User talk:SemperBlotto/2015

Dear Jeff, Can you please explain to me why you removed (rolled back) my edit of practopoiesis? You said that I should leave you a message if I think that the rollback is in error. It seems to me that it may be in error. At least I don't know what your reason was for that. The text was certainly true: It was me (Danko Nikolic) who coined the term. The word did not exist before that. I checked. Thank you very much. Danko Nikolic — This comment was unsigned.

This was under RFV (requests for verification). I have cut it short and re-deleted the entry because (i) it seems like self-promotion, you having created the word yourself (you should use WT:LOP instead) and (ii) the given "citations" are not good enough: you can't use Weblogs for this; see WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jeff,

 Thank you for (re-)creating a page on "practopoiesis" and "practopoietic". I wonder what made you change your mind. ] (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)]Reply

My mistake. I had forgotten that it failed RfV. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have now updated the citations with five references (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Citations:practopoiesis), none of which refers to a Weblog. All but one reference are to a peer-reviewed publication. Perhaps now the entry can pass RfV. At least, I hope so. ] (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)]Reply

The first citation is what we call a "mention", not a "use" - it defines what the word means rather than simply using it.

The second citation is for the German translation of the word (capitalised).

The third citation might be OK - it is still discussing the word, not simply using it.

The fourth citation is fine. It also uses a derived adjective.

The fifth citation is probably OK, but the author is still talking "about" the word rather than just using it.

So I don't think it would pass yet - but it might be OK in the future. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have just fixed the mis-perception that first citation mentions practopoiesis just once. In fact, it mentioned the word "practopoiesis" 33 times (and the derivative adjective "practopoietic" is mentioned 57 times), most of which are "uses". I added several examples of those uses.

In addition, for the fifth publication I also cited a use of the derivative adjective.

I hope that this now satisfies the criteria and makes the whole entry suitable for Wiktionary.

Thank you. (Dankonikolic (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

Dear Jeff,

Do you think that we can get the page on practopoiesis now back? (Dankonikolic (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

You're of course quite right; thanks for pointing out my stupidity gently:-) JoergenB (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Angelucci edit. This just seems to mean 'passionate kiss' and as a non-speaker, seems to have no idiomatic meaning in Italian. Though, I notice you're in the edit history so perhaps I'm wrong. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I'm only in the edit history because I corrected the bad headword formatting. I think the entry only exists as a translation target. I have no objection to its deletion. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

In response to his request I set the flood flag for User:Type56op9. Should I have?

I also noted that he isn't whitelisted. Should he be? I have no opinion on the matter other than wondering whether his 14K edits haven't provided enough track record for a decision — one way or the other. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I thought this was WF again, by the user's own admission. Does that have any bearing on the issue? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Yes. WF has found me a soft touch in the past as well. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  He is so indefatigable that we can't really do much anyway. Mass-deleting his additions on every account would be overkill because quite a lot of them are good. Equinox ◑ 19:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  In the future I will turn his requests over to someone else's tender mercies, at least until he presents under another username. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, DC, I was gonna tell you that Type56 is likely WF, but it looks like others beat me to it. Purplebackpack89 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  He's already admitted it. He usually gets bored and does this! Equinox ◑ 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  If by this, you mean socking and requesting privileges for his socks? Purplebackpack89 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  No, I think he actually started signing posts with "WF", and got chatty on one of the talk pages of his former personalities. Can't find it now though, and there may be better ways to use time :) Equinox ◑ 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ever heard of this? google books:"complexability". You need the speech marks in the search to get rid of all the hits for "complex ability". Renard Migrant (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. I've added a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any idea what this "heterodifunctional" means? Would also like to remind you of User:Equinox#Individual_words_to_consider, which is where I dump words that are attestable but incomprehensible to me (making it a slightly rarefied WT:REE). Many of them are scientific, and I suppose some are chemical. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Added. And thanks for the reminder. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

An error has been found here https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=circumseco&diff=32142491&oldid=26365063#Latin --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also on disseco. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. Any chance you could give me the flood flag for about 30 minutes? I'm going to be going through Category:Missing Spanish feminine adjectives adding some accelerated forms (not a bot!) --Type56op9 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK WF - I'll be here for a little while. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi there. I've got a few more flood edits to make. Any chance of flagging me again for a while? --Type56op9 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • No, I'd only get bollocked. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • to bollock: To reprimand severely and grossly. Bollocked by whom, if I may dare to ask? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • No worries, Jeff. A gentleman's agreement not to block me would suffice. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • I see, our beloved lord Mr. Kephir the Great. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The reason isn't obvious to me. Is the meaning already covered? Or should better part be its own entry? "The better part of a month/year/etc." appears to be a recurring construction but doesn't seem to be mentioned in either good or better. It seems that it might be implied by 6.2, but it isn't apparent. 93 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I have added a definition at better part of. I have probably got the part of speech wrong (it's late). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, I fixed the part of speech... Roger the Rodger (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. Thanks for creating dibreve. Would you mind creating an entry for the Italian prefix di-, which you linked to in that entry, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
• p.s. tribreve also exists - but Portuguese is not one of my best languages. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Until about twelve days ago, I also thought that initialisms, symbols, etc. were to be used. But then I was shown otherwise (see the third section). The Sackinator (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may want to block BlakeRoll8789 (talk • contribs) as an account connected to User:BlakeRoll87. Purplebackpack89 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You may want to check the meaning of the word Americanata. The current definition on wiktionary is "Grandiose and extravagant behaviour considered typical of Americans", which makes it sound as a positive thing while it actually has a negative connotation, so people reading that definition would use it in a very confusing way. The actual meaning is much closer to what is expressed here: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk%3AList_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity/old#Americans There it reads as "Italian word referring to anything that is of bad taste, vulgar (literally meaning "typically American"). There are similar words in other European languages)." It also implies exaggeration. I'm Italian, and I never heard that word used with a positive connotation.

• To me, the current definition seems to have a negative connotation. But I have expanded it as you suggest. By the way, it is americanata (with no initial capital letter). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB, do you know much about Modules? I've just started to get pretty handy with templates, and now they're all being converted into damn modules! I made a suggestion at Module talk:pt-noun, which I tried to put into the actual page but I got error messages. Can you help me? --Type56op9 (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• When they were first introduced, yes, I understood them. But now Codecat had made most of them just to clever for me to get my head around. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • OK, well I'll go ahead and fiddle with them, and brace myself for when CodeCat screams at me for completely messing them up. I might do something with Italian too. --Type56op9 (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello—Thanks for writing! I completely understand the need for casing here, and have fixed all instances of the personal pronoun I on the page, as well as your suggestion, North York. I think the end solution will be to go back and leave the original text casing, and afterword reprocess the data. Given my schedule, this may take a bit of time. So, for now please let me know if you see any other casing issues, or if you have any other suggestions. Thanks. Jakerylandwilliams (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think firepower can be a countable noun. What usage can you think of where it could be used like that? The only definitions given on the entry are for it being the capacity or ability to do something, which would make it uncountable. Mclay1 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's just an empirical question. It might have been used that way in the past, or in some region, or in a literary context. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

What do you make of the definitions implied by this usage? DCDuring TALK 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I, at first, thought there was no proper plural - but, on looking, I found several usages such as "the instantaneous firepowers of the two sides" which seems to be a use of the simple plural of firepower. The usage at "Big Four firepowers" seems to refer to states that have a powerful military - I'm not convinced that that is a correct usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

  It's not part of my idiolect, even in the use you find legitimate, but my authority doesn't go very far. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that you have reverted two of my contributions, the most recent being a corrected military definition for Abort, and the one before that the correct Military definition for Catapult. They are both taken from JCS Publication 1-02 (Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) WHY???

• The entry at abort - you gave verb definitions to the noun section. The definitions that you gave were just specialized usages of existing senses anyway.
• The entry at catapult was similarly a specialized usage of the existing sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

And, WHY is it incorrect to include specific Verbal usage of Nouns? We in the Military use Nouns as Verbs all the time. The specific Dictionary I referenced has 405 pages of definitions, the vast majority of which are Nouns that have been used as Verbs. Incidentally, this dictionary is standard not only for the US DOD, but also for NATO, which includes 16 Nations, and the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB), which includes 20 Nations. Yes, the volume does have regular Nouns, used as Nouns, but many of them are used as Verbs as well. while we are at it, Why is "specialized usage" a problem?

Verbs and nouns are different parts of speech. They must be listed under different headings on the page. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Firstly, words may certainly have both noun and verb senses - abort is one of these, and our entry has both noun and verb sections - your addition was in the wrong section.
• Secondly, specialized usages may certainly be added here if they are significantly different from standard usage, But your definitions seemed to me to match the definitions that we already had - they just used different wordings.
• Thirdly, definitions must be our own work - you must not copy definitions word-for-word from other dictionaries. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Milton Keynes Dons is not the "legal continuation" of Wimbledon FC. The legal entities were separated in 2004. This has been discussed at length on the Milton Keynes Dons page. Please revert your revert to stop this lie being perpetuated.165.120.81.104 23:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• My understanding is that MK Dons is simply the old Wimbledon team with a new name and location (everything else remaining as was). That looks like a "legal continuation" to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your understanding is wrong. In 2004 a CVA transferred the assets of Wimbledon FC Ltd to Milton Keynes Dons Ltd. Wimbledon FC Ltd continued in administration until being wound up in 2009. In legal terms Milton Keynes Dons is not a continuation, it's a new legal entity, formed in 2004. We've had this discussion over and over and those facts aren't changing. I'm going to delete the incorrect "legal continuation" text again.

Hey SB, could you undelete podemista please? I think there was some decent content there. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, does your bot still do French work? If so, there's a lot of terms at Category:French adjectives with missing forms (which are not actually adjectives) which could be created. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, but the contents of that category are just weird. I'll see if I can get my head around it.SemperBlotto (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
• They mostly seem to be masculine nouns that have a feminine equivalent. So a (hypothetical) bot would have to generate the feminine form (with m=masculine form) and copy the definitions with the addition of "(female)". I'm not sure if I could do that without making mistakes. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • OK, I've done the simple ones. Most of the ones left have a sort= parameter. I'll see if I can generate that parameter for the feminine form. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks a lot. I've corrected some of the bot entries and tagged others as "I don't get it". Without a doubt, I've missed some, but other users will probably catch them. Between us, however, it's an improvement and Wiktionary has been enriched. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you're still working with German, there's some more adjective forms to be created if you're interested! --Type56op9 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

One bot vote has finished, and passed. PS, would you like to archive your talk page? It's getting quite long... --Type56op9 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

First off, I am new to wiktionary.

Why did you remove Etymology section from fire philosophers (this diff)?

I added (this diff) the missing example citation and {{seemoreCites}} that points to more citations that also state "Fire-Philosophers, or Philosophi per ignem". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Etymology etc goes on the singular. We don't repeat it on the plural. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's the same as Chivalry, but in German.

Translations belong in the Translations section, not in Related terms. Equinox ◑ 22:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know that the chemistry definition and the definition "person who conforms" are in the right etymology sections with the right pronunciation, but I'm honestly not so sure about that biology sense. I can't remember ever having heard it, and this medical dictionary lists a rather different definition for the protein sense. It also lists a sense we don't have, but I'm not sure about that definition, having never seen it and having trouble finding it in use. Can you sort this entry out at all, or at least add/fix the definitions? Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I've moved the protein sense from ety 2 to ety 1 (and expanded a few definitions). I'm not sure of the mold in that dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. I see that Wikipedia has that sense - I don't know how to pronounce it though. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you reverted my edit on Afrikaans "baba". But I was not logged in at the time, didn't realize that. Well, the word does mean "baby", there's no doubt about that. Check the Afrikaans wiktionary where it's defined as "baie jong kindjie" (very young child) and translated with English "baby". -- I just didn't delete the "father" sense because, as I said, my Afrikaans is not good enough to rule out that it exists. Best regards! Kolmiel (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually means daddy - some similar words mean this in several European languages. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff, what is up. Firstly, thanks for repeatedly dealing with words on my user page, which is much more than I expected when I reminded you of it as a one-off thing. Secondly, as you know, I've done most of what I can from your A-Z sandbox pages, limited by (i) what's on Wikipedia and (ii) what I know (which is very limited) about biochemistry, anatomy, etc. I have developed the habit of posting on WP's talk pages "why does ___ redirect here?" in the hope that the next time I try it I will be able to define the word that previously only went to a certain WP page without explanation. It sometimes works. What is your feeling about the terms that are not even redirected on Wikipedia, and turn up nothing in the search engine? Excluding the mistakes, some are lesser-known (or obsolete/archaic) chemical terms, some are obscure enzymes, some are sufficiently compounded (with pre-, post-, sub-, super-, etc.) that WP wouldn't need articles (though they presumably have some anatomical sense, and I am not confident enough in that area to assume, oh, "post- means behind the dorsal whatever" — I am wondering whether we could commandeer some science-aware subset of WP (which is much bigger than us, and has "helpdesks" and all sorts) to help us with the remaining, more difficult words. Do you think this is doable? Do you think it is worth it? (I think it probably is.) They would have to be re-trained in our completely alien ideas about sourcing and referencing. Any other ideas? Equinox ◑ 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think Wikipedians are rarely eager to join a project like this, but it's worth a try. By the way, we do have some more science-knowledgeable sorts already on board around here, I think; I am, and I believe that Wyang (talk • contribs) is as well. Personally, I doubt I can do any better than Semper in any subjects besides geology, marine science, and palaeontology, so I reckon it won't do you much good, but it's something. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My short-term memory is shot to hell, but I think I produced my sandbox words from here. I have serious doubts about many of them - e.g. (the very first one) acribometer = "An instrument for measuring very minute objects." WTF? I wouldn't be surprised if the majority are "dictionary-only words". (Thanks for your help by the way) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why does it say setentrionale m, f? --Romanophile (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, there seems to be a bug in the vec-adj template. I think (but am not sure) that the plural is setentrionali - I have removed the template for now. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's copied from an older form of {{it-noun}}. Since this word has no final 'e' as you would expect in Italian, no matter what you put, you're wrong. I just changed the head word to default to {{PAGENAME}} which means {{vec-adj|setentrional|e}} now works (because it ignores the final e). But sadly enough, you do need a second parameter; it doesn't matter what that parameter is, it could be 666, but it needs one. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionnarie defines this as something in chemistry. I can't find any evidence. Is this worth anything? --Sucio green (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm. They define it as an anion derived from erbium (like, say, a nitrate is derived from nitrogen). It is most unusual - for instance there is just a single Google hit for "sodium erbate" (in quotes). I shall add it. It is, however, part of the Italian adjective erbato which will appear soon. Thanks for spotting it. (p.s. a better username than the last one) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anon just claimed this (i.e. "aquarium") can also be spelled aquario. it:aquario says the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made the edit to "morrow" on the basis of the book "Country Words" by H.G. Ames (after having tried, and failed, to track down this usage of the word online). You have a better sense than me as to how widespread definitions need to be before they warrant inclusion on Wiktionary so I'll leave the changes reverted and leave it to you to determine the appropriate move here.

• You added a verb section between the noun section and its related terms and translations - making the translations seem to be of the verb. Also, I couldn't find any evidence for the verb as use defined it. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

For variant spellings in Inuktitut like ᕼᐋᑭ (Nunavut) and ᕺᑭ (Nunavik), both romanised as haaki (hockey), which should be used as the main page? I mean this in relation to how labor is defined as an American standard spelling of labour. I'm inclined to use Nunavut but I wasn't truly sure. DerekWinters (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I have no idea. I added a few Inuktitut words a long time ago just for the hell of it. (found a dictionary in the local library) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Ah I see. Alright then. I'll go with the Nunavut spelling as the standard. DerekWinters (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added "Process Communication Model, a non-clinical personality assessment, communication and management methodology developed by Taibi Kahler, Ph.D." and you rolled it back. Do a quick google search on PCM and Taibi Kahler and you will find plenty of hits, it's not an obscure abbreviation. Aeon-lakes (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I could only see it being used by the original author. It looks like self-promotion to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

now four variants

Why should not the fraternity founded in England be given in wiktionary's definition of Freemasonry? User:PaulBustion88PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You are probably thinking of Freemasonry (with a capital F). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because it is not officially a religion, it is sometimes spelled lowercase. For example, in George Bush the Bush hating, Freemasonry hating authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin wrote about Freemasonry with a lower case f, "After the French elections, it was Bush who was despatched to France to meet the new French President Francois “Tonton” Mitterrand of the Grand Orient freemasonry." "In all of this the freemason Bush shares the obsession of the Anglo-American elite, who are committed to destroying the papacy as one of the few institutions in the world that has dared to resist their Malthusian proposition that the central problem of humanity is overpopulation."http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-17-the-attempted-coup-detat-of-march-30-1981/ "There was at that time a deep suspicion of, and national revulsion against, freemasonry and secret organizations in the United States, fostered in particular by the anti-masonic writings of former U.S. President John Quincy Adams." "Beyond the psychological manipulation associated with freemasonic mummery, there are very solid political reasons for Bush’s strong identification with this cult."http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-7-skull-and-bones-the-racist-nightmare-at-yale/ "then came the endorsement of G. William Whitehurst of Virginia, an endorsement that stood out for its freemasonic overtones in a field where freemasonic modulations were rife." http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-13-bush-attempts-the-vice-presidency-1974/ The authors there spelled freemasonry lower case to many times for it to have been a typo. So I think that it is spelled lower case sometimes. PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) By the way, I'm not endorsing Tarpley's and Chaitkin's claims against Bush or Freemasonry, or their political views, I'm just showing that they spelled it with a lower case f, so that's not necessarily unheard of to do so.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. We have freemasonry (with a lowercase "f") (and we don't give a toss about your political views). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I didn't think you did. But those authors are kooks, so I just wanted to make clear I don't agree with most of what they said. But why cannot Freemasonry in the traditional sense be included in the lower case term's definitions, since I have shown that it has been spelled with a lower case f?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• • That would seem to be a simple typographical variant. Consult the tea room to get other people's opinion. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heres one source http:. You want more?: http://www.nordicnames.dehttps://dictious.com/en/BJ%C3%96RN== Read ancient swedish and runes and correct me if I am wrong but... ==

Borne was the conduction of the word;"biorn" or "Bear"; and was formed and used by the Viking’s. The bear was the symbol of war and status. Where The Vikings wore the bear’s fur and was consider as a sign of strength.

• What the fuck has that got to do with the past tense of the verb "to bear"? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heres one source http:. You want more?

As I'm new to Wiktionary, can you explain some of the errors I made? :) Caliburn (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Firstly, it seems to me to be simply the sum of its parts - standing but not operating.
• Secondly, you say it is an imperative term - clearly false (an imperative is a form of verb).
• Thirdly, you say it is an adjective but define it ("an amusement park ...") as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm still trying to figure out what part of the entry on heptahedron puts it into the suffix category. The only one that I can figure out is maybe confix, but there is nothing in the notes for the template that indicates that it should do that. (experienced wikipedia editor, inexperienced wiktionary editor)Naraht (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. The {{confix}} template puts the word into the prefix and also the suffix categories. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should that fact be added to Template:confix/documentation ?

Probably. The documentation of our templates tends to tell people how to use them, but doesn't often tell them the consequences (people don't usually care, and often don't notice). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a somewhat different audience than Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Naraht: How's this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto: Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was wondering why you deleted the definition I added yesterday to the "prot" article (my addition was the Italian onomatopoeia). I don't think it was objectionable content. 82.54.216.187 22:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It wasn't in any of my Italian dictionaries. I searched Google for "il prot" and "gli prot" without success. The Italians have several words for fart - the ones that I am familiar with are scoreggia, peto, flato, loffa and vescia. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could you review my editing? Are there any problems with it other than formatting ones?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Formatting is bad. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes. As far as content goes, you seem to be very close to POV-pushing, and I get the impression that you are rather US-centric. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I had a pov that Mormonism is a different religion from Christianity, and also about some other cults of Christianity, and I also had that about some cults of Islam, I'm taking that pov out of the entries. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I've changed some of my edits, for example here, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Mormonism&action=history, and here, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=32774616&oldid=32768873, and here, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witness&type=revision&diff=32774624&oldid=32773088, and here, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&type=revision&diff=32774179&oldid=32773008 to make my editing more npov. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC) What do you mean by you "get the impression" that I am "US centric", the writing style author I mentioned, HW Fowler, was British and he believed in using British English. He is the person who influenced my writing style. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Could you give suggestions on other pov pushing edits I should take down or revise?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I saw that you had de-poved some entries. US-centricity was just a vague unease that I had - probably nothing you can do about it. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is this kind of edit, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=hebephilia&type=revision&diff=32774242&oldid=32768662, where I removed the age range as 11-14 as the object of this sexual attraction, that I summarized with, "Not all definitions use that specific age range, I also think a 14 year old female would look more like an 18 year old than a 12, & it isn't knowing the chronological age that the adult finds attractive,its the features of the body." pov pushing. The reason I removed it is because my understanding is that most 14 year old females are already either done with puberty or close to being done with it, so they would look more like 18 year olds than 12 year olds, i.e., they would not be part of the range a hebephile would find attractive, and the age range can also definitely vary, since some people go through puberty at different times. Also it is not knowing that the female is say, 12 years old, that the hebephile finds attractive, or that the male is for that matter, but the features of the person's body, so to some extent I thought including the age range was irrelevant. Is there anything wrong with that edit?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That is certainly a change for the better - we don't need to be too encyclopedic in our definitions. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I tried to fix the formatting for Grand Orient Freemasonry. Is this better? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Grand_Orient_Freemasonry

--PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No, not really. The definition should start with a #. Then get rid of the substub nonsense. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
• And look at Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Have you learnt nothing? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here, is it better now, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Orient_Freemasonry&action=history? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not really think that Dan Polansky should be blocked at all. Maybe there should be an interaction ban between him and myself if we cannot be civil to each other. But if his only problem is with me, it should probably just be an interaction ban, not a block. — This unsigned comment was added by PaulBustion88 (talk • contribs).

• OK. I'll unblock him. Feel free to have a discussion with him (and please try to be brief and concise). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think its a good idea for me to interact with him unless I have to, since nobody else has suggested I be banned other than him, I think its best I leave him alone right now. I think part of the reason he thinks I'm trolling here like I did on English wikipedia is because of sample sentences that I wrote partially to be funny, but I also thought were legitimate examples, like this, https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=principle_of_explosion&diff=prev&oldid=32785541, "It was raining and not raining at the same and in the same sense of the word, so the principle of explosion meant that he could legitimately conclude that he had a million dollars, and Socrates was Chinese, and Sigmund Freud was the current President of the United States, there was in a word, an explosion of nonsense." That's exactly what the principle of explosion means, Graham Priest said in an interview that in classical logic, if you have a contradiction, you can prove anything from it, and he gave as an example Socrates becoming Chinese in this kind of logic after a contradiction is proven, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgpPlvLDdzo. But I've taken down anything I wrote down that might be seen as a joke down that I can remember, and I'm going through all my history to see if I forgot anything I wrote that was possibly inappropriate and I will take anything I find that's inappropriate down. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you know what ‘ceste’ means in Venetian? --Romanophile (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's an interjection. Perhaps the best translation is something like "That's life!" - said when something bad but unavoidable happens. (I'll add it) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You are a good person and a good editor (even if I disagree with some of your blocks, but that’s a different matter). --Romanophile (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking that reminded me of c'est la vie, and there I see it in the etymology section! :-) How's ceste pronounced, may I ask? ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually speak Venetian (I have trouble enough with Italian) but would guess it must sound pretty much like the French - something like "sest-é" perhaps (you will notice that I don't do IPA either). SemperBlotto (talk)

I see; thanks. I would've tried to work it out myself, but there's no Wikipedia article on Venetian phonology. Do you mind if I add {{rfp|lang=vec}} to the entry? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Feel free. You might like to ask User:GatoSelvadego but he is not very active (email perhaps?). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; done. I've asked him at his main user talk page, vec:w:Discussion utente:GatoSelvadego#en:wikt:ceste#Venetian. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's Vicentine slang, pronounced /ˈt͡ʃeste/ (“čésté”, if that makes sense). It's also Vicentine slang in Italian contexts, not just Venetian. Would you care to add an Italian entry for it? I imagine its usage is pretty much identical in the two languages. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've added a basic entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. How would you say it's pronounced? Like the Venetian (/ˈt͡ʃeste/, “čésté”)? Or maybe /ˈt͡ʃɛste/ (“čèsté”), /ˈt͡ʃɛstɛ/ (“čèstè”), /ˈt͡ʃestɛ/ (“čéstè”), or some other way? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my major failing is that I don't understand IPA. I would suspect that it is the same as the vec term - as it is probably used only by Italian speakers in the same region. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've made the changes. If the audio pronunciation in cesta is correct (please verify that it is), then I'm pretty sure it's pronounced /ˈt͡ʃesta/ (“čésta”); /ˈt͡ʃestɛ/ (“čéstè”) sounds really weird to me, so I think you're right that ceste is pronounced /ˈt͡ʃeste/ (“čésté”). Re not knowing IPA, please n.b. the spelling pronunciations that I've included in parentheses after the IPA transcriptions; ‘é’ (IPA^(key): ⟨e⟩) and ‘è’ (IPA^(key): ⟨ɛ⟩) are pronounced as in French, ‘a’ (IPA^(key): ⟨a⟩) is pronounced as in Italian and Spanish, ‘s’ (IPA^(key): ⟨s⟩) and ‘t’ (IPA^(key): ⟨t⟩) are pronounced as in English, and ‘č’ (IPA^(key): ⟨t͡ʃ⟩) is pronounced as in the Slavic languages (akin to the German ‘tsch’, the English ‘ch’ as in church, and the Italian ‘c’ in ce and ci without a preceding s). I hope what I've written makes more sense now. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The audio in cesta sounds perfect. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's all sorted, then. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The alternative pronunciation of tryst as /tɹaɪst/ is real. I found it on dictionary.com, so added it here too. I intend to revert your reversion, if that's all right. - Gilgamesh~enwiki (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I noticed your rollback, and I'd like to understand: computer code seems to be a semantic equivalent of source code and, even if it's not an idiom in English, this information could be helpful for those who search an equivalent (for a writing, for example), and this information is a linguistic one. So I'd like your perspective.

Regards, — Automatik (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Computer code" could be any code for, or used by, a computer, such as machine code or XML; those are not source code (since they don't get compiled or interpreted in the way e.g. C does). Equinox ◑ 22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since the redirect w:computer code suggests an other interpretation, this should be changed into a disambiguation page according to your explanation (→ w:source code or → w:machine code) — unless the meaning of "source code" for computer code is more common? Giving the results of this Google search, I incline to the latter. — Automatik (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the point. It's code for a computer. The phrase "turtle biology" is common (8000+ matches in Google Books) but it's just the biology turtles. Computer code is just code for computers. No need for entry. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is not Wikipedia - we don't do disambiguation pages. I have had a look for the string "computer code" on a Google book search, and it is true that some people use the term to mean source code, while others seem to mean object code. I shall add an entry - but I don't think it is in anyway "correct" usage, and won't add it as an alternative form. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course, we don't do disambiguation pages here, I was talking about Wikipedia. But if it is really not an idiom in English, then I don't claim an entry for this word. Regards, — Automatik (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/r%C3%A9colte says from Italian ricolta, is that an error for raccolta or an obsolete form? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I suppose it is old-fashioned or literary. I'll add it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You asked for comments if we thought your edit should be rolled back, which is interesting as I stopped to look in both Discussion or Edits before I basically undid your edit. The Usage Notes say "either a preposition is used (typically of) or...", but then neither of the examples show that. I also had to read the notes over a couple times to make sense of them. The colon followed by "then" was confusing. The "either...or" also isn't parallel.

With your approval, I suggest that the Usage Notes be changed to read:

• Sometimes followed by a reference to the one being remembered (separated by a preposition (typically (deprecated template usage) of), a full-colon, or no separation. For example: (deprecated template usage) in memoriam of Christa McAuliffe, (deprecated template usage) in memoriam: Christa McAuliffe, or (deprecated template usage) in memoriam Christa McAuliffe).

Thank you for your time, Westley Turner (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my user page? The code: Writer freak Contributions

• User pages are for users. You have not made any edits to Wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

See the Merriam-Webster online entry for Morpheus . I'll be reverting your reversion, if that's all right. 130.71.254.49 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't damage the article (on *shiver* goatse), and I added another definition. Shouldn't that be considered helpful? I have undone that edit. If you undo it again, please explain. Thanks!--Quibit (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• First, the website was not called goatse - it would have had www. or somesutch in its name. Second, that would have been a proper noun, not a noun. Third, you added it between the valid definition and the subsequent citations, making the citations seem to support your added definition. Your definition has been removed again. Please don't add it again. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Not to mention capitalizing Site as if it were some object of veneration or worship. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have rolled back your undo, edited the 2nd Definition to provide accessibility to the common man and added explanatory reference. Greg Logan (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok! Maybe I could add a new page for the site itself, goatse.cx? I'm new to Wiktionary, so that was probably a newcomer mistake. Thanks!--Quibit (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added the comment that, in the context, "p.m.", or "pm" means "post meridiem" which is literally translated as "after noon" and that since neither "post" nor "meridiem" is capitalised neither should the "p" or "m" in the abbreviation. Why did you remove any of that? It is supported by the OED. Please put the entry back as I left it. Steven 203.59.216.147 09:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• See p.m. - the form with capital letters is just a typographical modification. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, SemperBlotto, you recently deleted my addition of the term Residential Treatment Center with the explanation that it wasn't dictionary material. I disagree. The term residential treatment center is a common term used in the therapeutic industry. Something similar to this term that's defined on Wikitionary would be the term Boarding School. They are related, but not the same. I was wondering why you thought this wasn't a term. Thanks! Regargia (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Firstly, it should have been residential treatment center (not capitalized).
• Secondly, it is just the sum of its parts - a treatment center that is residential.

Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand the capitalization error. But it is not simply a treatment center that is residential. There's a difference in licensing laws between what a treatment center specifically is and what a residential treatment center/facility/program is. Here: http://dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch18/sec4ch18sub6.htm

Regargia (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That sort of thing is encyclopedic - however feel free to argue your case at our tea room as others may disagree with me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just saw the definition for 'social media networking' "is the act of building, creating and leveraging personal or business relationships through social media applications with a goal of providing or receiving support, feedback, insight, resources and information in the future" was deleted. Could you please explain why?

• Firstly, it was social media networking, not Social Media Networking that was deleted.
• Secondly, you said it was a verb. It would be a noun.
• Thirdly, it would be the simple sum of its parts - networking by the use of social media. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

, I don't know how to begin a topic on this page, I am unsure whether there are any rules or guidelines I am not following, for instance with my edit on "police", the roots were accurate and it got deleted before I could properly fix up on it. If you could respond to this then delete it after 2 minutes or somehow message me on how to communicate to you properly that would be great, thankyou. - I am using my phone — This unsigned comment was added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs) at 10:21, 27 May 2015.

Essential I'm fairly lost on how editions are to be accepted, with "Police" Poli- does mean City...

See; these are some examples that Poli- fits as "City"

Polity; Poli- + -ity (relating to); which is a well documented definition of government or rather a relation to the citadel/palace etc.

Politician; Polity- + cian (someone who performs in the former); so in other words; A politician is someone who runs a city.

Politics; Polity- + -ics (relating to); Again, this is within full relation to a city.

Therefore;

Poli- + -ic + e (a shortening for "er", someone who performs a specified task <requires defining, I "said guards"> within the city.)

Will this site include the break downs of words and if so, where have I gone wrong/been debunked? I'll try to include more evidence-based explainations when I edit.

I've also just went to Wikipedia to present this;

Polis (/ˈpɒlɨs/; Greek: πόλις ), plural poleis (/ˈpɒleɪz/, πόλεις ) literally means city in Greek. It can also mean citizenship and body of citizens. In modern historiography, polis is normally used to indicate the ancient Greek city-states, like Classical Athens and its contemporaries, and thus is often translated as "city-state". — This unsigned comment was added by Anonymous573462 (talk • contribs).

• Firstly, you edited the entry for the German word Police, not the English word police.
• Secondly, you should find out how to format etymology sections at Wiktionary:Etymology. Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir,

I noticed that my recent entry bad rap was deleted with the comment "totally wrong". I wanted to find out if you felt the definition or the formatting was totally wrong.

Also, why wasn't it simply corrected rather than deleted out of hand? - 99.114.188.208 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It had so many mistakes, both in meaning and in formatting, that I couldn't be bothered to correct it. I see that someone else has now added a correct entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't see how any new users can gain experience here with the rules so stringent and the solution to what is perceived as bad editing is to delete rather than to correct. - 99.114.188.208 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Guess what. We were all newbies once. What we have all done is look at existing entries to see how they are formatted, then copy that formatting. Nobody said it is easy. There is nobody to help you. Either learn or go elsewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • I agree with the newbie here. It would have been better for you, User:SemperBlotto, to have fixed the entry rather than deleting it. Or, if you didn't feel like fixing it yourself, leave a message on the talk page of the creator asking him/her to fix it. Purplebackpack89 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89: I subst'd {{welcomeip}} on the anon's talk page; that should tell him everything he needs to do to improve his entries considerably. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's OK for this particular case, but I still don't think the process of deleting fixable entries on sight is a good idea. It's great at one thing, though: permanently driving away newbies from the project. Purplebackpack89 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89: I personally tend to fix bad entries that I think have potential lexicographic content. However, I don't criticise SB in the slightest for deleting such entries; he does a hell of a lot more patrolling than I do, and there are only so many hours in the day. You would be doing the project a great service if you were to keep an eye on Special:RecentChanges to hold the hands of newbies by {{welcome}}-ing them and improving their entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's good practice to focus on entries not editors. You can't not delete a bad entry because you're scared of hurting someone's feelings. If we start doing that it's the point we start moving away from being a dictionary and towards being a social network. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The entry was also copied verbatim from Grammarist, which adds to the list of reasons it should be deleted. - TheDaveRoss 17:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

moved from WT:VIP (Special:Diff/32869664)

The deletion of duûm was vandalism:

• The form is attestable
• The entry was correct
• Instead of deletion he might have asked for "request for verification"
• "probably means duum" -- no, it's "duûm", where ^ is the so called "signum contractionis", literally "sign of contraction", i.e. a sign that indicates contraction.

-91.63.230.4 06:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry SB, I didn't know where else to bring this. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC))Reply

(@ISMETA, and for SB to see: Maybe at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Undeletion request: duûm? -91.63.230.4 09:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC))Reply

It should be duum. The headword may possibly have the little hat, but the entry itself shouldn't. See Wiktionary:About Latin. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just sending a response about your revert to the addition I made to serial. Both the OED and Merriam Webster provide distinct definitions and examples of a serial pertaining to both a story issued in installments AND a publication issued in installments. Based on this, I think that both definitions should be acceptable. Kbalster (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't see any difference - a story that is issued is a publication. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I mean to differentiate between a serial work and the container in which it is published. The two are closely related, but not always the same. For example, The Pickwick Papers was published in installments as a stand-alone publication, so the work and the container are one and the same. However, if you look at something like Shonen Jump which is a serial publication containing multiple serial works like Naruto and Bleach, the difference is more easily seen. There are also other types of serial publications, such as periodicals, which often do not contain any serial works, just one-off articles. The current definition - I think - ignores this distinction. I am fine with either adding a separate definition (as done in Merriam-Webster) or changing the existing definition to more clearly illustrate the difference (as done in OED). Kbalster (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm an Indonesian and I studied English for 13 years. Dangerous in Bahasa Indonesia is "berbahaya".--173.180.68.83 01:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You just added unformatted text. Look at the other translations and figure out how to do it properly. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You deleted my entry for "Necker", the capitalized spelling of which was demonstrated in the P.G.Wodehouse quotation I included. Is there any way to recover that quotation (with all its formatting) so it can at least be added to the "necker" entry?--Person12 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• 1931, P. G. Wodehouse, 'Big Money', Herbert Jenkins, London, page 195.

  "A nice girl like you! A girl who has always prided herself on her fastidiousness. A girl who could never understand how other girls in her set could make themselves cheap and let themselves be pawed about—Ugh!" said Conscience witheringly. "Necker!"

  Ann shuddered.

  "Yes, Necker!...

Why did you delete explosive cyclogenesis five-seconds after it was created? It does have an article at Wikipedia w:Explosive cyclogenesis?? I think you should place it back. If you still think it should be deleted then post a discussion +tag and try to build a consensus. IQ125 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• You need stronger glasses. I deleted "explosive cyclogenes" not "explosive cyclogenesis". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my mistake, I have added explosive cyclogenesis with three citations. IQ125 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your revert of my edit is in error. The definition I added is commonly used in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Please consider undoing your revert. Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Intractable is an adjective. Your definition (a problem ...) would be that of a noun. Also, an "intractable problem" is simply one that is not tractable. (See the maths and computing definitions for tractable. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A24.36.54.238
I thought it was policy simply to revert edits without explanation.24.36.54.238 15:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• People who add crap to the Wiki get blocked. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will give Wiktionary:Blocking policy and Help:Interacting with other users a decent read. "Crap" (crap) might be, for all I know, something for the community, and not just one administrator, to determine. Cheers.24.36.54.238 22:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

On one hand, I wouldn't have blocked for it, but on the other hand, it was crap. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you for your support.   :-D
Actually what I likely should have done was something like this: Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/June#Chucky, though I kinda like talk pages. Nonetheless, if SemperBlotto was a jerk with me, he was far from the worse. Still, I heard Peter Tosh's Steppin' Razor and I let it get the best of me, including with words such as chucky, duppy, bull bukka, buk, and, of course, steppin' razor (or stepping razor, which quotes Tosh).24.36.54.238 03:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I guess you still aren't considering running a Spanish adjective/noun/verb bot, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Nope. I am only es-1. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason you created an entry for a term that failed rfv? Also, I sincerely doubt the part about the "family Araneidae": araneus is Latin for spider, the order within Arachnida for spiders is called Araneae, and I can't think of a reason anyone would want to kill relatively innocuous garden spiders to the exclusion of all the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I am just adding singulars for existing plurals. I'll delete the plural if you haven't already done so. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  I had done so. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your bot made a slight error there. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. That used to be an acceptable way to construct a headword. But the rules keep changing and editors are not always told. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I did not understood the rational for removal, in polizón.

If you think there is a rational, please, le me know.

• "English and/or spanish" is not a language. If the same word is used in more than one language then you need to supply multiple langiage entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category:Species entry using missing Translingual specific epithet has nearly 500 entries. It is what it says on the tin, sorted by specific epithet, so one could tell whether an epithet was used in more than one species name that we have an entry for, whether there was an alternative form (eg, harrisi and harrisii), etc. A similar category exists for Latin with nearly 900 entries. There are also much smaller categories for various other languages that have provided apparently uninflected, non-Latinized specific epithets, that differ at most by accents and similar character differences from a word in the specified language. Unlike the big lists produced by User:DTLHS, one has the assurance that the specific epithets are used for a species that has an entry in Wiktionary, which probably positively correlates with its possible value to users here better than DTLHS's lists. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I was going to return to Italian tomorrow, but I'll see what I can manage. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

  There's no rush. But please keep it in mind. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto,

I am seeking some understanding as to why the new entry I completed has been deleted by you.

Some understanding would be greatly appreciated as I put in a lot of time researching it.

Thank You

Matt

• You added Eclectymmetry. No such word exists. If it did exist, I doubt that it woyuld start with a capital letter. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. I made an edit (linking artichoke to rhyme with poke), but it looks like you reverted that change shortly afterwards.

I could understand a modification (perhaps to change the rhyme group or move the template) or even a removal with justification (perhaps "this word has no English rhymes"). Since my change was not "clearly and irredeemably nonconstructive", though, I'm surprised to see it simply reverted without comment.

Could you clarify your thoughts on the matter?

Heavy Joke (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Artichoke doesn't rhyme with joke because the stress is on the wrong syllable - it's artichoke, not artichoke. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My spelling. The word ' fuck ' is in the Australian Macquarie dictionary. I thought I could create a new word around the Macquarie Dictionary at this website. Educationally, Capt. Arthur Phillip is very much a forgotten part of White Australian policies, of which, are still relevant, in Australia's truthful history. So, for arguments sake, replacing Australian Slang/English words beginning with F to Ph, seems educationally just. Davo6869 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

We're a descriptive dictionary: if a spelling is in use, as shown by sources that meet the requirements of our Criteria for inclusion, we can have an entry for it. If it doesn't, we can't. We're not censored, so we have an entry for fuck, but we can't have an entry for anything that someone just made up- obscene or not. In addition, your version wasn't a dictionary entry, it was just some random comment about the term. See Entry layout explained for details. As for educating about a figure in Australian politics- that's not something a dictionary does. We provide information about words and phrases- as words and phrases- not about the people who have used them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Etymology (of the German word) Volkspolizei

See

• Volk
• Polizei

Latest revision as of 12:54, 3 June 2015 SemperBlotto - If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page. Yes, I do. The German word is a typical combined word, so the first part means Volk, the second Polizei. The Etymology of the two parts helps to understand the word, Etymology and Meaning. --Schwab7000 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. See how I have formatted the etymology section properly. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you. Sorry to say: “But:” A blend is a word or name that starts with the start of one word and ends with the end of another, such as smog (from smoke and fog) (not smokefog). The German term is zusammengesetztes Wort. https://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/zusammengesetztes+Wort.html tells me that this is compound word (or composite) in English. --Schwab7000 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Of course! My mistake. I have corrected it. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, SemperBlotto. You have new messages at I'm so meta even this acronym's talk page.
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

I've added {{en-noun}} to this, because it's still a lemma and not an inflection; it can have its own plural. —CodeCat 20:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit but failed to supply a reason. I have restored it. When you delete other people's contributions, unless they are obvious nonsense or vandalism, please provide a reason in the edit summary. 109.153.244.21 20:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

And they'd be able to tell foreign friends, "I'm transsexual and I want to have sex". After all we've done...! Equinox ◑ 07:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "All words in all languages" looked up by all idiots in all countries. (Anyway, it keeps me amused) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Any centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaur of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus"

Every time I see wording such as this I think the equivalent of: "What about other, non-centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaurs that are also of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus?" and even "What about non-dinosaurs that are also of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus?".

I think the problem is analogous to the one that occurs when a definition is written in such a way that what should be a non-restrictive clause with a description is just as easily (or more easily) read as a restrictive clause with distinguishing, identifying characteristics. In fact all dinosaurs of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus are centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaurs, but the wording allows for the possibility that some aren't.

I've had trouble coming up with a felicitously worded alternative not subject to the same problem. The best I've done is:

"Any member of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus, centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaurs."

Does this wording have some ambiguity or other problem? I can't see a problem, but there may still be one lurking. DCDuring TALK 13:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to improve / correct any of my definitions. The simpler "any member of the <taxon>" is correct, but we might as well give the user a bit of information if we have it. Cheers SemperBlotto (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Any member of the genus Pachyrhinosaurus of centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaurs." seems a little more natural. Even "Any member of the centrosaurine ceratopsid dinosaur genus Pachyrhinosaurus would be better, but I'm a bit fuzzy on how to handle the hyphenation (this must be Alliteration Day...). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think we can dispense with the hyphens as any combination of the four nouns leads to about the same concept. Either of your wordings seems fine, probably better than mine, though more opinions would be nice. It might be worth getting reactions from others as definitions of vernacular names have a generic core that should be used at least hundreds if not thousands of times.

BTW, I often find it easy to read {{taxon}} pseudo-definitions as ambiguous. I know that parameter 4 is intended to identify, describe, or gloss the headword, but it is easy to read the text as having it relate instead to the hypernym (parameter 3) in the template.

Once we've started cleaning up the definitions of taxa along these lines, we can go on to analogous improvements of the definitions ordinary of English words, which might yield more ideas for improving taxa definitions. I am bothered by misleading use of articles and determiners and of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses as well.

Should this be moved to a general discussion page? WT:Taxonomic names is appropriate, but unwatched by some who could help. Maybe I will just solicit opinions from others who add taxonomic and vernacular name entries. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

LOL, I am enjoying the idea of somebody tossing and turning in bed, thinking "what about the non-centrosaurine ceratopsids though ??!". But, DCD, I completely agree, and try to write "any of the genus X of Ys" and not "any Y in the genus X". This is to be encouraged. Equinox ◑ 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It isn't usually that folks won't understand, it's more a kind of annoyance. I don't know how many would be annoyed. This case is particularly silly sounding, but the word is probably likely to require people to parse the definition more carefully to understand, which increases the chances that they will hit upon the ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

On a more specific note, I would dispute the accuracy of this definition. The document referenced in the citation (hidden in the entry for the plural) also several times refers to the more likely Pachyrhinosaurini, apparently a clade somewhere between family and genus (a tribe, as our entry for -ini would have it). The cladogram in Wikipedia shows five member genera. — Pingku^dimmi 06:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to correct or improve any of my definitions/translations. That is so much easier than writing thousands of words on my talk page. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I had a meek moment. :) My edit will I hope resolve the original issue, for this case at least. — Pingku^dimmi 09:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused by this. It says it's both the feminine form of piantato, but also the past participle of piantarla. How is this possible, do participles not always end in -o? And if not, how is this declined? {{it-pp}} doesn't currently support it. —CodeCat 21:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• That was added by user:Barmar, a native Italian who is no longer with us. I'll think about it tomorrow. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Italian past participles agree in gender and number just like adjectives. The only exceptions are intransitive verbs that take "avere" - they are invariant. I can't find the conjugation of this verb (or any like it) in any online site, and my grammar book is no help. Barmar didn't reply to my email when she left - so I can't think what to do. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
• The verb finirla follows the same pattern and is much more common. This site agrees with our pattern of pp. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • So how does it inflect? —CodeCat 13:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • As far as I can tell, it doesn't. But I can't find that written down anywhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please stop removing correct, sourced content from the "attorney general" page, without even bothering to comment. This is a pretty shoddy way to behave. 78.98.67.17 11:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why did you strip of/quick reverted my edits that added related terms: Philistia and Philistines? --Miraclexix (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Those "words" are not related to the "word" Palestinian. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually, Miraclexix has a point. Miraclexix, regarding your edit here: Alternative forms are always supposed to be listed at the top, and placenames are always proper nouns. Regarding the relationship of Philistine and Palestine: I notice now that our entries say they're from the same source, and dictionary.com agrees. I didn't know that... learn something new every day. - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • To a point. I don't know if we want related terms at an entry for a secondary derived form- wouldn't it be better at Palestine? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This was in error.68.148.186.93 05:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No it wasn't. You were attempting to use a Wikipedia template that we don't use here. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was. You rolled back {{rfe}}. And you could have fixed the template so that it would work.68.148.186.93 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Anarcha-feminism" is sort of a "canonical" form, it is used in perhaps every source on the subject. However "anarcho-feminism" is a valid alternative form. - Alumnum (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Was the ==Italian== and {{context|ecology|lang=it}} supposed to be ==English== and {{context|ecology|lang=en}}? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also athanatism and odontopathy. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Of course. It is a common slip when working in multiple languages at the same time. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • You can just fix them yourself if you find any others. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. You know back along time ago you used to run a bot for French plurals, right? Not only did it add new entries, but also added missing French plural entries to pages already existing with other languages. If you still have the code, could you publish it? I'd like to use it for Spanish, you see, and I'm trying to get Python working again. --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! This were my first edits here (altough on wiki:en I am a senior editor :-)). The context where the article was used is an article about a Renaissance palace, having a warlike aspect ("aspetto belligero"), but I could not find a translation on any dictionary. Alessandro57 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's good to have a native Italian speaker here again (our last one left some time ago). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

See diff

Blocking Your action at 10.51 am on the 25th August was more important than all of my edits including my talk page and user page, put together! Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)AndrewReply

Hi, I just created a redirect because I do not know whether àla is considered an alternative form or misspelling of à la. You immediately deleted the page instead of correcting it. What do you suggest? —James Haigh (talk) 2015-08-04T20:35:32Z

@JamesHaigh: Redirects are rarely permitted in the main namespace. If you're not sure whether àla should be recorded as an alternative form or as a misspelling, I suggest you raise the matter for discussion in the Tea Room. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. Done. —James Haigh (talk) 2015-08-04T21:09:33Z

Your bot is creating the plurals of invariable adjectives. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Can you give me an example? @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV SemperBlotto (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  antissuicídio, antissuicídios — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  OK, I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, could you update the documentation of {{pt-adj}} please - there is no mention of this feature that I can see. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV SemperBlotto (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you please slow him down? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• He's not running any faster than normal, but he has a lot of category work to do. If you find that he is flooding Recent Changes, you can "Hide page categorization" or, better still, go to "preferences" => "Recent Changes" and tick the "Hide categorization of pages" box. @Kc kennylau SemperBlotto (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Well, the problem is, my bot always get kicked out xp. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

English or Italian? DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• English. This is a common error of mine when I switch from one lingo to another. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why do you delete this page? Sic dixi REX NIGER 00:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would have done the same. Look at some of the other hiragana entries, and you will see how they're supposed to be done. This one is missing the part-of-speech header as well as the templates that give it the right formatting and put it in the right categories, and you have a link to a non-existent capitalized noun as a gloss. For someone to fix your entry would take just as much work as creating a new entry. Please read WT:ALA and WT:AJA. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is this a misspelling? Can't be sure. Equinox ◑ 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Well, the Italian word for "onion" is cipolla and its diminutive, cipollina means "chive". But this spelling, with 2 ps and one l, does seem to be used in English. We also have cipolline onion. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

We define galactitol as a synonym of iditol, but Wikipedia doesn't mention this at Iditol, but does have a separate article on Galactitol (again, without "iditol" as a synonym). Are we right? Equinox ◑ 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No we're not. They are geometric isomers. See and . I'll see if I can fix it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sweet! (DYSWIDT) Equinox ◑ 08:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've made this revert without explanation https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=chip&type=revision&diff=34380218&oldid=34379271 I think my edit is correct. The current definitions admits that a volley upwards can be called a chip shot. --2001:610:188:433:6E40:8FF:FE99:DD1C 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• This is part of the verb definition of chip. In golf you can only ever play the ball from the ground, but in other sports e.g. cricket you can chip the ball when it is already in the air. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Strangely enough, I created an empty page on purpose. See what appears when no page exists by clicking on the link above (promotional material). It seems to be a gadget originating from Wikimedia. Bu193 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello

I tried to create the Entry nebu. Reason:

When I searched for "Nebu" the entry "nebü" was shown, the entry I searched for was "nebo" in Serbocroatian language (Lokative Form). May I ask you to correct this somehow for the next one to search? Thanks Rasmusklump (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I deleted it because it had no formatting. I suggest you look for another word that has a similar form (i.e A Serbo-Croatian locative form) and copy its format. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did so again, please have a look if the form is OK :)

No. All entries must have a ==language== entry, a ===part of speech=== entry, then a # definition or translation. Did you really look at another Serbo-Croation locative form before adding that? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, your table says that the correct word is "nȅbu" not "nebu". SemperBlotto (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have formatted it, based on abecedi. So it is now a member of the proper categories. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Huh? What’s wrong? Do you know enough Greenlandic to say that that information is false? I don’t get it. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• No idea. Feel free to add a Greenlandic entry in the right place, with half-decent formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I fixed it. On another note, have you considered archiving some of your talk page? It takes a while to load. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I archive every year - but I seem to have forgotten 2014 - wilco. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you moved Bet Din to bet din. This term is sometimes spelled capitalized, like in De Lange, Nicholas: An Introduction to Judaism, →ISBN p. 17: The Supreme Bet Din is headed by the two national chief rabbis., p. 151: The full range of activities of a Bet Din embrace dispensing justice according to the code of rabbinic law in all its aspects, as well as supervising the rules of holiness and purity. and couple more usages throughout the book. I think both spellings should be OK. --Auvajs (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. See beth din for examples of how we can deal with that. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I looked for the definition, and found the wiktionary definition puzzling and unclear. I did research, and summarized my findings, providing the original quote, etymology. Then I decided to share outcome with others who might look for the term. I dont know why you reverted this. — This unsigned comment was added by ‎Asaduzaman (talk • contribs).

• You can't just add a load of unformatted text to our entries. They are strictly formatted. Feel free to adjust or correct our definition. making sure you do it in the style of a dictionary.
• By the way. When adding a new section to a talk page - put it at the bottom, not the top. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe the information provided is extremely useful in clarifying the meaning of the term. However, i do not have time to pursue this, and learn proper formats. If you can find someone to do it, it might be useful to future persons who need to look it up.

Hi,

Could i get feedback for deletion of "chut pattern" ? Should I use simpler words to explain? There are plenty of citations for the word use. So I guess my definition is lacking.

Zai87 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I don't understand what it was supposed to be. You say it is an English "phrasal verb" but neither of its components is a verb, and the definition isn't that of a verb. I'll restore it if you think you can define it in sensible English (it certainly seems to exist). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

SemperBlotto: I am appalled by your combination of continual discourtesy, self-righteousness and incorrectness. Someone gives up their precious time to fill an important gap in Wiktionary, namely 'phytotreatment' (have you ever inserted an original entry yourself, may I ask?), and you march in, with your self-appointed 'anti-vandal,' 'corrector' status (from your homepage), and no discussion to date, and repeatedly bludgeon it down into a simplistic, layman's understanding of a concept so important that it, in the right hands, it has the potential to save not only the planet but life in the universe itself! Shame on you! You may not have always been lucky in your life (again from homepage), but please, please don't use that as any kind of excuse for this covert attack on everything good and worthy! I now see from some of the entries immediately above, on this, your talk page, that this is by no means the first time you have been seen as discourteously deleting & replacing without discussion.

• Your addition, whilst being more-or-less correct was far too encyclopedic for a dictionary definition. Feel free to edit the Wikipedia article. Have I ever inserted an original entry? I believe the latest stats show me to have added 175,200 new entries and modified a total of 338,671 - so yes, one or two. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the world of civilised discussion about 'phytotreatment' (in so far as 'shooting first & asking questions afterwards is civilised!). The problem with your reductionist streamlining of the definition of 'phytotreatment' is that it restricts the concept to its most material aspect, namely the purification of soil. A quick 'googling' of the word will reveal that it also refers to the purification of groundwater. Also the neighbouring atmosphere. This concept is vital in both environmental preservation and terraforming, so please don't tamper with it again!--Londheart (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

But why did you remove the etymology section and all the wikification? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, using just any old plant to remove nitrogen from sewage sludge isn't phytotreatment? I have to look for "specialized" ones? Adding too many specific details can incorrectly restrict the meaning. I think the main problem is that you seem to be unaware of the difference between defining a term and explaining a concept. Phytotreatment is a very important concept, but one doesn't have to know everything about it to use the term.

In addition, you seem to be unaware that this is a wiki: you may think that your edit is sheer perfection, but other people may disagree. It's one thing to ask why someone changed your version, and work toward a compromise that makes more sense. You didn't. You insisted that your version had to be kept, word-for-word, or the entry would be utterly ruined. Semperblotto didn't accuse you of vandalism, so who is it really that's being "discourteous" and "self-righteous"? Besides, your version was simply a direct copy of a boilerplate definition that seems to be echoed from one reference to another for no apparent reason. You could at least have paraphrased it a bit. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, we seem to have arrived at a mutually agreeable compromise - for the time being. Thanks for your constructive and rational streamlining, Chuck Entz. SemperBlotto seems to have to have the last word, tho, leaving me wondering whether 'synonym of...' really is a definition, particularly in view of the doctrine that no two words are ever truly synonyms, and why 'phytotreatment' gets reduced in this way and not 'phytoremediation?' Also, we are left with a definition which will ultimately redirect the uninitiated to 'bioremediation,' with its questionable 'especially from polluted water' emphasis. But an edit war armistice seems in order.

I wasn't aware of removing 'the etymology section and all the wikification,' SemperBlotto, which perhaps illustrates why diverse users are requesting you to discuss earlier.

I didn't ask SemperBlotto why he had replaced my version, Chuck Entz, because I didn't wish to coyly expose his ignorance of the complete definition unnecessarily. 'Boilerplate definition' seems a bit harsh, also, particularly as the version you refer to explained 'phytotreatment' succinctly to the uninitiated without the need to follow two further internal links. I trust we can all now relax and breathe the oxygen of peace and harmony?--Londheart (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since your user page says de-1, you probably didn't create this article and its false friend translation "bring up a question etc.". What source did you use and what other articles did you create or edit using that source? --Espoo (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, I can't remember what I was doing in early 2014. Feel free to correct any of my entries. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding a definition. -91.16.57.79 21:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see User talk:-sche#Berliner. Or as it might be easier, I copy it for you:
"If that's "nonstandard" , then please fix it. It's simply a fact, that there are two opinions about the part of speech:

• Some say that Berliner and similar words are adjectives. This is also supported by dated spellings like berliner.
• Some say that Berliner etc. are nouns in gentive plural: der Berliner, gen. pl. der Berliner - so Berliner Mauer literally means "Wall of the Berliners". This is also supported by German spelling rules: nouns begin with a capital letter, adjectives not (nominalised adjectives aren't adjectives anymore, but nouns too)."

As an addition: The current German spelling rules (current reform spelling) state this: "Substantive schreibt man groß." (§ 55; nouns are written with a capital letter), "Klein schreibt man Wörter, die formgleich als Substantive vorkommen, aber selbst keine substantivischen Merkmale aufweisen." (§ 56; this should e.g. refer to namens, once the genitive of Name, and should refer to Berliner if it were an adjective, that is, it usually would be berliner), "Wörter anderer Wortarten schreibt man groß, wenn sie als Substantive gebraucht werden (Substantivierungen)." (§ 57; nominalised words are written with a capital letter too -- if Beliner were an adjectives, it usually would not be a noun, thus the normal spelling would be berliner), "Ableitungen von geografischen Eigennamen auf -er schreibt man groß." (§ 61; this doesn't say that words like Berliner are adjectives, though it also doesn't say that they are nouns). So the reform spelling rules imply that Berliner is a noun and not adjective, even though they do not explicitly say so. But anyway, the attestable pre-reform spelling berliner shows that for some people it was an adjective. -84.161.28.37 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC) and 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can it be both? It's rather one word, but two different opinions, interpretations. But ok, then changing it into two sections... -84.161.28.37 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please explain this: en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=~&diff=35397901&oldid=35397850 . Using ~ instead of writting (e.g.) m should be something which could and should be included somewhere. -91.16.58.100 22:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please read our entry-layout rules. Aside from anything to do with content, there's no such thing as a "Mark" header, and you didn't use a headword template. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind telling what were the errors on miktar, which you deleted with a very laconic summary? I know it was far from perfect, but speedy deletion with hardly any explanation doesn't feel right. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I've restored it for now. Please fix it. Is it a noun or an adjective? See other similar Turkish words to see how they are properly formatted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I would like to query why you 'rolled back' the addition of a definition to 'aweful'? The definition provided while archaic and particular to philosophical discussion it is a valid definition. While the definition is not present in contemporary dictionaries I provided one particular reference and there are many other philosophical texts which could be referenced also.

thanks, a philosophy student.

• Totally broken formatting. Feel free to add a properly-formatted actual dictionary definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please could you revert your roll back. If necessary correct the formatting, which I am not good at, but the definition you have reinstated is wrong, and is not in a single respectable dictionary. May I add that I would consider it polite if you would be so kind as to give some kind of explanation when you choose to revert other people, it is not very welcoming. Having just read the instructions, maybe both definitions should be here, I don't really understand, but would be very grateful if you could sort out this entry since you have taken an interest in acapnotic. Thank you very much, and happy editing! https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=acapnotic&type=revision&diff=35497413&oldid=35496929

I did some quick checking: acapnia is an old synonym for hypocapnia, which matches your definition (though w:Hypocapnia considers it incorrect- if you think about it, acapnia should be the complete absence of CO₂, rather than mere insufficency), but the adjective derived from it is acapnic. The term acapnotic is pretty rare, but seems to only refer to the "non-smoking" sense in the few uses I could find. While it's possible that some dictionaries have the "synonym of hypocapnic" sense, Wiktionary goes by usage, not dictionaries.Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The capno- prefix originally means smoke-related and, I think, only later became carbon dioxide-related. I checked Google books and couldn't easily find your sense of acapnotic. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Many of your so-called rhymes are wrong - because the stress is on the wrong syllable. e.g. windows does not rhyme with nose. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)".

Yeah, I'd already noticed that..., but I didn't found another place to put them. I think that these articles aren't completely well done. So... I guessed that that could be the best way to do that. Now... I just found this: "https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Rhymes:English", haha. :P Ergo..., I'll regard it. Thank you very much for the advice!

PS: Sorry for my English. I'm improvising.

186.182.178.100 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Blao" is indeed a word in Spanish, and I do not see why then you needed to rollback my edit: http://dle.rae.es/?id=5fqduc1. Thank you

• Your entry was in the wrong place, had no headword and was not totally accurate. After a little research, I have added a proper entry (though I'm not sure of the gender). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why was scum rolled back without explanation? Defining the Police as scum is the singling out of a specific group of people, something with which most people would not agree. Is this your opinion? I'd expect to find something like this in the urbandictionary. Ryan8374 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ryan8374: We don't just remove definitions here without due process, and undoing Semper's removal before he can get back to you is not okay either. We have a process called WT:RFV for ascertaining whether definitions are accurate, and I will submit it to that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge I know my way around wikipedia and if the policy here is anything like it is there, you would need support to keep it. @Equinox added it here ]. What was the basis for it? A dictionary should not be based on opinion. Ryan8374 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

We're not like Wikipedia; we don't need support from another dictionary, just quotes proving that it is actually used. See WT:CFI for more. Oh, and your pings won't work if you don't add them at the same time as you add your signature. But this isn't really an appropriate place to continue this conversation; see WT:RFV#scum. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I actually got it from Transwiki:List of slang terms for police officers. I didn't verify it at the time but it seems plausible (cf. "pigs"). However, I just searched for "it's the scum" and "the scum arrived" in Google Books and found nothing police-specific. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please, can you unlock userpage User:JAnDbot? JAn Dudík (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Your userpage does not seem to be locked (protected) in any sort of way. Your userid is not blocked. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • But the bot's userpage was protected back in 2008. I've unprotected it, since the bot is no longer an indefinitely-blocked unauthorized bot. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply