-conj-é-er}}. Thanks. --Rockpilot 10:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you define this? WP has Cyclol, which manages to use it only attributively. Equinox ◑ 20:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It's a proposed cyclic dipeptide. But the diagram in the Wikipedia article looks wrong (no loop!). I'll investigate. SemperBlotto 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the template for Wiktionary links is currently broken because of some Mediawiki update. This leads to all links going to capitalised words, which for most parts of the English language leads to no page, because of the Wiktionary redirect policy (which to me makes no sense, but this is not the place to discuss it).

I'm writing this on your User page to inform you of this fact, because it may lead more people than just me (see your delete on Wizard) to add redirects which do not follow policy.

On this I also want to state that blocking someone because of adding a redirect that does not follow policy, is not a good way to essentially greet people. I have read your statements about your views on 'disruptive' editing and they are, in my opinion, very self-centred. It is pretty harsh to essentially block someone from even arguing his case on a discussion page for such a minor mistake (breaking one of the myriad of rules).

One idea to alleviate this problem would maybe give the admins a way to send a user a message, which he has to read before continue editing. You wouldn't stop vandals, but for those you could still use the blocking mechanism as a second step.

Fiveop 16:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to the dictionaries dict.leo.org and dict.cc solid is one translation for deftig.

Since you are an native speaker of the English language and me being a native speaker of the German language, an explantion by me of the word should help you determine it by yourself, though. We use the word to describe salty (very seldom sweet) dishes which contain substantial amounts of meat, gravy, fat, fat heavy dairy products (e.g. melted cheese) as well as potatoes, rice or noodles. A green salad is not while a potato salad is a salad for which we would use that adjective. — This comment was unsigned.

• OK. I looked on de.wiktionary, but they haven't got it. My German is only at a tourist level (about babel 0.5). SemperBlotto 21:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff, March 7, 2010, it looks like you deleted my User:Joefaust page.

• 1. Is there a copy of what was on that page, please. Thanks.
• 2. I could not find a Help page explaining what can and cannot go on a User:____ page. Do you know of a help page for that kind of page. Thanks.

Joefaust 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page was just a link to joefaust.org. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is the policy page about user pages. - DaveRoss 03:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I made some slight modifications to give the Tarantino noun entries with links to their plurals a better appearance. Are you also going to focus on Sardinian? The latter is out of curiosity. (I don't know if I made a third party comment on the section about the Venetian Wiktionary, so I undid it. Will I be forgiven for that or not?) --Lo Ximiendo 19:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I'm having a go at all (well, most, not Etruscan and any others with strange alphabets) languages of Italy. I think we already have a reasonable number of Sardinian words, but I haven't investigated that yet. I am mixing this project with all my other more normal work. Any help is appreciated. I'm having problems finding the present subjunctive endings for regular Tarantino verbs (for example). SemperBlotto 21:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. I'm not planning on creating a Tarantino noun template - as most of these nouns seem to be invariant. SemperBlotto 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • p.p.s. In case you are interested, I'm using the Tarantino Wikipedia as my initial source. SemperBlotto 21:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can make a template that makes the word 'invariable' optional in it, if you want. I added English words to the Venetian Wiktionary egg. (Whee! I think it's a weird=interesting jargon word, saying that the Venetian Wiktionary Incubator is an egg.) --Lo Ximiendo 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this right? I based it on oligosilane. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• • Fine.

ketoaldehyde would be nice to have too. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 07:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping fix that, I wasn't sure on how it fit there but was sure it was a verb. Also how do you think I have been improving?Acdcrocks 09:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also did I do the quotes right at pornophobia I have an aweful time figuring it all out, even when I read the tutorials they make me dizzy, they are very long and convoluted.Acdcrocks 09:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Very much improved. I wouldn't worry too much about the detailed format of usage examples and citations - everybody seems to do it a bit differently. There are several "helpful" templates around - they all start "cite" (Go to "Special pages", then "All pages with prefix" then "Display pages with prefix" cite and choose the "Namespace" of Template. SemperBlotto 11:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I am glad you think so. Ahh I thought I noticed an inconsistency there. And a quick question. Like I said in the edit summary it may seem like glucose/fructose is bullshit but I say that is a spurious assumption, would you take it to AfD instead if you hate it that much? I added 4 or 5 references.Acdcrocks 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dick blocked me again but is ignoring the beer parlour decision, what should i do? (ACDC rocks)71.142.74.66 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to resolve being blocked, what should I do? Ric didn't apparently have to honor the BP discussion and he doesn't want to unblock me. I just want to contribute and be of help. But it seems the project is ill equipped at handling this sort of problem.71.142.74.66 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

From time to time I bump into perfectly good Finnish words, which you have deleted with statement "no usable content given". There probably wasn't, and I'm not criticizing those deletions per se. However, I would like to propose an alternative policy: when you find a badly written Finnish entry, notify me, and I will fix it up or ask for speedy deletion, if appropriate. Regards, --Hekaheka 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Mglovesfun suggested that my bot add sort keys to French entries and I undertook this task. However, I don't know when I'll be able to re-examine French categories and add again missing sort keys, so I wonder if you could put a sort key (manually) in your new French entries as well. --flyax 20:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Probably. Can you show me an example of one that has a missing sort key, and what it should have. Then I'll try to comply. SemperBlotto 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  An example: Instead of putting {{fr-adj|f=aérienne}} in aérien, we can write {{fr-adj|f=aérienne|sort=aerien}}. This way the entry will go after adverse in the "French adjectives" category. Otherwise it will go after azyme. The sort parameter should have only the 26 letters and spaces, no diacritics or other symbols. Hyphens (-) are replaced with spaces in the middle of a word. That's all I think. --flyax 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Roger wilco. SemperBlotto 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - should deep freeze be entered as an alternative form? The verb may be sum-of-parts, but the noun isnt. And the unhyphenated is the USUAL spelling —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 10:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Definitely for the noun. I couldn't find a verb usage in a quick look at Google books. SemperBlotto 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although I haven't edited here so much, I would like to get local rollback rights (I know that rollback tool is with reviewer rights, even if for me this is useless) to fight vandals, and it would help me through SWMT Irc channel. Anyway, if you want you can see my contributions on the English Wikipedia. I'm active as a rollbacker on simple.wp, pt.wp, en.wp, es.wp, en.wikibooks. I've already read your local policy as well. In any case I will respect your decision. Regards, --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC) PS: Posso parlarti anche in italiano? E forse anche in veneto (veneziano), giusto :)?Reply

• OK, you are now a rollbacker here. I didn't ask for a vote, so another sysop may take this attribute away if he thinks fit. We prefer all talk to be in English here - so that everyone can read and understand it (and join in). Cheers. SemperBlotto 18:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC) p.s. I have temporarily finished adding veneziano words and am now attempting tarantino (even more difficult than veneto as there are fewer speakers, and fewer texts).Reply

Thank you. No problem for what you told me.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 11:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could you let me know why you have blocked the anonymous user 71.66.97.228? I have known this anonymous contributor for quite some time. It's not 123abc, by the way and I can confirm that he/she edits in good faith.

See also: User_talk:71.66.97.228#Unblock_request --Anatoli 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It was a short block for the nonsense entry peen over.

Hi ... I went to see what wiktionary had under "wode" only to see that the page had been deleted twice. The first time having something to do with Chinese, the second time by you with no note. I don't know what was there that you deleted ... or why. However there needs be an entry for the English word "wode", in fact, etym. 2 under "wood" should just be moved there. Wode is the headword spelling for the meanings under etym 2. I'm more than willing to do the grunt work on it but not if you're going to delete it. The only reason that I'm hesitating is because I don't know if your deletion had anything to do with the meanings of "mad; insane; possessed; rabid; furious; frantic". If you tell me that the deletion had nothing to do with these meanings then I'll go ahead and create it. AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• This was the content of wode :-

==English==

"Thou told'st me they were stol'n into this wood,
and here I am, and wode within this wood,
Because I cannot meet with Hermia."
Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

===Verb===
{{en-verb}}

# Template:substub
#:'

I can't think of any reason why that should not have been deleted. SemperBlotto 07:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I have since added a simple definition. Feel free to expand and add quotes.

I have added wode#Middle English, meaning "wood", based on Websters 1911. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll work on it over the weekend so you'll likely see several small updates. Boss is coming to town today so much of my normally free time will be taken up. The issue with wode from ME is that both wood and would were often also spelled wode and wode was sometimes spelled as wood ... a befuddlement that is still with us. Wode and wood have separate etymologies. I'll fix it up so that it makes sense. Thanks DC for starting the ME section. Wode had a much broad meaning in ME, I'll embiggen that one too ... thanks to you both! AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 11:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jeff. I note your swift reversion of my TOCright in Polis. I don't ordinarily work on Wiktionary so I suppose your understanding of policy there is much better than mine. However that still leaves us with a general readability problem. If you look in any dictionary you will not be met there with a long and tedious table of contents. It seems to me this is a design flaw. I do not know what it takes to correct this flaw but I recommend that as you are a Wiktionary person of some experience you might undertake the task if that suits your inclination. I'll never do it as I have no plans to switch to Wiktionary at this point. No need to reply. I'm not contesting the reversion.Botteville 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Defn please. --Rockpilot 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 07:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

And basalioma too plz --Rockpilot 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jeff. I am a newbie here. I noticed that Wiktionary had an incorrect entry - http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/lamrin. The correct entry should have been Lamrim .I tried to edit the Lamrin page myself by adding a wikipedia link to it but I noticed that soon after you did the required changes by deleting the page Lamrin. I am simply amazed by the quick response. And I would like to thank you, and Wiktionary in general.(I hope editing a talk page is the proper way to talk with a user.I am new here, so still learning ). - Wikiophile 10:01 27 October 2011(UTC)

I don't have a wiktionary account, preferring to devote myself to wikipedia and wikibooks, but occasionally I find wiktionary useful, and when I look for a word and it is not there, I try to add it. I was thus disappointed that you deleted my addition of 'orei' the Japanese word for 'gratitude'. This word can be easily confirmed in countless places, so why would you choose to undo my contribution? — This comment was unsigned.

• No headword. No formatting. SemperBlotto 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would be more friendly to help a well meaning neophyte with such technicalities than to reject his good faith efforts. I will give you one last try.

SemperBlotto is right, Japanese Hiragana and Romaji should point to the kanji using {{ja-def}}. Your entry does not, so it's invalid. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. Was this supposed to be a Japanese word entry or a borrowed Japanese word that's been integrated in some texts into English? In other words, is this something English speakers can use, particularly in the context of Japanese setting? If so, there should be an entry under English spelling, with a reference to the Japanese original (aprime example of that is various sushi and other food terms that are used with varying frequency). As such entries are often contributed by non-speakers (or, at least, non-writers) of Japanese, it may be beyond the capacity of the contributor to create a corresponding Japanese entry. Under such circumstances, the proper procedure is to help, expand and fix, rather than delete. If, on the other hand, this is a word that has no integrated usage or is very rarely integrated, then the matter was handled properly, if brusquely. We seem to have developed a class of individuals who are self-appointed policemen of Wiki procedures. Such attitudes are unhelpful, if not harmful, in the development of Wikimedia. I can understand the frustration of dealing with neophytes alongside vandals and fraudsters, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note that I am making no judgment about the article in question. But, having crossed paths with both of the above-signed experts in the past, largely over the same issues, I have to question the propriety of rash drastic actions. Violation of procedure is not the same as violation of a specific policy. It is policy violations that deserve deletion, blocking, etc. Edit more, delete less--otherwise, the whole purpose of the enterprise has gone to pot. On the other hand, I can't really condone the other user remaining fully anonymous--it's not particularly hard to create a universal personality for all Wiki properties, including Wiktionary. Alex.deWitte 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

'Drastic' is much too strong; something like this can be repaired in less than a minute if the kanji is known. There was an attempt to communicate with the editor in question, just the editor decline such communication. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

rofl, i'm a dumbass sorry. damn capitols and lowercase.Acdcrocks 08:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I added some new quotations that really fit the bill, If I can get you to look them over and reevaluate your stance I would be in your debt. I LOOOOOVE this word to death, always makes me LMAO and I have now properly attested it, so hopefully I can satisfy your scrutiny. Also Happy Halloween.Acdcrocks 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Much better - now I understand what it means. And no, I don't celebrate Halloween - stupid American thing. SemperBlotto 10:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Sweet, glad you approve. Like I said its one of my favorite words ever since I saw the movie Rat Race and a girl was forced to prairie dog out her family car's window because they didn't want to stop the car, she ends up crapping on a cop. I'll have to wish you a happy devil's night or guy fawkes instead then.Lucifer 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious ... I had entered this as "disease modifying drug" as this is how the phrase appears in the source text (2011) I had in hand. Though this might not be proper english syntax, it is the form appearing in the source text. Should we not be representing what is rather than what should be? Also, if the source text contains the non-hyphen form, I don't agree with suppressing the redirect, even if it is decided that the hyphenated form should be the proper entry. Thanks for putting me straight on my understanding. --Ceyockey 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I had a quick look at Google, and most usages had the hyphen (that's why I moved it). I have now added the unhyphenated form as an "alternative form". SemperBlotto 19:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto

how could I add this source to the Kurdish entries?Could you help me?--George Animal 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I don't speak the language. You will have to add them one-at-a-time manually. To make it easier, you could copy it into a personal sandbox, and wikify the Kurdish words - see User:SemperBlotto/sandbox as an example (many people do this). SemperBlotto 11:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for notice. I have switched over to the "part of speech" from the russian "часть речи." Cuaxdon 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SemperBlotto for adding the English noun form of ventile!!! That was amazingly responsive.

I have appreciated you diligent and extensive efforts on Wiktionary over the past several years, as I have only occasionally contributed to Wiktionary, but greatly benefited from using Wiktionary. (I contribute quite a bit on Wikipedia.) Keep up the great work. This bottom-up work by myriad people is really building something of significance. Best. N2e 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

FYI, there's a comment over at Talk:fierce concerning your reversion of User:Dajagr's edit adding something fierce as a derived term. --Yair rand 02:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that 71.66.97.228 is blocked again. What prompted you to block them? Your block comment just says "Disruptive edits: repeat offence (multiple)", but I went through their recent contributions back to 3 Nov, about 150 or so but skipping Talk pages, and I saw nothing disruptive and nothing that would clearly merit blocking. I didn't even see anything that you'd changed. I can vouch for this user's good faith and usefulness; they've added a number of good terms (mostly in Mandarin of late), and have expanded on, fixed, and otherwise caught a number of issues on existing entries. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Eirikr, did you look at Special:DeletedContributions/71.66.97.228? --Yair rand 17:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was for constantly adding talk pages to non-existent categories, asking them to be undeleted. I'm pretty sure the situation was explained to him by someone else. I'll unblock him and see what happens. SemperBlotto 17:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

@ Yair rand -- thank you, I didn't know that existed. Still learning what features exist and where they all are.  :)

@ SemperBlotto -- Cheers, I'll drop a line on 71's Talk page clarifying that he shouldn't do that, just in case that was missed or forgotten. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talk:madedoras why did you delete?Lucifer 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because the word it was talking about had been deleted. It would have been an orphan talk page. SemperBlotto 22:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Info gone with "madedoras" talk page. Lucifer, unable/unaware about transferring pages or letting others do it? --87.217.184.204 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I made a mistake. All the forms should be with 2 Rs instead 2 Ds: maderero, madereros, maderera & madereras. They derive from madera, not *madeda. --87.217.184.204 22:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you QDed podunk with the reason "nah!". Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason for quick deletion. Please restore it; and RfD it or RfV it with a better reason than "nah" Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It had a crap "definition", and the example sentence was for Podunk. You'll have to do better than that. SemperBlotto 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You need to stop being so condescending. I see that this is not the first time you've bitten less experienced editors. And how is it crappy? It's quite similar to Podunk; except an adjective instead of a noun Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't advise being bossy with SB. Just try to edit better instead of getting mad when someone undoes your work. — — 20:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Blotto ain't above the rules... Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no rule against condescension. The fact remains that you've been here long enough that you should have enough experience to write a decent definition. What you wrote for podunk didn't even make sense. Just don't be so hasty, yeah? — — 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF...and I fixed it now, and added three quotations, and have more on the way Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not Wikipedia, dood. — — 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It still has good faith...and it's still inappropriate to just say "nah!" when QDing an article Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is this also a verb in Italian? --Rockpilot 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. It is a very rare synonym for costellare. It also has some some of nautical meaning, but I can't quite figure it out (yet). SemperBlotto 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not edit Wiktionary except when I have seen omissions in which case I add words, or if I see mistakes, I correct them. My understanding is that it os OKAY for a wiki to have small errors because they can be easily fixed.

When I spot my 'own errors I fix them. When I spot others' errors, I fix them. I would not want an Admin to delete something if it just needed a small fix. This is how wikis work. Your actions just make life more difficult because by deleting an entry completely the dictionary is now missing information that was only slightly inccorrect. I really do not understand your actions. Would you please reinstate the delted article or would you prefer that I make a formal complaint about you?

I guess you're not referring to your deleted entry 'plokata' as that had more errors than correct content. So what are you referring to?

I am indeed referring to 'plokata'. Reinstate it please.

On the left of each entry there is a place for submitting anonymous feedback about the entry including "mistake in definition". Why not use that?? By deleting it you have made Wiktionary less useful.

How could allowing everyone to edit produce a high‐quality product instead of total disorder? Because most people want to help, and keeping it open to everyone creates the potential for making many good and ever-improving entries. Records are kept of all changes, so even unhelpful edits can easily be reverted by other users. To use a now‐famous catchphrase, in essence: “Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow.” (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Welcome,_newcomers)

While the information below may represent some kind of "standard" form, it is not a set of rigid rules. You may experiment with deviations, but other editors may find those deviations unacceptable, and revert those changes. They have just as much right to do that as you have to make them. Be ready to discuss those changes. If you want your way accepted, you have to make the case for that. Unless there is a good reason for deviating, the standard should be presumed correct. Refusing to discuss, or engaging in edit wars may also affect your credibility in other unrelated areas. (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained)

in practice, I was not experimenting but accidentally used the wrong template.

The correct route for an entry with errors is to revert and not delete. Unless that is you can prove to me otherwise.~~

This seems like a bad topic to make a big moral stand on. For one thing it's a dictionary website, not an essay on human rights. Secondly, there was no version to revert to. It also seems fair to me to delete and entry which is more than 50% made up of errors. Don't forget not all administrators speak Finnish, so the fact you put ===Noun=== the defined it as a verb, a non-Finnish speaker won't know which one is wrong and which is correct. I'd say just take it like an adult, you messed up, say 'sorry' and move on to something else. Why must users persistently criticize others for their own mistakes. You won't see me complaining on your talk page every time I make a typo. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because the admins are extremely rude and smug here, no offense, but this wiki is operated with a far lower standard of civility and friendliness than every other I have ever encountered. The creation of a {{intro}} template that spelled out very quickly, that the culture of wiktionary is different would be very helpful in avoiding a lot of baseless needless talk paging and would foster far greater understanding, it should spell out clearly "people here do cuss, admins here do get away with more, deletions are merciless because this wiki doesn't build on errors, it adds more context but only if the most basic version of an entry is both CFI and perfectly formatted if not it will be deleted, don't take people telling you to stop whining or asking you to say sorry too seriously, they are trying to help, most just lack the proper social skills to get it across to every idiot that stumbles upon this other wiki unwittingly. And don't bitch at admins, you are not equal nor held to the same standards as them here, they get territorial and will block you, blocking is very common here, there is no due process, its not as serious or as long lasting as it is at wikipedia, but it is common and there are no warnings." That would have really really helped me.Lucifer 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'd like an explanation on your revert. Thanks. Freewol 17:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. It just didn't seem right. I subsequently checked it but was distracted before I could reinstate it. SemperBlotto 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer. Freewol 12:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is a SOP issue or that it has to be cited? It has a wikipedia article and is an anatomical part. Does the quotations I added fix it or am I missing the issue?Lucifer 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Click on the wikipedia link you added. — — 22:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed your link so that it points to the Spanish Wikipedia - where the term is a redirect to my own suggestion of barbilla partida. SemperBlotto 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for teaching me that, I wasn't sure how to fix that, and was pretty sure if I added es somewhere it would just be a redlinked template:something or other, was still trying to find the right place to look that up, should I just ask at the information desk in the future and leave it blank til I can put it in right? Thanks for making barbilla partida, I was kinda tired and didn't want to create every synonym at the time, in my dialect we would say barba partida is all.Lucifer 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

i need you to block this account please. For infinity please. Thanks. --Rockpilot 10:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Stumbled across these (probably toxic) mouthfuls recently: tetrachlorocuprate and tetracyanocuprate. Could you create entries, please? Equinox ◑ 22:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Haven't researched their significance. SemperBlotto 22:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I assume there's a typo in your code somewhere. Can you fix these? If not I can do it in not much more than a minute. Thanks. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I've fixed the code (looks like I was trying to do a "find" but typed in the wrong place). If you can fix it automagically, that would save me time. Cheers. SemperBlotto 08:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  •  Done, Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Well done. SemperBlotto 13:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

can I know why my user page is deleted ? the reason described there related to dictionary and a user page may not a dictionary word. Jnanaranjan sahu 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Jnanaranjan sahuReply

• You haven't made any contributions. It will probably be deleted again if you don't - why would you want a user page if you are not a user? SemperBlotto 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, which was the source for dissesus? I am struggling to see how the intransitive definitions on dissideo translate into having a perfect passive participle, unless it is some later Latin feature. The templates used on verbs are all wrong (including ones that I have used); {{la-conj-1st-pass3p}} should be used for intransitive verbs that have no transitive meaning but have these impersonal passive forms (surely this is limited to the singular 3rd-person passive forms only?); but if a transitive verb seems to only have 3rd-person passive forms, then the case is different. To be honest, one could get away with just {{la-conj-1st}} with this message again, "This verb has only limited passive conjugation; only third-person passive forms are attested in surviving sources." At the moment, there doesn't seem to any consistency. It is nice to see that you corrected {{la-conj-2nd-noperf}} template a while ago, as it was being used with verbs that have no passive; though, then again shouldn't there be two templates, one with passive endings (for those transitive words) and one without? Again, this wouldn't be consistent at all because some verbs have very few attested forms, but we still just use the {{la-conj-1st}} template for example. The reason behind templates like {{la-conj-2nd-noperf}} was only because dictionaries and L&S deliberately missed out principle parts, and on googlebooks, I or someone else could not find any examples of forms using the 3rd and/or 4th principal parts. Caladon 18:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I have always thought that our range of Latin verb templates were rubbish. But I'm only an la-1 so I just keep my head down. I am only adding words that I come across in the literature (for the past couple of months Cicero (who probably spoke and wrote decent Latin)). When reality conflicts with our templates I assume that our templates are wrong. (See Robert.Baruch‎'s talk page for a recent example). SemperBlotto 18:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. I have rolled back the change to "dissideo". It was not necessary for the word I was adding. I'll clean up later. SemperBlotto 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

So one mistake edit as an IP warrants a block? Interesting. --Allen 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlotto,

I was introduced by a wise gent to an enthusiastic Cambridge fellow and lexicographer (and metalexicographer!), who wants to learn more about Wiktionary's current work and future plans, to consider ways to help the project. I pointed her in your direction and userpage. She may be as interested in the polyglot pan-wiktionary efforts as those on en:wikt. Feel free to redirect as seems best.

Warmly, +sj + 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Deleting pages because they have small errors is counter-productive and frankly bullying. Message me about them or fix them yourself. Reference häftig and cool Teemu Milto 12:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Small errors such as not having a definition? You consider definitions 'minor' in the context of a dictionary? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now look at what you have done to lake. It no longer has a definition/translation. Either fix it, or I shall roll it back. SemperBlotto 13:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Teemu understands how wiktionary works. I think he thinks the l2 headers are for translations. "Lake" in Swedish is sjö, but the Swedish word "lake" is some sort of fish. I'm going to try to look through his other edits now. — — 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. Could you remove my flag of rollbacker (and autopatrolled too), please; under my request? Thanks.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done (though I don't know why). SemperBlotto 13:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello SB. there's a genetics meaning of deletion. Can I ask you to add something please? The French translation for that is délétion --Simplus2 17:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 08:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

thanks for finding out the origin of apgar, I didn't want to guess and since she was American I put that in. I will say though, that "blackfoot", "rainwater", and "freedom" or "freeman" are very much American last names and that they do exist.Lucifer 09:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

first-person singular active indicative perfect form of ferō? I think not, somehow. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• According to Lewis and Short such reduplicated forms exist in the perfect. I found this one in Catullus. SemperBlotto 10:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh fair enough then! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nemo edited πλεύμων#Descendants and some supportive x-templates 11:27 - 11:36.

??? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

why not x-templates??? --nemo 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SemperBlotto said "They are going to get deleted if you don't tell us what they are for. SemperBlotto 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)"

Is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mglovesfun deleted all my edits 11:52.

Remind me again why you're not indef blocked for intimidating behavior/harassment? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nemo wonders why they were deleted so early, earlier than I could tell you "what they are for." Were you really waiting for my answer? --nemo 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your answer! -- Liliana • 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Me too! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There was an edit conflict. So gone was my answer "They are used in πλεύμων#Descendants" (sic) which was deleted by Mglovesfun 11:52. The reason was self-evident there. --nemo 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

can i get your input on the talk there, i was copying a similar phraseLucifer 09:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just started a discussion on BP and would really like to know your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. – Krun 18:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure?

Audio:

(file)

Lucifer 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Many of your "rhymes" are wrong. Words rhyme if the stress is on the same syllable (counting from the end) and they sound the same from that syllable to the end. SemperBlotto 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Just to clarify: ...and they sound the same from the vowel of that syllable to the end. Not from the onset of the syllable. (This, for English, natch.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi SB. Are Italian months countable? I recently made a plural month, and looked at other Italian months here, some tagged uncountable some with plurals --Simplus2 15:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, they are. (but I'll investigate them all individually) SemperBlotto 15:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • All done. Plurals botified. SemperBlotto 15:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Latin mille is not a third declension I-stem; it is irregular and indeclinable in the singular. It is also an adjective in the singular, but a noun in the plural. --EncycloPetey 03:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The spelling mīllia is just an alternative spelling of mīlia. The part of speech header should probably say "Numeral" to match the lemma, even though it is functionally a noun. Your edit unfortunately added lots of incorrect singular forms; the singular is indeclinable. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on the top 100 list! I noticed a few entries being created earlier but now it's really encouraging to see so many entries. I'm just going to remove completed entries manually for now (it's a bit of a process to automate updates).

Sorry if the yellow highlighting is a bit distracting. I didn't expect so many to be used by threatened species.

Thanks again! And let me know if there's anything you think I could do that would help you with creating new entires. Pengo 22:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will you please reconsider this edit:

14:53, 14 December 2011 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted "zelig" ‎(Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI)

in light of, for example, , and . 75.241.244.129 01:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No other dictionary has an entry for zelig. We have an entry for Zelig. SemperBlotto 08:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

By "we have an entry" you evidently mean "I just added an entry." In other words, the only problem with my creation of a "zelig" entry was that it wasn't capitalized. Had you, as they do in Wikipedia, tagged the word for deletion and given me a chance to argue for its retention then I would have come away from this experience with a much warmer and fuzzier feeling toward Wiktionary. As it is, your rash deletion of my entry - and failure to apologize for it - makes me less likely to contribute to this site in the future. 75.207.204.157 13:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I find the word braget used at s:Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/339 (end of the first paragraph) to me what seems to be a colour, though it doesn't fit in with our definitions. If you could help to fill that gap, I would appreciate it. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• All Google hits for "braget cat" are for that same text. "braget dog" etc. gives zero hits. It is either some use of the surname Braget or else the author just used the wrong word (in which case - what did he mean?) SemperBlotto 14:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. Nothing in the OED. SemperBlotto 14:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems right. A botany guide defines apiculatus as "Abrupt, short point". And there's a "Pointedtip mariposa lily" (Calochortus apiculatus) though I couldn't find any other obvious common names. The closest to anything bee-like was a wasp species (Anoplius apiculatus). A plant called "bee sage" is called Salvia apiana (not apiculata). (and Bee balm is Monarda didyma). The only reference to bees I could find is a couple of plants are listed as "honey plants": Luma apiculata (Shortleaf Stopper) and Vernonia apiculata. But that's a pretty long bow to draw. So virtually all the evidence I can find points to hat/pointed. Pengo 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Small-eyed whiting (Sillago microps), Small Eyed Sleeper (Prionobutis microps), Small-eyed ray (Dasyatis microps), Smalleye cat shark (Apristurus microps), Smalleye moray cod (Muraenolepis microps)... Pengo 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can I please ask why you reverted my edits on bawbag? Dontforgetthisone 04:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• "Northern Ireland" is not a language. Did you mean to add a usage note? SemperBlotto 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff, merry Christmas. I just added this adjective -- from Google Books it looks like there's also a noun use in chemistry, are you able to add it? Cheers. Ƿidsiþ 12:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Added. SemperBlotto 13:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff. Can I request 7 Latin entries to tidy up? The ones in Category:Tbot entries (Latin). Then we can delete Category:Tbot entries (Latin). Thanks --Simplus2 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you're creating entries for the names of diseases and parasites, can I suggest having a look at the organisms behind the neglected diseases? Pengo 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Why did you remove biasemote from the Wanted entries? Longtrend 17:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• No such word. Probably typing error for "bias" + "remote". SemperBlotto 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Doesn't seem too unlikely to me that it's a word in some language, though. Longtrend 18:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I believe that you are incorrect. Feel free to prove me wrong by adding a definition. SemperBlotto 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Caladon/Latin worklist could be of interest to you if you ever run out of interesting Latin words to add. I have created the list for Caladon, but he does not seem to be too enthusiastic about it. It is a list of Latin terms referred to from etymologies that were redlinked at some point, but many of them are now bluelinked, mostly thanks to your monumental efforts in Latin. Some of the terms may be incorrect, depending on the correctness of the etymologies from which the terms are sourced. --Dan Polansky 12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. I'll use that in combination with Pengo's lists. SemperBlotto 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did try and work away at the list some time in June, but I haven't been very active since then. Caladon 12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There seems to me to be a lot of rubbish in here. Maybe we should use it to correct lots of bad etymology sections instead. SemperBlotto 08:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean: more than half of the listed words do not have a lemma entry in Lewis and Short. I have added a list of those words that do have a lemma entry in Lewis and Short to the page User:Caladon/Latin worklist; these are 359 words. I checked the list against Lewis and Short online using a script that I have posted to my talk page, in case anyone's interested. --Dan Polansky 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm on to it. I use similar code to yours for other things - but mine looks more like spaghhetti code and I won't publish it. SemperBlotto 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

At a quick glance, I can see why some of the words wouldn't have a Lewis & Short entry. Some of them are participles (or forms of participles), and so wouldn't necessarily have a lemma entry. There are also a few post-Classical words I spotted, such as the Latin for "alchemy", which was introduced into Latin only after Arabic texts were translated in medieval Spain. So, at least some of the "garbage" consists of words that would not have a lemma form in L&S, and some Late Latin or medieval Latin. There is still going to be garbage in there, but L&S don't have everything. --EncycloPetey 17:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we'll have a second pass later. There may also be a few false negatives as L&S sometimes have two pages for two meanings of a word - and append "1", "2" etc to the web pagename. SemperBlotto 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply