Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:SemperBlotto/2013. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:SemperBlotto/2013, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:SemperBlotto/2013 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:SemperBlotto/2013 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:SemperBlotto/2013 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:SemperBlotto/2013, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
user:Venomxx, currently blocked indefinitely by you, has asked me on my enwp talk page to request you to unblock them. It was me who gave them the first welcome message there and had discussions with each other. I have been watching their contributions their. I also saw their discussions here with the user who gave them the welcome message here.
Though their initial edits were unconstructive, I don't think that this user is a troll. Could you please consider unblocking them as they are just unfamiliar with the policies. This user can be a potential good faith editor. It would be great if someone can adopt them. Regards. (edited from mobile)VanischenumTalk17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can't see any evidence that this was ever created or deleted. Also please don't start a new section in the middle of an earlier one. I have moved this to the end. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
An Appeal
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
My new user page was deleted by you, SemperBlotto, with a note suggesting that I have not contributed and that I must first contribute before getting a user page. Please be advised that I have used the dictionary considerably and I especially like the Greek and Latin etymology. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time while using the user name RCNesland. Although I have not left notes with Wiktionary I believe I am elgeble to have a user page here. When I enter Wiktionary, my user name appears in red towards the right at the top of the page. When I click it it opens the Create Page on Wiktionary. I suggest that you undo the delete on my user page. I do not want to act counter to you. Sincerely; RCNesland RCNesland (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The purpose of a User page on Wiktionary is to allow a contributor to show what expertise he has, and to show what languages he speaks and to what level. Similarly, a User talk page is for other users to talk to a user about his contributions, or to ask questions about words that he might know about (because of the contents of his user page). So, if you haven't made any contributions, you don't need a user page, and it is unlikely that another user would have created your user talk page. Feel free to contribute! SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply. I will respect your wishes concerning the above. I am an avid student of Latin and here is a short poem.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Jeff, how's life? Good to see you still going strong here. I'm not returning, just posting to mention User:Primetime. Many of his edits and new entries are still unchanged after six years. Things like xanthism were blatant copyvios from Merriam Websters. Regards, — Vildricianus04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. There is so much to do that I can't do it all. I much prefer adding new material to cleaning up old rubbish. If Merriam Webster haven't complained after six years then they probably don't care. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can see two hits on Google books. Maybe it's a protologism. The definition was fairly rubbish anyway. Maybe it will come back in the future. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
German
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The German words that I am contemplating adding are now in my sandbox. You might like to add any that you think I will have trouble with. I have no current plans to tackle Asturian. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC) - p.s. Because they were scraped from a website, some capitalisation will be wrong.Reply
I find it quite unpredictable which words you're going to mess up. No entries are better than bad entries. I am relatively certain that you would have blocked someone with a comparable number of bad entries in a language familiar to you but ... I simply won't look at your entries any more: You know your error rate and you cannot expect people to clean up after you. It is standard practice to discourage people from editing in a language they are not familiar with, I tried and failed. -- Gauss (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Would you mind reading edit summaries before reverting my corrections of your errors? That way it would not be necessary to correct your mistakes twice. Thank you. -- Gauss (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Def
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
By the way, I think your systematic approach is going to significantly boost the presence of German in English Wiktionary, which is great. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
My biggest problem, in any language, is poor eyesight. In German, particularly, I sometimes miss those two little dots over some vowels (there's probably a word for them). My method, in case you were wondering, is the same in any language. I find some fairly large text (in this case the German Wikipedia page for hydrogen) and wikify all the words - I then sort all red links. Normally I ignore capitalised words, but can't do that for German. Loads more to come. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
"I find some fairly large text ... sort all red links.": I thought so. I think it is a great method. It justifies all those inflected-form pages, to me anyway.
Regarding declension tables... If you're not sure what the inflection is, you can add {{rfinfl}} to the entry. For example {{rfinfl|de|noun}} will put the entry in a category so that other editors know it still needs a declension table. —CodeCat13:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Probably. The sentence I extracted was :- In der Raumfahrt kühlt flüssiges Helium Infrarotteleskope und die hochempfindlichen Infrarotkameras in Weltraumteleskopen, die nur nahe dem Absoluten Nullpunkt ohne zu stark störende Eigenwärme arbeiten können.
I don't know how to correct it though as I'm not that good with German. But in Dutch eigenwarmte means "one's own heat" which could be both body heat and just heat in general generated from within. For example the word could be used to refer to geothermal heat generated by the Earth, as opposed to heat radiated from the sun. —CodeCat17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am not writing nonsense, the linguist Henry Allan Gleason gave this as an example to illustrate the fact that such invented plurals have little chance to be adopted by most speakers. 81.185.159.4020:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Italian term "assuefazione" does not mean either "habit" nor "addiction".
It denotes the acquisition of tolerance to the effects of something, typically (but not necessarily) a drug. You can become "assuefatto" to praise for instance, in case you receive so much of it that you become 'desensitized' to it.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You might want to check out these newspaper links, for instance, for various articles that have used a superfluity as a plural of nuns. using a similar search will reveal a similar number of uses for the other terms i added. i checked carefully before doing so, to avoid nonsense terms. hope this is satisfactory:
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This is a message to inform you that the options in this vote were modified after you cast your vote, and it is now possible to oppose a certain favicon. Your input is welcome in my honest attempts to have this vote best convey the community's wishes and, of course, to avoid allegations of holding a fraudulent vote. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds02:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hello you. WP links this word to two compounds: 4-methylumbelliferone (hymecromone) and 7-O-methylumbelliferone (herniarin), the latter described as a "methoxy analogue of umbelliferone". So what is a methylumbelliferone in general? There might also be methoxyumbelliferone but I see precious little in Google Books. Equinox◑03:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
(If I may answer too?) The number in front is the number of the carbon atom that the "methyl" subgroup is attached to. So if you look at it collectively, you have molecules with the same general structure, but with the subgroup in differing places. Presumably, they have similar properties to one another, but aren't quite identical. —CodeCat03:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Right, thanks. So how can we usefully define this? e.g. "An umbelliferone with a methyl subgroup attached to a (specified?) carbon atom"? As you are probably aware, I'm no chemist; I just like words. Equinox◑03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We already have an entry for umbelliferone, and the Wikipedia article about it says that it's the name of a specific compound. So methylumbelliferone would be a new compound (technically a class of compounds), derived from it by attaching a methyl group somewhere. See w:Umbelliferone#Derivatives of umbelliferone for more. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it would be an idiomatic word, because methyl- is a regular prefix in chemistry and has a predictable meaning. —CodeCat03:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We can include any that are attestable. In English, where there isn't a hyphen or space, it's not necessarily clear where the break is (at least in theory). Equinox◑03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The danger with that is that there may well be thousands of attestable combinations (especially since they tend to appear in papers and journals, which are durably archived!), all of which have perfectly predictable meanings within chemistry. For example, a chemist who has never heard of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane can nonetheless reconstruct the exact molecule from the word. —CodeCat03:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm not sure it's within our remit to include forms with numbers (like your 2,2,4). If there's a legit word for a chemical compound and it happens to be very long and made up of lots of methyls and nitros then I don't see that we should discriminate against it. Equinox◑03:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The numbers are part of the name, though. Without the numbers it's not a complete name, a bit like saying Washington but not saying whether you mean D.C. or the state, or saying only your street in an address but not the house number. I still don't think it is idiomatic. Our sense of idiomaticity is generally whether something can be understood from the parts. In chemistry, umbelliferone is idiomatic, but methylumbelliferone is not, because a chemist who knows methyl (which every chemist will!) and umbelliferone will know what methylumbelliferone is. So I don't think such combinations should be included unless they are ambiguous but refer implicitly to one specific type, in the same way that fried egg refers to an egg fried in a particular way, not an egg that is fried in general. Alternatively, if we can find attestations outside the field of chemistry, I think they could be included, but not within chemistry. —CodeCat03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK (having finally woken up). Personally, I don't like including chemical terms with numbers and/or Greek letters. In this case, I would define it as "Any of several methyl derivatives of umbelliferone.". To a chemist, it is definitely sum of parts but, unlike (deprecated template usage)ethyl acetate and the like , it is a single word - so is allowable. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good lord, you are regular as clockwork. I have often seen you vanish at 23:00 but I have rarely been around at 08:00 to see your reappearance. Anyway please create this entry before any maniacal decisions are made about numerical formulae. Equinox◑08:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
A few years back, your bot created entries for all of this verb's inflected forms (see Special:WhatLinksHere/annuuntio); but since the lemma entry is still a redlink, they're not very useful yet. So, when you have a chance, could you create the lemma entry as well?
Yup. All of them are mistakes and wholly unattested, including excambio. (This is an unexpected benefit of WantedPages!) I just zapped the *emuniio forms, but it's rather tedious, so if you have a faster way of killing all these off, I'd really appreciate it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds06:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was recently looking at posco, and I noticed it's listed without passive forms. This is incorrect; see Seneca's Thyestes, 242-43: "Tantalum et Pelopem aspice; / ad haec manus exempla poscuntur meae." So it may not have all the passive forms, but it certainly has some. I'm not familiar enough with the Latin templates to know how to fix this, though. Could you help out? Thanks! --Jtle515 (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi SemperBlotto. I checked some of your recent German entries and I found several wrong genitives or plurals. If you are not a native speaker, you might want to check some sources before adding an entry, for example --Zeitlupe (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You created a large number of entries for German compound words recently. Please note that in German, compound words are used very frequently but as far as I understand the consensus has been so far that not every compound word meets the criteria for inclusion (this is how all German dictionaries handle it, otherwise there would be an exponential explosion of entries because you can build new compound words from almost any components). For example Ernährungssicherung ("food security") has no additional meaning that cannot be derived from the components and therefore should not have an entry as well as the English word "food security" does not meet the criteria for inclusion. --Zeitlupe (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I only add words that I come across in the real world (well, German Wikipedia). Our criteria is very different from other dictionaries - "all words in all languages". But, even so, I don't add all the compound words that I see - only the ones that have some sort of extra meaning, or that seem to be very frequent. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi SemperBlotto!
kinesthetic is used as an adjective of kinesthetics, kinesthesia, kinesthesis, kinaesthesia, kinaesthesis, ... (But is it a "related term"?)
kinaesthetics is ident with kinesthetics (only different orthography). I did not know where/how to add this, and so I put it in the "related terms" section.
kinaesthesiology and/or kinesthesiology are related terms (Synonyms?!) - composita of kineō & aisthēsis both with the same meaning like kinesthetics and kinaesthetics
"The ability to feel movements of the limbs and body. Referred by some people as the sixth sense." <<< This is the definition of kinesthesis but not of Kinesthetics!
This would be a definition for kinesthetics: "Kinesthetics is the study of body motion, and of the perception (both conscious and unconscious) of one's own body motions."
I think it's important to add these points, because the terms kinaesthesiology/kinesthesiology are often mixed-up with kinesiology
with best regards
Moveo ergo sum.
Well, I would say that all words that begin with "kinesth" or "kinaesth" must be related to each other. The two spellings of each word are "Alternative forms" - choose one as the main entry and add a ===Alternative forms=== section near the top. Define the other one as {{alternative form of|whatever}}. As to which ones are derived from any other would need research - which one was used first. I would not put a ====Related terms==== section in the alternative form's entry. Hope that helps. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suppose the -i- disappears before -gn- because /ɡi.ɲe/, /ɡi.ɲje/ are pretty much identical. My guess is it was guignier then the almost silent -i- got dropped. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, since this is a quite technical term, I thought maybe I'd bring it up with you directly.
The original listings for eutectoid refer to it as "of or pertaining to eutectic".
Speaking as a metallurgist, this to me is specifically wrong.
A eutectic reaction involves liquid freezing to two solids on cooling, while in a eutectoid reaction the liquid is replaced by a different solid phase.
The OED does not contain a definition matching the original, only the one I understand.
I have added definitions matching my understanding, but have not deleted the original just in case you can point to this other usage.--Alloy730 (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, in Google book search, I can see usages such as "the initial portions to freeze contained lamellar eutectoid and proeutectoid FeAl,", "The structure of steel on slow cooling changes into ferrite and pearlite for hypo eutectoid steel, pearlite for eutectoid steel and...". These usages seem to refer to the alloy/mixture, rather than to the reaction. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, I can understand how it could have been confusing, but these statements refer to the room temperature product of solid state (eutectoid) reaction at temperatures way below the liquid state. The "initial portions to freeze" is not describing what is happening as it is freezing, rather it is describing how we can use the final appearance at room temperature to infer which tiny volumes froze first. There does also happen to be a eutectic reaction in the Fe-C system, but the composition of this is such that it never occurs during solidification of steels. Unfortunately metallurgists often tend to use eutectoid and the related words like eutectic, peritectic, etc as nouns referring variously to:
the reaction itself,
the microscopic structure that results from the reaction, or
Well, who's to say that the present version is better? You could also just have moved and edited the article instead of deleting it, no? Sandstein (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, most of my problems were due to testing on the test Wiki - a strange environment where everything is different to our own one. But I should have spotted the missing cat. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Script errors
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, that was useful. It shows how good it is to have error checking in templates for the first time. I fixed all but one (a verb that will need a longer look) - tomorrow. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Your sandbox A-Z
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You probably got the idea, but having gradually "antiblued" your sandbox A-Z, I have filled in practically all of the entries that had articles on Wikipedia. The rest will be a bit trickier. Equinox◑22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Plural should still be in bold, shouldn't it? I'd imagine it's it-head that needs modifying. I've not looked into modules yet so to be honest I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The block in question was of Rexhammock (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), who created a user page with a link to the website of the company he owns. This struck me as spamming, so I deleted the page and blocked him permanently. Looking more closely at the text of the page, and at his one well-intentioned, but wrong, contribution, though, I think I over-reacted. The link to his own web-site was definitely inappropriate and the deletion was justified, but I'm not so sure it was intended as spam. I think I should shorten the block, but I'm not certain how much. I have no problem with publicly admitting when I make a mistake, so my only concern is doing this right. What would you advise? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
As an experiment, I have unblocked him. We can always block him again if he repeats his actions. (anyway, I'm sure he will never be an actual contributer) Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A lot of German nouns seem to be spelled the same way as their English equivalents but, are, of course capitalised. Please be sure to use {{also}} so that people who mistakenly enter the term capitalised in the search bar, thinking us to be Wikipedia, get slightly less confused. Thankee —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I remember to do this most of the time. I'm sure somebody clever could get a bot to do it though - there must be thousands missing (with and without accents etc). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hmm are you sure about this revert of yours? The edit looks fine to me, tho I am no wiktionarian and I wouldn't be surprised if the issue was right in front of me and I was missing it :D Cheers, SnowolfHow can I help?12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Anti-wiki automated reversions on -gasm
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The suffix page -gasm missed a link to its derived-terms category, so I added it (as well as a one-line example) with my complete addition provided as the edit summary:
The article for orgasm had no link to its own suffix -gasm, so just I added it with my complete addition as edit summary:
Mglovesfun already reverted the reversions. I kind of agree that you were out of line on this one Semper. I think your judgement may be clouded a bit when you see an IP making an edit to a sensitive term... —CodeCat14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, SemperBlotto. I have a question and (conditionally) a request. First, does Wiktionary "userfy" – that is, restore previously deleted pages in user space – the way Wikipedia sometimes does? The reason I ask is, Transwiki:List of Ainu terms was apparently deleted in 2009 because it duplicated w:List of Ainu terms, but the Wikipedia list is currently being discussed for deletion. I notice that there are red links to some Ainu words on Wiktionary, for example at father. It seems to me that these words fit Wiktionary's mandate rather than Wikipedia's.
Thus the request: Could you restore the old Transwiki to my user space? I would then be willing to work through the list and create pages for each term. I don't speak Ainu, but I work in Japan and I imagine I can find a Japanese-Ainu dictionary in my university's library. Barring that, what would you think about me asking Wikipedia admins to transwiki the page again? Thanks as always for your help. Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
If you look at diff, for some reason {{feminine of|calmo#Adjective|calmo}} doesn't work (but why?) Further problems, it's the feminine plural, and the #Adjective tag could lead to the wrong adjective section, calmo#Adjective actually leads to Galician. Anyway I'm sure you know all this, so basically, can SemperBlottoBot run through these? It should be doable by MglovesfunBot if not, as the syntax is pretty easy for a bot to spot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I thought you meant it was a bot problem - it's not. This was added manually by User:Barmar (no longer with us). I don't know how many others of this kind there are. You could probably fix it easier and much faster than I could. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I don't understand why you have delete this page so quickly. I'm doing a workshop with new editors and a participant see there was a probleme with her new article. I think it was because of an error on the language code, but we haven't had the time to fix it. Can you undelete it? Guillaume WA (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Some new editors make some mistakes and forget to use "Show preview", it is not a reason to delete their article before they have the time to fix it. Thank you for the undelete. Guillaume WA (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
English phrasal verb categories
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I've just created a category boilerplate template and have deployed it on the categories with particles beginning with a to make sure that it did what I wanted. Feel free to make any changes including the header you recommend - it would look better.
I was imagining that Lua/Scribunto could make it a little quicker by extracting the particle from the category name, but, on reflection, that doesn't seem worth it unless it is a simple practice program for someone. It might be useful to get some views from our phrasal verb contributors and advocates before bothering with much further deployment in case there is some significant and easy to implement further advantage to a Lua/Scribunto approach. I can't think of what that might be, but perhaps others can. DCDuringTALK16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you think that such categories would also be useful for Dutch and German? They are called separable verbs there, but they're the same thing. —CodeCat16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why English and Dutch would need to share the same name. If the community of students of a particular knowledge call something X, we seem to accommodate that usually, even with PoS names. Mutual 'see also' references at the top-level category, eg Category:Phrasal verbs, should be sufficient, no? DCDuringTALK17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am completely ignorant of Dutch grammar and have the most limited knowledge of German grammar. I have a limited understanding of linguistic theory. All I have a few grammar references and books on semantics and idioms, and nothing theoretical on phrasal verbs, even in English. I am very poorly positioned to opine. DCDuringTALK19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Etymologically, Dutch/German separable verbs are completely requivalent, and they may occasionally even be calqued from each other. For example, if I were to calque give up into Dutch I'd use opgeven. The only difference is really that English has a different syntax, where the placement of the adverb is more rigid. In both it may have intervening words too, but in Dutch it sometimes appears before and sometimes after the verb. —CodeCat20:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Without addressing the merits of the entry, "these examples" are the same article (word-for-word) posted at two different web sites. We only accept durably archived sources for evidence of use, and other dictionaries are nothing but circumstantial evidence as far as our Criteria for Inclusion are concerned, so your evidence probably adds up to nothing (depending on whether the Mother Jones article also appeared in print, in which case it would be one of the three citations needed). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Monddood
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Monddood does not equal dumbstruck (at least not as defined in the article itself), though the latter's meaning can be part of the former's. Mouthdead is much more a political term, used when harrassment or procedures or accusation are used to make someone unable to voice their vision, now or ever. Not necessarily because they themselves are shocked, but because they've lost credibility or physically ("cut the camera") are made unable to make themselves heard. 145.74.117.6012:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am aware of that. I couldn't find any guide on what to do if a non-English word (seemingly) has no English equivalent (I also wish to create a page for karaktermoord - "charactermurder" which faces the same problem), so I tried something that seemed good and could be easily fixed if not. Is there a guideline for this problem? 145.74.117.6012:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was rewriting the sentence as per the example on volksmond when you edited, so sorry for that mess-up. And I'll fix the description. Also, thanks for the heads up on character assassination! 145.74.117.6012:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Italian corpus
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed recently that a lot of the words in Dante are redlinks here, especially apocopic forms and other poetic oddities. As a well-known work, everything in Dante passes the CFI, so if you are indeed back to Italian as your recent contribs suggest, you might be interested in working through the Inferno, perhaps. Grazie mille! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I saw your Hmm - I'll raise you a ho hum. I'm correcting them now. They are all from Dante's Inferno - and there are loads to come (and very boring it is). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
eindampft
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, can you please delete eindampft and all its derived forms? They don't exist. The actual past participle (and adjective) of eindampfen is eingedampft. (BTW, the form eindampftdoes exist, however only as a finite form: it's the 3rd person singular/2nd person plural present indicative form of eindampfen in subclauses.) Longtrend (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If I may butt in— Wiktionary has stricter policies on userpages that many other wikis (e.g., most userboxes are banned), and some Wiktionarians prefer that newcomers contribute to the project before creating userpages. SemperBlotto is the most prolific patroller of Recent Changes, and your userpage had exactly the same form as those that spambots have been creating lately, namely, "personal details, and a link said to be the user's home page". The deletion was, therefore, probably either an honest mistake, or a conscious enforcement of the (far from unanimously agreed-to, but not totally-out-of-line) guideline that people should edit the project first before setting up userpages. I've restored the old revision of your page for you. - -sche(discuss)06:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, glad to hear it wasn't malicious! I've contributed to Wiktionary in the past but I have a new account. I definitely understand the need to fight spam; I put a link to my Wikiversity profile (where I am currently most active), and my external homepage has a .edu domain which is a controlled domain (only available to individuals at accredited educational institutions) so shouldn't have raised any flags. Though I would think it better for users to create userpages before making edits so that way other users can see their information or credentials if the edits seem controversial. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
deleting my page?
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi SemperBlotto,
I am wondering why you deleted the gumby page '07:25, 31 March 2013 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page gumby (totally wrong)'.
I don't know why you have said it is "totally wrong" (I put references in etc). What is your reasoning here? I am not sure where you live, but where I live, this term is frequently used (usually by the younger generation) as an alternative to 'idiot'. Can you explain why exactly you took this page off?
Pluto888 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
You said it was an adjective, but all your example sentences used it as a noun. You said the comparative was gumbyer; this is highly unlikely - I should expect it to be gumbier. You gave three so-called definitions that were nothing of the kind (look at a dictionary to see what a definition actually looks like). I thought it was not worth correcting, so deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi...ohhh okay, I see...I actually copied a template in from another page because I wasn't sre of the format and I forgot to change a few things...and I have no idea why the comparative things etc came up. Definitions in dictionaried come up differently for each...some don't feature the etymology etc, and slang words tend to have short, simple definitions ??? Pluto888 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
coy
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, just noticed that you reverted my edit on the page coy, where I added the sense of 'coy' as being an abbreviation of 'company'. Was this an accident, or did I make some sort of mistake? Thanks. 203.208.102.16513:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi SemperBlotto. I'm feeling a bit discouraged over the RFV regarding sheng nu. You and two others had talked about "conveying meaning" and "use-mention distinction" so I changed it to Chinese. It was reverted and I was met with, "Ugh I changed it back to English... Are you trying to getting this entry speedily deleted? I reverted and removed the Chinese characters because English doesn't use Chinese characters." I was a little surprised that this was an administrator talking to me, especially someone who openly acknowledged they were a newcomer and unfamiliar with the procedures. The Chinese characters were eventually added back with out incident. I was told by another administrator that my contributions "Seems like POV pushing." Despite having added numerous references prior to that comment being made. The same admin used the rollback tool to revert my edits, something the Wikimedia foundation classifies as an advanced tool used to revert "obvious vandalism". Feeling like every edit I make is wrong, and that I have some sort of radical agenda associated with it, and I'm reverted as a vandal, while others make contrasting edits to the discussion with out being reverted. Obviously I'm trying to not take it personally, but I think any person who's been trying to genuinely contribute, who has been a long-time experienced Wikipedia editor, would know enough and recognize the situation as frustrating. Mkdw (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is quite simple really. You need to show that this is a term in some language. Obviously it is not Chinese, because Chinese does not use the Latin alphabet. So you need to show that it is English. All you need to do is to provide some usages in English language texts that use the term naturally, just like they would use the word "cat" or "maiden aunt" etc - i.e. in simple text (not in quotes, italics etc) and without an accompanying definition or description of what the term means. I would recommend adding a citations page (or using inline citations), rather than a list of references - so that people don't have to follow lots of different links to see the text. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The sentence "Over the past few years, China’s government and media have expressed growing concern over the phenomenon of the sheng nu – literally, “leftover women” – who remain unmarried despite having a good education and high-flying jobs." would be unacceptable (because of the explanation).
The sentence "Contrary to the assumption that sheng nu are somehow pioneers for a new, more liberated generation of Chinese women, she found that most remain keen to get married.", by itself, would have been acceptable. But many will argue that it has only been used naturally because of the previous definition in the same text.
consensum
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There is an entry for a supposed Latin noun consensum (agreement), which doesn't exist. The noun consensus is fourth declension, which means that the accusative form is consensus, just like the nominative.
There is a part participle/adjective consensus (agreed) which has the neuter nominative and accusative form consensum, also the masculine accusative. The entry could be corrected simply by changing the label Noun to Adjective.
If you look at the linked French article, you will see that there consensum is correctly labelled as an adjective.
I'm not sure I could do it properly, as it looks very strange in the editing window. My point is that there is NO noun consensum, so that part should be removed completely. Thanks for adding the adjective.
I'm busy with other things at the moment. You might have more luck with another Latin contributor (use the babel system, noting that I'm only an la-1). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I managed it myself after all.
Vaginismus
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If I thought it was vandalism, you would have been blocked. I just can't find any confirmation of your definition. Feel free to add evidence (a quote from Google book search, for instance). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Orogenous zone
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for helping with this entry, SemperBlotto. As an infrequent contributor, I often stumble over formatting issues and look to other analogous entries for guidance. I see that my model here included some inappropriate formatting. I appreciate your willingness to fix things like that in such a constructive manner! P Aculeius (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Should
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello SemperBlotto, I contact you after discussing with Mglovesfun (sorry for the French at the beginning of the discussion). So I will "translate" for you. Your bot created some wrong conjugated pages. For example, your bot created the conjugated page of the verb débarasser which is a mispelling (correct spelling is débarrasser). So, you bot should delete the "wrong pages". To know which pages are concerned, you can use this huge page. This page lists the page in French that you have and that we do not have on French Wiktionary. If you search verb form (for example, you can search the string "asses" to find most of the verbs on this page). And after, you have to check why we do not have these pages on French Wiktionary. For most of them, this is because there a mistake in the conjugation. If you need some help, do not hesitate to contact me. Pamputt (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted the inflected form of this misspelling (my bot is not a sysop so can't do it itself). That big page is just too unwieldy (and is on the "wrong" wiki). If we could break it down and move it here, that would make it easier to use. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I'm coming from da.wiktionary, and I've just started inserting Latin verbs to this wiktionary. So far, I've made 3 pages with conjugation - esse, stare and facere. I was wondering whether it's correct to use the present active infinitive - like I've done - or to use the first-person singular present active indicative - like many dictionaries - as headword. Until now, da.wiktionary didn't contain any Latin verbs with conjugations, so we don't really have a standard to follow.
So I'm going to ask you: Which form is correct to use/would you recommend to use? Personally, I find it slightly strange to use the indicative as headword while e.g. the Romance languages doesn't, especially when you refer to Latin indicative from a Romance infinitive. On the other hand, the use of the present indicative as headword is conventional. Sincerely, --87.63.114.21018:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you may want to discuss this with the editors at Danish Wiktionary. Here, we have made a certain choice for certain reasons, but over there you might decide to make a different choice because you think other reasons (like using the infinitive in Romance languages) make more sense. —CodeCat19:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I noticed that you undid one of previous edits of this article. The edit was not unconstructive; it represents a slang term, which was annotated. 141.136.248.14016:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that your bot added new entries that use "infl" as the template. That template has been deprecated for a long time, it should be "head" instead. Could you fix your bot? —CodeCat18:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the Latin entry of en:concedo, the definition is indiscernible from en:cedo. Which is in comparison to en:consensus: con- + sentio. Shall I augment the entry?
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Semperblottobot is creating the second-person singular and third-person plural future subjunctive incorrectly. For example: decíres, decírem (both missing an <a> before the <í>). The conjugation tables are correct. — Ungoliant(Falai)03:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
To avoid this kind of problem, I have converted Module:nl-verb and Module:ca-verb so that they export the table itself in a format that a bot can read. That way, the bot no longer has to duplicate all the conjugation code of the template/module, but can just use the output of the template itself. While I did this in a module, it should be possible to do this with a template as well. The template could changed so that it outputs the forms in a different format when an additional bot=1 parameter is provided. Unfortunately the Portuguese templates are really complicated so I'm not sure if I would be able to do this. —CodeCat14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have been identified as someone who does a large number of renames. If you could visit meta:Rename practices and explain your renaming practices and policy, we would appreciate the effort. We are making this request to help us better understand local renaming practices as we work towards SUL finalization. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MBisanz (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
flood flag?
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am sorry for being so snobby and insulting. The best excuse I can offer is that I was feeling extra lazy that day, and I wanted to justify it, but any alleged conspicuity is still subjective. Your contributions are pretty valuable here for everybody. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
No prob. Basically, I don't give a toss what other people think of me - I just do what I want. SemperBlotto (talk)
rapetard
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The template {{it-noun}} currently has no (documented) way to show uncountable nouns. It shows a script error if the plural ending is missing, but there is no way to say "there is no plural". A new user found this out at Wiktionary:Information desk#Visciolata. Could you add it to the module please? —CodeCat21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you may have been premature to just revert the edit in question. I'm having trouble finding enough cites, and I'm not sure about capitalization, but there does seem to be a wine of that name made with grapes and sour cherries- they weren't completely wrong, they just made the mistake of assuming that theirs was the only sense. As for countability, I'm sure it's one of those things that's normally a mass noun, but can be plural if you're talking about different versions, such as made in different places or different years. I don't know how Italian handles such cases, though.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am pretty sure that ALL Italian nouns are grammatically countable. Some, especially foreign loanwords such as bar or words ending in a stressed vowel such as gioventù have no separate plural. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a big fan of inv. I don't know enough about Italian to make a highly informed comment, but I'd prefer to say that the plural of varietà is varietà, in the same way that in French, the plural of bois is bois, but it does have a plural. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's fine. You can even use the existing {{it-noun}} that way, specifying the singular as the plural. p.s. Normally, the way you can tell if the word is singular or plural is to look at the particle e.g. "lo stop" (the bus-stop) or "gli stop" (the bus-stops). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As you can see, I've 'cheated' a bit with stesso, using {{it-adj}} for the pronoun section. That's because they inflect the same as there's already an adjective section in the entry. Surely {{it-pron}} would be a good thing? I've set up {{fr-pron}} so that both gender and inflection aren't mandatory, could we do the same with it-pron? I would create it myself but you might want to write a Lua version, and I can't do that. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I'm from the English Wikipedia and am trying to deal with some crosswiki abuse, but I cannot see deleted content here. Does this editor seem to be ? --Rschen775407:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
WHY DID YA DO THAT? it is a correct definition, look I have evidence: here and here. Note NSFW. Now I'm gonna revert it back to normal. I mean there is no reason to revert it, this wiki has definitions like lolwut and n00blets.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why did you remove my definition? This is industry jargon. It is not formally defined anywhere else, but it used quite frequently in commissioned sales jobs.
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Please revert your move of "Tico" to "tico". It is used as a capitalized proper noun in English, and it is so spelled in the Oxford English Dictionary. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here is a screenshot of the OED where it is spelled with a capital. Of course it is a proper noun: it is like "English" or "Dutch". I corrected my original careless claim that it is capitalized in Spanish; of course it is not; Spanish capitalizes few proper nouns; but the correct usage in English is to write "Tico". I have a personal in-depth knowledge of that country; these are not casual, "drive-by" claims; but I will let the OED stand as my objective authority. You say Spanish Wiktionary has Costa Rican as an adjective, but is both noun and adjective. I am about to add the adjectival entry, which is upper case in English (see quotation added to article). As for it being a noun, it is used as a noun in the first sentence of this article in the main Tico newspaper, La Nación. O'Dea (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and moved "tico" back to "Tico" and added the OED as reference, and added quotations to support the use of the capital 'T', however, your Wiktionary experience may help me with a conundrum: While the proper noun and adjective are capitalized in English, they are not in Spanish, and I do not know how to have Spanish spelling with lower case 't' in an entry spelled with the capital T as its main spelling. Can you help? Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am withdrawing my request for help on the t/T conundrum. Anther editor intervened and split the definition into two separate definitions, Tico for English and tico for Spanish, which was something I was contemplating, but I was unsure if that was standard procedure in Wiktionary or not. O'Dea (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have been researching demonyms and the Wiktionary entry for that word contains the note: "Although demonyms are capitalized in English, they are common nouns, not proper nouns" – which surprises the hell out of me. Fortunately, I did not place money on it. I always thought demonyms were proper nouns (hence my argument, above, that "Tico" was capitalized), but as the note above indicates, demonyms are capitalized despite not being proper nouns. O'Dea (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was going to split off the capitalised English version but it was too late at night. You are not the only person who thinks that capitalised nouns are always proper nouns. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, following the Beer Parlour discussion, MewBot is adding |context to context labels that add it. Since context labels should only be used in definitions, can you please avoid using {{it-verb}} {{transitive}} and perhaps use qualifier, or put it in with the definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Taking over the account "Frigoris" on English Wiktionary
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Jeff, thanks for the headup about taking over the inactive account "Frigoris". If that is possible, why not? ;) So how should I proceed? Forstig (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
adulescens — This noun is so-called i-stem, and that's why we need to use la-decl-3rd-I, not la-decl-3rd. Specifically, the pl. gen. is usually adulēscentium, not adulēscentum. For example, see . And that’s what I had fixed. I hope you’ll understand the problem (it’s simple and minor), and redo my changes. If there’s anything you’re not sure, feel free to ask. Thanks! — Gyopi (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK. I have looked at Lewis and Short to confirm your note. I have also changed the inflection template to what I think is correct - but feel free to correct me if you are sure (I am only an la-1). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's an i-stem. Not historically anyway, Indo-European present participles are consonant stems. However, they are also adjectives, and as far as I know most 3rd declension adjectives are i-stems in Latin. So maybe it's from that? —CodeCat16:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
@SemperBlotto: The template you picked up is good in that it shows -ium as pl. gen. but not quite suitable in this case. Among other things, it shows *adulēscentim as sg. acc. (unusual, if ever used). Until someone makes a better template that can handle i-stems more flexibly, let’s just use the basic I-stem template for this one, with a note to explain additional rare form(s), such as adulēscentum and (if attested) adulēscentī as sg. abl.
@CodeCat: In Latin grammar, a so-called i-stem is basically just a consonant stem, except you’ll add -ium (instead of -um) to it to make pl. gen. When a noun ends in -s and its stem ends in two consonants, it’s an i-stem: urbs (urbs, urb-is, urb-ium), cliens (cliēns, client-is, client-ium). So when you have adulēscēns, adulēscent-is, its pl. gen. is adulēscent-ium.
I thought this was obvious, but still I should have been clearer in my log message about exactly what was to be fixed. — Gyopi (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
-exia
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for waiting more than 10 seconds before deleting my stub the second time. I know it stressed you greatly to see an imperfect article recreated. 75.210.194.6518:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
FYI, User:DonThorntonJr would like to appeal the block you placed on his account. Since you prevented email and talk page access, he posted at the en:wp admin noticeboard; of course he was told that we couldn't do anything there about your action here, but I thought I'd let you know about the situation anyway. Was the deleted content basically the same as here? His actions at en:wp make it appear that he's not trying to be spamming over there, at any rate. If you respond to me, please do it at en:wp; I'm an admin there and highly active, while this is the first Wiktionary edit I've made in more than two years. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the note; I'll let him know over there and remind him of your warning to reblock. Please note that I wasn't asking for an unblock — I was simply asking for you to restore talk page access or to re-enable email. Is it normal here to prevent talk page access and email for someone who's made just one spam edit? Asking because it's far beyond what's normal at en:wp and at Commons; I'm not familiar with other projects' procedures. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think that we are quite unusual in that we trust our sysops to do whatever they think is best, and we have relatively few rules that govern their behaviour. As far as spam is concerned, I think that what most sysops do is to guess if the person is a professional spammer, is trying to linkfarm his blog, or is just providing a link to his website prior to actually contributing to the project. We don't always get it right. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Job for the bot
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I do not think your rollbacks of twice as less or twice as small are in error, but I am curious enough to leave this message on your talkpage. My hope is that it is not yet twice as thin as my previous contributions to twice, half as much or large as they relatively may be.
Revert of secundum
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you explain what was wrong with my edit of secundum that made you revert it? (Qgroomtalk) 18 June 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted my clean-up of the appalling entry for this idiom.
The heading 'Etymology' is a misnomer: Here is the Merriam Webster definition: 'the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language.' None of this occurs in that section.
The alternative meaning is speculation and not borne out by the sources cited - which appear to be lifted from web blogs in any case. The latest Brewer's Concise dictionary of phrase & fable does not list what is claimed for the 1870 edition. If Brewer did claim it at that date, it would still be the fruit of speculation and not borne out by the use of the idiom since it first appeared.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much is a quotation from Hamlet with a completely different meaning and should not appear in the See Also section.
I question the relevance of parallel idioms in a dictionary item. But if they are to be used, then bare URLs used as reference should be cleared up (and checked for accuracy).
I did not tell you what to do, I asked politely. Nor did I 'remove the etymology' since there was no such thing. You fail to address any of the points raised above. I will however follow your advice and post the tab. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
virtualist editing the word's definition
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, SemperBlotto
I have revised the definition of the word virtualist as it does not have a true origin. This is a good definition of the word and needs more information covering the whole concept and practice of computer science not just works of art or the practice of religious views and beliefs. I agree with the first two definitions that describe the word but more information can be added to define other areas of science and art as well as religious views associated with the word. In conjunction, the word virtualist should cover those areas of computation. Virtualization being the transfer of information that is virtualized, digitized and computerized. All documented history of the computational age can be linked to the revisions and will give more in depth definition of the word. More or less the word virtualist is not some one practicing an art, it is the process of transferred and visualized information that is created by the person practicing the art, that defines the word. — This unsigned comment was added by Romonte' (talk • contribs).
Yes you are right, as far as an act of my apologies, how ever it is related to the definition . what I'm trying to do is come up with a more in depth definition to the word virtualist , again I agree with the first two definitions but it still needs more explanation for the term. Thank you for your corrections as my quest to define the word will continue.
Italian translation help
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
And why did you ignore my unblock request? I supplied all the attestations and page sections that the pages you linked to specified were needed. None of the deletion criteria seem to apply as I explained on my user talk page. And the block was ridiculous as far as I can tell.
No you didn't. Instead of adding a language section, you added "==language=="; instead of adding a part of speech section, you added "===part of speech". You didn't add a headword. Surely, before adding an entry to Wiktonary you must have actually used this resource - did you not see that our entries have a strict format? Just try copying that of an existing entry. Don't forget that attestations should use the term naturally, not feel the need to put the term in quotation marks and then define it - that is what we call a "mention" rather than a "use" (and we don't use other dictionaries to provide attestation - especially not Urban Dictionary). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I added ==language== and ==part of speech== because that is what your message in your deletion log entry said to do. Anyway deleting the article and blocking me was inappropriate and obnoxious. You should have just left me a talk message saying what the problem was. Could you undelete the article (transfer it on my user talk if you prefer) so I can check the attestations and/or copy them someplace else? Thanks. 198.144.190.3814:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for restoring the info. do not use any quotes around the term. Your claim to not use other dictionaries for attestation is dubious because you have a project to import the entire 1913 Webster's dictionary (I can understand that Urban Dictionary is different). And blocking someone for saying "attestations" instead of "references" is the height of dysfunction. Please don't do that to anyone again. Good luck with Wiktionary but frankly the editing atmosphere sucks even worse than Wikipedia. 198.144.190.3814:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is hardly surprising. A dictionary is much more focused, and therefore much stricter in its design, then an encyclopedia. bd2412T16:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Is "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talkpage" an automatic message after an automatic rollback? I've added information that I also included on the Wikipedia page with a source: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Novak
So yes, the rollback is in error. Please revert it. Thanks.
You don't understand. I added the Wikipedia entry from a primary source that I referenced. It's a reliable one, the words of a Slovenian onomastics researcher.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello SemperBlotto!
Please have a look at the talk page for Nixie tube. I made an entry. There is the issue of proper noun versus noun, as well as singular versus plural in Wiktionary i.e. Nixie tubes. An inquiry on the main Wikitionary editors' page is what drew my attention to this to begin with.
polyurethane and question about the changing of an entry
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do you happen to know if there is an adjective for this word? What I mean is if there is another word that means something along the lines of polyurethanic or something like that?
Also, ], you changed the definition of this word from reformation to edict when all the sources I looked at had reformation as the translation of that word. Are you sure that it doesn't mean reformation at all? riformaglione follows along the lines of the re- prefix and the -tion suffix in Italian, so...? Razorflame01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
First. The term polyurethanyl exists but is very rare. Here's an example from a patent:- "In one aspect, the present invention relates to novel prepolymers containing polyurethanyl groups and a plurality of alk-1-enyl ether crosslinking sites."
The term polyurethanic seems to have a more commercial rather than chemical meaning i.e. "The company uses innovative machinery to cut polyurethanic foams into chips.".
Second. My "DeMauro" Italian dictionary defines riformagione as:- "1. TS stor. nei comuni medievali italiani, delibera priva del carattere di statuto fatta dai consigli legislativi 2. OB riforma" - i.e. the meaning of "reform" is only an obsolete sense, probably a form of the word riformazione. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah, thanks. Yeah, it probably was an obsolete sense, as the dictionary I was using when I made that entry was fairly dated. I've since gotten a newer dictionary, so that problem shouldn't present itself again :) Also, thanks for the help with the other two terms :) Razorflame21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Disruptive edits". There is no evidence that he has any intention of actually contributing to this project - just in creating a userpage with a pretty picture. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I've seen you've just reverted my edit. Well, in my book, an archaic spelling and a common (modern) misspelling can very well be summarized under one 'Adverb' section. These two sections (as they originally were) really look doggone clumsy...But I agree this is a highly subjective matter of viewpoint. User:CodeCat has accepted my change now ! Case closed. (I hope) -andy 77.7.105.4119:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's not really a matter of "when to use" it, but rather when people choose to use it. Typically, as with other apocopic Italian forms, it is used in poetry and opera - in order to get a line to scan with the desired number of syllables. The forms are used in speech, as far as I can tell, just so that they can speak even faster with no pauses at all between words (especially in front of a following vowel). My Italian teacher told us never to use such forms (just to be on the safe side). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
">edit]
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Why are you removing spaces in between the four dashes and other text in entries? I find that this doesn't help anything. If anything, it makes it worse since people will have more trouble finding the four dashes marking the separation of languages. I think it would be best to leave the spaces in as it will be much more helpful than with them gone. Razorflame10:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Could you not remove them in future edits? While I know you aren't bothered, there could be others that could be bothered by it and could have difficulties as I pointed out above. Thanks, Razorflame10:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Please take a look
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is a new template for Portuguese verb forms: {{pt-verb-form-of}}. Hopefully it will make your bot’s work easier, because it works with suffixes and doesn’t need information like which person, aspect and tense it is. The module has a function for figuring out a form’s suffix, maybe you can convert it to Python. — Ungoliant(Falai)13:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure if you noticed my change to leg before wicket saying that rarely a batsman can be given out for a ball hitting another part of the body, but I remembered it watching the last test where Graeme Swann bowled a full toss and hit the batsman in the groin and the batsman was given out by the umpire. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why delete content of 'securocracy'?
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
I just created some content (Etymology & Noun) for the term securocraty but you deleted it.
As the term appears as 'related term' of securocrat I thought I would fill in a solid definition.
You can find the use of the word in an article from Richard Norton-Taylor at The Guardian.
(Would include URL but I can't here at Wiktionary.)
The same definition I put under the term securocrat.
I think this term deserves an update because nowadays you read it in many articles.
The only sense that I can see on a Google book search is the South African one. The new sense seems to be less than a year old - that's not enough to qualify under our CFI. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I was thinking more of 'a system of governance' like in (deprecated template usage)technocracy but it will do for now. Where did you find this description? 14:41, 9 August 2013
We don't find our definitions anywhere. The idea is that we study the usages of the word (see the citations page) and try to figure out what it means. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
my moving of the Alternative Forms section below the main definition, and changing of heading to Variant Forms.
On the first, is it required (and particularly logical) to have the "Alternative Forms" of something before the main definition of it -- especially here where its length is overwhelming and hiding the main definition?
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not familiar with what you are referring to. Could you try to explain in a little more detail? — This unsigned comment was added by Tharthan (talk • contribs).
Perhaps you haven't read your "Welcome" links. Anyway, look at a typical German noun - say Arbeit. Immediately underneath ===Noun=== is the headword - in this case generated by a {{de-noun}} template. It shows the gender of the noun and generates the genitive and plural forms. A similar template is used for verbs. All entries, in any language must have a headword. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see. But the headwords would work differently for each language, would it not? I mean, while I have a novice first-level-kanji level understanding of Japanese, my expertise is in Old English (or "Anglo-Saxon" if you prefer) and Icelandic, but I've dealt with Austrian German and (due to me living in New England, a region in the east of the U.S.) Pennsylvanish. They all handle grammatical gender differently (and, in the case of Japanese, lacks it altogether) , so the format for headwords would at least have to be slightly different, would it not? Tharthan (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid so. A basic headword that is suitable for any language and any part of speech is simply the word itself enclosed within triple quotes (like this). In this case the entry would also need a hard-coded "Category" statement (normally generated by the specific headword template). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Considering the fact that I am not very familiar with the grammar of Austrian German, but only the vocabulary (I've usually only had to deal with the occasional slip-in of a word into Standard German) would you recommend I just let someone else add in the headword, or do my best to guess whether a word is pluralised through mutation or suffix? Tharthan (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you know the gender, but nothing else, you could use a general-purpose headword template that we have - e.g. {{head|de|noun|g=n}} . You can use this template in any language for any part of speech. With luck, someone will improve it later. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is not unlisted, it has just been moved to a sub-page. I don't think that sense#3 should have been deleted. This is not equivalent to other definitions and is a widely used convention for semiconductor devices and the now obsolescent thermionic devices. I also believe that some of the discussion on electrolytic v. galvanic cells was not all encyclopaedic. A very frequently raised question is what is the correct electrode to call anode/cathode and this is just the sort of question one expects a dictionary to answer. Usage notes perhaps? An especially tricky question when rechargeable cells are involved. Also, whatever we do to cathode we should also be doing to anode. SpinningSpark11:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think a distinction should be made between the chemical effects (reduction) and the electrical effects (negative voltage, electrons flow outward). Although they obviously correlate, the term "cathode" is not always used to describe them both at the same time. A cathode ray tube doesn't do any chemistry, it just emits electrons, so the chemical definition doesn't apply to it. —CodeCat13:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Jobsworth
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
shouldn't the first etimology for the definition of I be as a pronoun?
it's a much more common usage — This unsigned comment was added by 46.120.138.82 (talk).
I've no idea. You made a large change without any explanation, and have made no edits before. I just assumed it was vandalism or a test. Feel free to change it, but add an edit summary explaining your reasons. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've never heard the saying used with the sense of something being repetitive, only something being very simple... I'll have a look for some quotations and see how other people have used it. BigDom (t • c) 12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi!
Could you please help me working this sentence: ma fiorentino / mi sembri veramente quand’io t’odo (from Dante's Comedy, XXXIII 11-12) into "but a Syrian / you seem to me not at all truly when I hear you." Come to think of it, what do you think it means actually? 77.175.64.14521:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've been trying to contribute to the Armenian Wiktionary, because I see major gaps (and sometimes even errors) in it. I noticed this morning that my contributions had been reverted. Please revert them back to how I changed them. I'm a translator and linguist, and I'm ready to improve this dictionary. If you doubt my knowledge, I suggest you double check with someone else first before deleting my contributions.
What contributions did you have time to make in the 8 minutes from the time your account was created until you posted this comment? That comment is the only thing that shows as ever having been done with the account. As an admin, I should be able to see deleted and even hidden edits- but I don't see anything.
If you did it before you logged in, everything you did would show as contributions by either the IP address assigned you by your internet service provider, or by whatever other account you were logged into at the time. Or perhaps you forgot to save your edits.
Now, if you're talking about the actual Armenian Wiktionary (hy.wiktionary.org), that's completely independent of English Wiktionary, and I don't think SemperBlotto is active over there. If you're talking about the Armenian entries here at English Wiktionary, you're going to have to give some examples. SemperBlotto has been doing this for quite a while, but he doesn't have any psychic powers (that I know of, at least... ). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm 46.162.203.53. I made an account because I didn't know how else to post here. I thought you'd figure it out.
Your edit at Աժդահակ(Aždahak) was rightly reverted, because it was badly formatted. Please come to my talkpage if you have questions about adding Armenian content to Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Alternative spelling
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You reverted my edits on maximise and minimise. However, there is no reason that legitimates preference of American English. All spellings should be treated equal on Wiktionary without linking, which lets seem a spelling misleadingly less correct. Also, keep in mind that the -ise spelling is the preferred spelling in 52 of the 54 English-speaking countries, while the -ize-spelling is the preferred spelling in just two English-speaking countries (USA, Canada). On a long-term view, a technical solution should be created which synchronises the content of entries from identical words with different spellings. As long as there is no technical solution for this, those lexemes should be maintained manually, but without linking because all spelling variants should be treated equally. --2.244.123.25115:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Glasgow
Glasgow is actually not in Lanarkshire anymore, but in its own council area. Lanarkshire now does not include Glasgow and has been separated into North and South. EverythingGeography (talk)
Nobody has a divine right to a userpage. Their purpose on this wiki is to help other people judge your contributions, by seeing what languages you speak, and what other expertises you have. But you haven't made any contributions, so don't need one. Feel free to add one (containing babel boxes) after you have started contributing to the dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Your Rollback
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your rollback of addition to pronunciation section of been
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Probly would've helped if I had included the reference:
**Tried to include link here but Capcha kept failing me.**
link in form that might work:
www4 . uwm . edu /FLL /linguistics /dialect /staticmaps /q_2.html
(remove the spaces, or google "dialect survey uwm linguistics" (without the quotes))
It's not the majority pronunciation, but 28% seems significant enough to include, no? Also, there were other articles saying that 'Ben' is a homophone with ``been (some accents)``, although maybe that just referred to the pin/pen merger with Ben being pronounced to rhyme with 'in'.—140.153.24.2616:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My apologies over the above entry, I had seen it redlinked from nuclear as a derived term whilst setting up links to sister projects for some categories on Wikinews. I thought it would go alongside entries like nuclear waste, nuclear power, nuclear weapon, nuclear reactor, etc etc.
Wiktionary is one of my favourite projects in terms of the service it provides but I feel I would be of little use in mainspace here. What other tasks might I be able to help with here? Blood Red Sandman (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
The declension tables for Latin no longer need separate parameters for macron and no-macron forms. So that's probably why it looked strange to you. —CodeCat12:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. I meant that the inflected forms were bot the ones I was expecting. By the way, whoever changed the Latin templates didn't tell the person (me) who runs the Latin bot - it was generating forms containing actual macrons (not just internally). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I did change the headword line templates, but I didn't change their parameters. What happens now is that the macronless parameters are just ignored, and only the macron forms are used. Those should probably be removed at some point because it's a bit silly to have parameters that do nothing, but it works for now. So your bot does not need changing. It would be appreciated if you could place a notice on the documentation page that your bot relies on the template's parameters working a certain way. I put a similar notice on Module:nl-verb and Module:nl-adjective. —CodeCat14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have put a note on several documentation pages as you suggest. There are far too many Latin ones so I just added a selection. If you happen to modify a conjugation template of any Romance language (or German), could you check that I haven't forgotten it. Cheers SemperBlotto (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just one more question. Does your bot use the output or internal operation of the templates in any way, or does it look only at the parameters? For Module:nl-verb, my bot actually uses the bot's output rather than its parameters; the module basically displays the same forms that go in the table, but in a machine-readable format that MewBot can interpret. So it doesn't do any conjugating itself but it lets the module do that (which avoids them getting out of sync), and then uses its result. It works quite well. —CodeCat15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It just looks at the parameters as written by the human being. By the way, I have not modified the Latin bot yet - it might be a lot of work - so I'm not running it at the moment. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Erroneous Italian forms
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The check I would do is that the parameters 1 + 3 should be the page name. That's why it's picking up all the ones with a blank first parameter, like evasione fiscale, because of the links in parameter #3 making it not equal to the page name. Since I can't read Lua, CodeCat will have to confirm. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
And what precisely is the objection to the Wikipedia link? Also, your wonderful response above still leaves me wondering why it is okay to link to the noun from the adjective page, but it is wrong to link to the adjective from the noun page. Can you show any official reason why this should not be done? If not, then a self-revert by the original reverter is expected soon. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
You have to understand that we group everything by the spelling: all the information for the spelling paywall is at that entry, and the information for paywalled is at that entry. We may have a simple link to other spellings and other terms that are related in various ways, but we don't have a part of speech header like
Adjective
or
Noun
for those. That's the real problem. Reverting that stuff meant the Wikipedia link went along with it, even though there was no problem with that.
I should mention, also, that having your edits rolled back doesn't mean we have anything against you or you edits in general, just that the edits in question were wrong in ways that weren't easily fixable. I agree that we should do better at communicating in cases like this, but there aren't usually more than one or two admins at any one time doing the job of checking hundreds of new edits- sometimes we cut corners just to get through all of them. I've left you our welcome template on your talk page, so you can learn how to avoid accidentally doing things wrong.
We may have gotten off on the wrong foot, but the welcome is sincere: you were editing in good faith and just didn't know the very specific way things have to be formatted here. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask on your talk page or mine. SemperBlotto does way more than his share of the work around here, and I answered your question here to try and take some of that load- not to force him to read a prolonged conversation/debate between the two of us. I think any of the admins would have responded approximately the same way to your original edits, so any one of us can explain it just as well as he would. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Hi again, Chuck (I responded on my talk page). Now you really have me "flustered". First of all, I do not take these things any more personally than I take them lightly. Secondly, I can point you to dozens of pages on Wiktionary that have the Noun forms right there on the same page as the Adjective forms and even the Verb forms of the same words. Spelling cannot nor should not be an issue since plurals are seldom spelled exactly the same as their singulars, yet there are "kerchiefs" and "paywalls" on the same page as their singular forms. None of this really makes sense to me, yet, but thank you for trying. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Just so you know and don't get confused... I am going to convert all the entries that need head=. When that is done, all entries should be "correct" in the sense of the original template. (So far, it's just been about cleaning up existing mistakes) It seems that the current template allows two different ways to specify the plural: either with the stem and the ending, or just with the ending and an empty stem. I would like to convert all entries so that they use only the ending, and the stem and singular ending are always empty. At that point, all the entries will only really have two parameters, the gender (2nd) and the plural (4th). So {{it-noun|donn|f|a|e}} becomes just {{it-noun||f||donne}}. Once that's done, we can then remove the two empty parameters which will create the final situation, {{it-noun|f|donne}}. After that, we can start removing plurals when they match the default, but that isn't strictly necessary. What do you think of this idea? —CodeCat21:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It will take some time to do it, maybe up to a week. I will try to keep you informed about each step so that you can make the changes. —CodeCat21:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The first step is now done, no entries should have a first or third parameter anymore. Can you use the new parameters from now on? That means that the first parameter is the gender, and the second is the plural form. The plural is mandatory for now (like it was before), until all existing entries are converted to use the new parameters. Then we can start looking at applying the default-generated plurals, which would make the second parameter optional. —CodeCat12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ruakh keeps blocking my bot for making these edits. I pointed him to the discussions we had and he just ignores them and still keeps doing it, so I wonder if he's just picking on me for the sake of it. Can you please tell him to stop being disruptive? —CodeCat20:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
All entries have been converted to the new format now, none have a third and fourth parameter anymore. I've now changed the module so that it uses the default plural if none is given. But before I continue with removing any redundant plural forms (which match the default) I would like to make sure that the default is good enough. I think it's also best if the default rules for nouns and adjectives are the same, so that it's easier to remember and so we can use the same code in the module for both.
About nouns ending in -co/go. You said earlier that these normally have plurals in -chi/ghi, but according to Wikipedia there are also plurals in -ci/gi, and I think adjectives also form their plural in that way. Which should be the default?
What about feminine nouns and adjectives in -ca/ga, do they become -che/ghe or -ce/ge? Are the rules for nouns the same for nouns and adjectives?
How are feminine nouns/adjectives ending in -cia/gia pluralised? Wikipedia says there are several rules but those might be too complex for a module to handle.
What happens with nouns that end in -io but the consonant before it is not c or g? Do you get -ii then?
It all depends on where the stress is. There are no hard and fast rules. Even native Italian speakers get it wrong. The module can't possibly know which to use in all circumstances. I would leave things as they are now. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
While we can't make the module so that it creates the correct plural, we can make it avoid generating a plural at all if it recognises an ambiguous case. That would mean that for certain nouns, it does not generate any default but instead asks the user to give it. That way we avoid generating a default that does not make sense in half the cases. The rules so far are:
Generate no plural if the word contains spaces.
-cio / -gio > -ci / -gi
-o > -i
-a > -i if gender is m, -a > -e otherwise
-ie > -ie
-e > -i
Same as singular otherwise.
This means that currently the defaults for the above ambiguous cases are:
Yes, that looks reasonable. How are we to ask the user to provide a plural? We can't really open a conversation can we? Or were you going to generate a red script error saying something like "plural not given and could not be unambiguously generated"? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC) p.s. I don't see the advantage of a bot updating all the thousands of entries to remove unnecessary plural parameters - I would just leave them alone.Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I don't understand why you disallowed the use of the singular epicenes "they" and "them." It is completely standard to use these pronouns to refer to a noun whose gender remains unspecified, and you avoid falling into the sexist default-mode of just blindly assigning the masculine gender to said noun. It's also a stylistic improvement over the unwieldy "his or her," "he and she," etc. Even conservative prescriptivists, e.g. Garner, have green-lighted this construction, so I'm just having some trouble understanding why you felt the need to undo my emendation.
(1) Your emendation was not necessary. (2) Edit comments are for describing an edit, not for justifying it. (2b) If you have to justify your every edit, then you're probably doing something wrong. (3) Wiktionary is a community effort, and we generally do not make such minor stylistic changes on the basis of one person's later preference for usage. If you were to ever contribute content rather than simply make minor, equivocal, objectionable, personal edits to grammar, you might be taken seriously. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
No need to get all huffy. And about the comment section being for describing, rather than justifying edits: Thanks for telling me. I was unaware. I've seen others who used the comments to elucidate reasons for their edits in the past, and will probably continue to do so myself. You don't get to unilaterally impose a limitation on what the comment section should function as. But let me ask you this. If Wiktionary is indeed a community-effort, as you say it is, then why use sexist language that alienates about half the human race? There is no need to use "he" or "him" to refer to indeterminately-gendered nouns. Either use "he or she," "him or her," etc., or use the simpler singular epicene. Also, your notion that my edit was based a personal preference is so entirely banal that I'm embarrassed on your behalf for having made it. Of course it was. And you're telling me that your revert wasn't based on preference? Or that the person who made the initial entry which used the sexist "he/him" didn't do so out of personal preference? What risible idiocy. I can't fathom how one could view replacing sexist language with neutral, more inclusive words that don't in any way depreciate the content of the original as "objectionable."
Your statistics are off. At best, only 3% of the world's population could be alienated. English is the primary language of only 360 million of the world's six billion inhabitants. Assuming half of those are women and that all of them are aliented, that works out to about 3%. In any event, Wiktionary is not the place for a revisionist crusade against the language, nor is it a political forum. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
When we can yes; many entries have identifiable etymologies that we simply haven't added yet, as these things take time. No overnight solutions. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The attribution to Bert Lance for originating the term was removed. And why does another handle answer questions on your user talk page ? Masterknighted (talk)
(user talk pages are open for any member of the community to contribute) - You may have noticed that our entries have strict formats. You can't just add text at a random point in the middle. Perhaps you meant to add an ===Etymology=== section. If so, look at other etymology sections to see how we format them. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keeping RfV balanced
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Jeff. I'm not a regular editor of Wiktionary, so I'm not quite as in-touch with the local policies. However, it would seem to me your deletion of dry erase was a bit premature, since I hadn't even so much as started working from a template and certainly hadn't even committed the edit. Am I doing something wrong? I'd prefer something more than a blunt explanation of "just too many errors". Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
1) You say that you "hadn't even so much as started" - in that case you should have used "Show preview" until you were satisfied. 2) it didn't make much sense (the first definition was "Of or pertaining to dry erase." which is of course totally unedifying; the second definition was "ink ..." - but ink is a noun and you are trying to define an adjective). I have added dry-erase to show you what you might have been trying to achieve. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
If I committed it, that was an accident. I was quite confused when I saw "this article has been deleted" before I committed it-- that would explain it. Also, thanks for the pointers on the part-of-speech conflict; I hadn't even thought of that! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Spanish Wikipedia has this page on it. I'll give you a translate of what it is, maybe there's a corresponding English word for it:
In chemistry, an "aforo" is a circular mark precisely engraved on the glass (or other material) of the volumetric material to indicate the determined volume.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It was kind of a slap in the face to find the page deleted right after I'd created it, and all you would say about it is "totally wrong in every way." That was not constructive criticism, and it does nothing toward helping me get it right. I've been mainly a Wikipedia editor, and I'm still finding the learning curve for how to edit Wiktionary rather difficult. The help pages aren't always a lot of help, and I'm still trying to teach myself the tightly formatted and arcanely coded requirements of Wiktionary. Obviously I need help, but my hope was that if I get something wrong, a more experienced editor can fix it, thereby showing me by example how to get it right. I have good reason to think that semulajadi needs a link to its alternative form, because the two forms have more or less equal frequency in use, so I had to pick one to make the entry, and there has to be a link to the main entry from the also-frequent alternative form. I copied the template and page setup off a similar sort of page, and previewed it before saving it and everything. I have no idea why you thought it better to summarily delete this necessary page with such a blunt and unhelpful comment rather than fixing it the way it's supposed to be or else advising me what I ought to have done. So please undelete it. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can see, you made almost no effort whatsoever to match the formatting of Wiktionary pages. I have recreated it with correct formatting. Please see WT:ELE for how we format things, and WT:WFW for general advice to Wikipedians. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for your kind and prompt help! (Like I said, I am doing my best to match proper Wiktionary formatting, but that learning curve keeps bedeviling my efforts.) Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I don't understand your removal of the definition of Cornwall as a country as it was sourced as to what definition (#2) of country and its usage. You would have to denied the existence of the Cornish language, people and their long history which are associated with the area which the Wikitionary has defined. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. Although I'm a grockle, I have nothing against the Cornish people, their language or their culture. However, wanting it to be a country doesn't make it so. Keep on trying though. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, the description at the top of the page says they don't have to be fully independent to be listed. And the first definition of country certainly fits Cornwall, and would probably fit many other parts of England too. Furthermore, even if you consider independence a part, then it can still be a POV thing because independence might be suppressed by an occupying force, declared but recognised, and all other kinds of things. It's not as straightforward as you might think. —CodeCat18:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It isn't wanting it it be a country as I pointed out by definition it is a country as you agree that they are a people, a language, culture and live in an area, which means definition 2 of country. CodeCat, he reversed me adding a country definition at Cornwall, someone else reversed me at Appendix:Countries of the world.
country 2. "A set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc."
Heck, look at the the etymology of Cornwall includes a part that is land+people: “peninsula people”, thus meeting country 2 definition.
Because, Ungoliant, Cornwall is currently a county, an unitary authority and a royal duchy, the latter of which is designation/status of the Cornwall country in the UK. All of these forms have a government, even the duchy. Spshu (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
We should define which meaning of country we made. Definition #1 "area of land; a district, region" is obsolete isn't it? My garden's an area of land, Headingley is a district of Leeds and West Yorkshire is a region. Nobody would call these countries in 21st century English. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for putting the "rfc" tag on the bossman page. To tell you the truth, because (as far as I am aware) there is no exact synonym for "bossman", I found it quite hard to start that page.
At the same time, both of those uses are quite well-established. It's quite the dilemma...
All I can think of for a synonym for sense one might be the use of the word "stranger" by an armed fellow in a little hut in the wilderness or something of that sort. Or the colloquial sarcastic use of the word "friend."
For sense two, I would say that there is no confrontational synonym, but the term "bad***", the slang substantive use of the word "fico" in Italian and "mensch" would probably be terms used to refer to or describe a (sense-two) "bossman" when talking to others. Tharthan (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
User talk:Chicken is fun
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, this may have been explained to me before, but you deleted with rationale, we don't bother to welcome WF, what is "WF", again? -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ah okay, my apologies for the welcome in that case, I guess I'm just not as familiar with the sockmasters on this project as I am with cross-wiki sockmasters across other related websites. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm currently trying to (slowly) get rid of all the 'abbreviation' and 'initialism' headers and turn them into nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, etc. Is there any reason not to do the same in Italian? For example IRAP just seems to be a noun whose etymology is an initialism. What's more I think {{it-noun|f}} handles this automatically, with the final P it recognizes the noun as invariable. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
(Oops, I put this in the Discussion page for opperior before thinking it might be better put here.)
L&S (“opperior”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press) give both opperītus and oppertus (i.e., without the ī) for the perfect, but both Kennedy (section 161) and
Allen and Greenough section 191
give only the second form for the perfect.
I don't think that the headword or inflection templates allow for such a situation. I have added duplicate templates for now - a bit messy, but it gets the message through. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your change comment "hmm"! BTW a space got gobbled up by the expansion of the second use of the template: "orpresent"; I inserted a space ( ), but
actually, I wonder if listing them on separate lines would be better.
The template's talk page Template_talk:la-verb discusses variant principal parts. It is noted that the Greek template supports this, and
the question was asked "Would this be useful for Latin, or does each lemma basically only have one version of each of its principle parts?"
to which the answer was "99%+ of Latin verbs have only one form for each principal part". Oh well. (I would have thought that even 1% of a language's verbs is still a lot of words.) DetectiveFuller (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
médéciner
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
"A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."
g oog le. com/q=strong+silent+type ==>> "About 351,000 results"
strong silent type: man of action, given to few words. casting-role archetype used in the movie biz.
does *not* mean: somebody with big muscles, somebody with few lines. Is that really your argument, that this *is* the definition of the phrase? Please.
does mean: good-looking hero-type who hides their true feelings. Actual meaning as used in the real world *cannot* be naively derived from the words themselves.
If it could, "silent strong type" would be perfectly fine. G oog lin g for that variant, I find four-to-one in favor of the idiomatic version.
But hey, if the sports-writer for the Bo zeman Daily Chroni cle agrees with you that "silent strong type" is just fine, that means you win, right?
bo zeman daily chroni cle. com/sports/article_787763db-1ee4-5acc-accb-ac0e2cb89c80.html?mode=image&photo=0
(tee hee -- bitten once again -- your own personal super-important *talkpage* is protected by a bot that says "new user automatically identified as harmful abuser" ?? you have *got* to be kidding me.)
This idiom is absolutely positively dictionary material; it is obvious prima facie to my ears, but if that's not good enough for you, try the competition -- dictionary dot com has it, and if I could lift the paper OED, it would probably turn out they have it as well. It is an idiomatic phrase, widely attested, with a unique meaning. You know as well as I that wiktionary is full of such things.
Did you even bother to read the complaint paragraph? Or did you revert, without doing any actual work to improve the entry, without getting that far?
Hope this helps.
p.s. If you want me, feel free to hunt me up over at that other project. I'll probably not be checking for your replies here on your talkpage, but you can ping me on mine. Or hey, just revert this comment, like you reverted my entry. That'll make it all good, if your goal is to keep wiktionary insular and stagnant. WP:RETENTION — This unsigned comment was added by 74.192.84.101 (talk).
I agree with the user above. I believe there to be additional connotations to the word beyond "strong" and "silent" (for one, it's almost never used with women), and as such, I believe it should be undeleted and discussed Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)22:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's a term for a weak talkative type: it's called people who use IRC! (That was a joke). The fact that of those four, only one is ever used, would seem to speak for the notability of strong silent type in comparison to the other three. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you agree with me, maybe you should take action, AND CREATE THE DEFINITION, so that wiktionary actually improves, rather than stagnates? Here, let me help you, click here, then paste in the definition given above, and of course please edit it as you see fit: strong_silent_type. Thanks. p.s Just checking in to make sure that SemperBlotto had still refused to acknowledge in any way that deletionism is killing wiktionary. Wikipedia:TE#One_who_ignores_or_refuses_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors Back in a few years, maybe. No point in typing the four tildes, the bot will prevent me from modifying the talkpage if I do *that* so we'll just let SineBot handle this one. TTFN.
elder
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Well, mainly because you split an existing definition without splitting the accompanying translation table. But, really, I think the current definition is OK:- we already say "or any of the other species of the genus Sambucus". SemperBlotto (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't speak most languages in the translation table well enough to split it. Would it be enough to move it to "Translations to be checked"? --80.114.178.718:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
FYI, {{t-}} is now just a redirect to {{t}}. There's no harm in continuing to use it, if you want, but also no benefit. (And it will probably eventually be deleted.) —RuakhTALK21:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, it looks most like an adverb or a preposition. It's not in any of my dictionaries, so I can't be 100% certain, and my grasp of formal grammar has always been shaky. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I added jez as a common spelling of German jetzt in chat room or text message slang. Don't know why you reverted it. You might want to google the sentence "bin jez weg" (I'm gone now) which alone is found more than 19,000 times. Also I added some more precise example sentences for jetzt. Don't know you reverted those either. But at least, the given meaning yet must be deleted, because both words may be cognates (I don't know, but they might), but jetzt can never mean yet. Thanks.
The formatting of Italian inflected forms has changed very very many times over the past few years, and all sorts of older stuff remains. I have updated it to reflect the latest thinking. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
afstoot
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for the translation (break-off) for afstoot#Dutch! Would you know whether the "afstoot"s on http: //www.havenzicht-veghel.nl/havenzichtlibretoernooi/uitslagen%20finale.htm could also be called "break-off" in English? The pictures I mean show both players almost simultaneously shooting their ball, in an attempt to hit the opposite "wall"/"band" to get the ball as close as possible to the "wall"/"band" just before them. The person with the ball closest to their "wall"/"band", may chose who starts the game (yet starting the game is also called "afstoot", perhaps only in some games, perhaps depending on dialect or whatever). --80.114.178.723:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
More than half of the original was just trolling and complaining about Wiktionary, and not even trying to be a dictionary entry. Deletion was clearly the appropriate response. —RuakhTALK06:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ruakh, you are mis-informed. The true original, the nice clean entry I first wrote, could not be saved -- it was prevented by the wiktionary filter-bots.
Therefore, since I was prevented from saving what I wished to be able to save, what was actually saved, that you are dubbing the 'original', was complaining about the filter-bot. That portion at the bottom, therefore, obviously *had* to be fixed, and of course my refs were all screwed up, but certainly it was not my fault that the actually-saved-entry was a mess. Wiktionary software made me do it. Now, I could have simply deleted my Reliable Sources and saved the entry on my word alone; that would (possibly) have escaped the wrath of SemperBlotto's sniper-finger. But is that improving the wikiverse? Methinks not. The blame for the complaining, and the extra totally-unnecessary-workload, lies with the creator of the prevention-filter methinks... plus those here who tolerate such a filter to remain active in the prevent-rather-than-warn state. It's literally one measly checkbox to correct this bug.
There are two ways to fix the problem here. #1: Drive me away, plus leave the entry deleted. #2. Fix up the bot-mangled entry, plus uncheck the box in the filter-bot-settings. SemperBlotto picked the former approach, obviously. The first half of the second approach was implemented by Kaldari, who fixed up the entry nicely (I also thank Purplebackpack for their intent to do so). But I doubt that anybody is bothering about fixing the prevention-filter, and changing it to warn. SemperBlotto is currently arguing with some person called 75, who is trying to add medical terms like -exia. Perhaps the reason 75 posted no evidence, as SemperBlotto is now requesting, such as hyperlinks to external URLs, is because anons cannot post any URLs, even to this very talkpage?
But hey... this is "clearly" your toybox. If you want to prevent anons entirely, if you see complaints about Broken Buggy Software which hinders improving wiktionary content as trolling, go for it. But every time you drive away some contributor, losing their current abilities, but more importantly, losing their potential to improve from a not-horribly-unskilled contributor into a wiktionary-wizard... remember that you just shot yourself in the foot.
One big reason why SemperBlotto is personally shouldering so much work, and has the unwritten policy that delete-and-ignore-is-clearly-always-appropriate-for-IPs, is because there are simply not enough contributors to help them do the wikiCop work. Vicious cycle, sense one. Blowback, sense two. Catch-22, although only roughly speaking, since there *is* a way out. Hope this helps, I'll be back in a few years to try again. Upon success, first thing I'll do is work on some casefolding auto-redirects, and copying over mind-bogglingly-missing template-transclusions, if I can remember these redlinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.10113:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Silly molecule names
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
As I said in Beer parlour, your indefatigable admin work is highly appreciated. It would be a real pity if User:CodeCat's manic and self-righteous behavior would prevent you from continuing that great work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, thank you. Though I got the impression it's just general fatigue that's making Semper want to retire as an admin. I'm trying to be less active here as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since you're still editing WT:VIP quite regularly (and after this ), are we to understand that you're still secretly itching to deal with the malefactors yourself, and perhaps awaiting a request or an apology? Consider this my request, anyway; I am sure nobody has any doubt that you were the foremost patroller. I would prefer to see (non-spammy) user pages kept for a bit longer, because I think that deleting them can drive people off who might have otherwise contributed; but that is hardly our priority as far as keeping the place free of spam and other crap goes. Equinox◑22:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Money doesn't grow on trees" edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Jeff, can you please explain why you deleted my comment?
I had believed it was relevant to the topic given it was about money on trees. — This comment was unsigned.
First:- Please add new sections at the end, not at the beginning. (Use the big + sign at the top)
Second:- minute particles of gold, sucked up by the roots from deep underground is not "money", and it is not "growing" on trees. Feel free to add the information on the article's talk page. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I can’t help but ask
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I’m guessing that you are referring to my creation of junky talk pages. I can’t blame you for that. In my defence, they probably scare some people off, but I have no proof.
Or maybe it’s because these days I demand way more than I supply. In any case, I’m willing to listen to your grievances, and hopefully I can improve myself. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I amusingly heard someone pronounce this as /ˈkeɪʃən/ (to rhyme with station) once. Do we need to cover this in usage notes or anything, or is it just an amusing but rare error? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I notice that you have some interest in taxonomic names. I have a list of those that are most "wanted" by template taxlink at User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. I intend to update it as soon as possible after each dump. I updated from the last dump yesterday. I also intend various improvements to the list, including better sorting or even sort tables.
My main interest is to add taxonomic names that have a vernacular name in any language or that are used in popular works or across disciplines. Redlinks and "taxlinks" that are from taxonomic entries themselves are of lesser importance and may be excluded in future runs. I hope to extract from Wikispecies a list of all entries that have vernacular name tables, together with the tables. What do you think? DCDuringTALK19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Your file is already on my watchlist (though I haven't used it yet). I add terms as I find them in the online scientific literature. I'll have a look tomorrow. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
My focus has been more on the intra-wiktionary and interwiki world, with some occasional forays into native plant species in my neck of the woods. Your chemical and other scientific interests are wonderful. DCDuringTALK20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Conjunction is not conjugation.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's not a well-named template. Semper probably mistook it for the de conjunction header template. It has since been corrected by Mr. Granger. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Whenever species and pedia disagree, I try to check some other source, like the Tree of life for supra-generic names. That didn't get me anything this time, so it was back to Google. DCDuringTALK12:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I added the definition to calico not realizing we had this. Do you think we need this? For comparison I tried boxer dog which we don't have, but they're often called that to disambiguate from people who box. I'm quite on the fence, I'd lean towards keeping this and creating boxer dog. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have added the etymology, and corrected the part of speech as well as the inflection table. All of the inflected forms were wrong (pos) and will need to be deleted / corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I looked for the obvious verb frutesco but I couldn't find it in any of my Latin dictionaries. I shall ask for the forms to be deleted (as I can't do it myself these days). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you can easily generate the correct entries, then they can be edited instead of deleted. It's mainly the part of speech that will need to be corrected. You didn't find frutesco because it's Late Latin, and standard Latin dictionaries tend to favor Classical Latin words, often omitting Late Latin terms. I found frutesco in my copy of Souter's Glossary of Later Latin (Oxf. Univ. Press), which is a useful reference, and often found for cheap in hardcover. If you intend to do a lot more with Latin, it might be worth the investment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
3 missing entries
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Why not make that list a subpage(s) of WT:RE:la? I'm sure there are those who would be willing to try to add entries from such a list. The blue links could be reviewed before being stricken or deleted to make sure they were at least close to correct. It might serve to educate those who would turn into real contributors. DCDuringTALK13:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It is a little slow in loading, but not too bad. Maybe someone will do subpages, but it is not necessary. I expected it to be even larger, but I guess Latin has gotten good attention.
It would be an interesting list to compare with the specific epithet lists to see which missing ones were classical Latin. I've been guessing about which may as well be called Translingual (ie, only used as specific epithets). I wonder if there are any word lists (preferably lemmas only !) that have been or could be extracted from post-Classical scientific Latin, especially before Linnaeus, but including the period from Linnaeus on, when scientific works were still regularly published in Latin. DCDuringTALK17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll take a look. BTW, I know what you mean about making lists vs. making entries. That's one reason why I have been using {{taxlink}} to prioritize taxonomic name entries. But I am still daunted by lists of more than 50 items, often just 20. The wanted pages runs are somewhat useful, especially the first page. I've been (ab)using missing categories for the purpose too. DCDuringTALK17:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
A while ago you added the Latin word uter, which you listed as neuter, but a couple of online dictionaries say that it's masculine. I've also done a couple of searches, and I've found several uses of the masculine plural utres, but none of the neuter plural utria. Do you think the original neuter label might have been a mistake? Or is there some information I haven't found indicating that it is indeed neuter? Mr. Granger (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I saw what you had done - but I'm only an la-1 so assumed you knew what you were doing. Have a look at Lewis & Short and see if you can make head or tail of what it says (m on the first line, neutr on the second). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, that entry is saying that uter is masculine, and that utria is its "neuter collateral" plural form. Apparently there's something similar with the word sanguis. I don't know what a "neuter collateral" is, but it looks like the word is indeed masculine, so I'm going to go ahead and change the declension table. Mr. Granger (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
-exia
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Not me, sorry, you'll have to ask 75. From their contributions, it looks like they grok both German and English. Currently the -exia article includes alternative spellings of the suffix including -hexia. Not sure about the cat-versus-kat difference but it seems plausible. Cf cachexia entry, created by you actually, back-in-the-day. Here is another revert, this one not yet undone. German medical dictionary would prolly be the place to check, or maybe German psychology dictionary if that is not considered "medical" over there.
p.s. I actually just came to recheck the status of strong silent type, which Kaldari has graciously fixed up for me. Anyhoo, I leave you and 75 to the discussion; they don't have a watchlist, and seemingly suffer from oft-changing-dynamic-addressing, but you can prolly contact them via the -exia talkpage. Thanks for improving the wikiverse; go a little easy on that trigger-finger please. :-) 74.192.84.10112:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Welcome back. :-)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I hope the break was somewhat relaxing or otherwise beneficial for you. Glad you're back in the saddle. I guess you could admonish others into doing some more patrolling if you find it being neglected, instead of feeling compelled to do it all yourself. DCDuringTALK21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
chess variant
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Have found some cites, so have recreated. I'm a bit iffy about the last one though (given the inverted commas), and I'm not sure whether it should be classed as Scots. Hyarmendacil (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, let me guess: you are ignoring me because you think that I’m an ‘obvious troll,’ right? I’m sure that that accusation comes in handy any time you people read something that you ‘dont like.’ --Æ&Œ (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really sure. It doesn't seem to be capitalised, and the plural seems to be pretty rare (I'll remove it). The crap Italian Wiktionary is no help - they can't even spell it properly! ("n'drangheta"). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
how to write
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hey, i am an established user on wikipedia and just recently joined wikitionary. i wanna ask u that how can i write the meaning of a new word on wikitionay because i can't find any way to write the meaning of the word glomerular lipidosis(disease). plz help.
First, you need to learn how to write English sentences. They start with a capital letter. The first-person singular pronoun ("I") is also capitalised. Secondly, glomerular lipidosis is not a word; it is a two-word term and, as far as I can tell, is sum-of-parts - i.e. lipidosis of the glomerulus. On our Main Page, you will see several links to parts of the site that show you how to edit entries here. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
thanks very very much. i am currently writing an article on wikihow, so i will consult u again if i needed.
Why do you feel the need to revert my edits on the words "relapse" and "rude"?
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your addition to relapse didn't add anything useful. Your addition to the definition of rude seemed to be just plain wrong; the change of example sentence was not an improvement. By the way, new talk subjects go at the bottom, not at the top. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why did you revert my edits to link ultimo, instant and proximo?
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Those three terms are related as all of them may be used to refer to the {previous current last} month. Hence I linked them. You, however, felt the need to revert my changes. Why? Vid03 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A while ago you added the entry agonos, listing the word as the genitive singular of agon. But the inflection table on agon lists the genitive singular as agonis (as one would expect for a third-declension noun). Do you know why there's this discrepancy? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why did you revert my update to rivalrous. Its hard enough to find the economic meaning for it anyway, without having it in Wiktionary.
And I provided a good reference.
Rivalrous is an adjective. You added a description (not a definition) of the noun "rivalrous goods". Also, if there is an economics-related meaning of rivalry then that's where the definition should be. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
The distinction escapes me. I added it under the heading adjective. It is not defined elsewhere. Feel free to put it where you think it belongs. Thanks — This comment was unsigned.
The first part of your definition was appropriately worded as an adjective, but not one that conveyed the meaning you intended. The second part was more an illustration of how the word is used in the sense you intended than a definition of the adjective. To the extent the second part was a definition, it was a definition of rivalrous goods, a plural noun. SB's wording is more like what we would want, though improvements may be possible. DCDuringTALK20:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean that the veracity of the entire edit was called into question because of that error? Otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't've just taken the extra 5 seconds to fix the error and preserve the well-formatted data that was submitted. Anyway, I hadn't noticed the error (I guess I should've paid more attention, sorry), or I would've fixed it myself. It looks like it was a bug with the tool I was using to add the word :( So I've added the word back. Next time, at the very least, a reason for why you reverted a contribution would be appreciated in your commit message (you could've said something as short as, e.g., "strange error message"). —Firespeaker (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Merry bullshit. We are proper lexicographers who don't care about all that Jesus nonsense. I wish to ask you about the meaning of the biochemical term anticitrullinated, as in "anticitrullinated protein antibodies", or "anticitrullinated peptide". We do have citrullinated but it might be foolish for me to assume an antimatter counterpart. What does it mean? Equinox◑12:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have been drinking since 4 a.m. I have no plans to stop. There is no turkey but I do seem to have a ridiculous amount of chocolate. Equinox◑12:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Based on what I have seen on Webster's College Dictionary, I believe that the edit reversion at the entry untouchable was done in error. There have comments uttered on shows like American Idol that mentioned that some songs are better left untouched, mentioning that some songs are untouchable. Tedius Zanarukando (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
From what I've seen, the term is used sarcastically to describe undesirable things that cannot be prevented. For example, I once saw a news article about a homicide, and one of the reader comments was along the lines of, "That's unpossible. Murder is illegal!" But perhaps you're right: we should probably make sure the sarcastic usage is at least somewhat common (one or two online comments don't count) before adding it to the entry. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
