User talk:SemperBlotto/2017

Hey there,

just curious why you deleted my translation of the Latin word "negligens", while i'm sure the translation is correct — This unsigned comment was added by 2a02:1811:240c:1200:adb4:cb75:c807:d5b7 (talk).

• I don't see how "negligent" or "careless" are present participles. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey

How are you?

I believe my translation for the couplet by Khusraw on the page for the word تبت was deleted.

An explanation would be appreciated.

P.s. I'm new to Wiktionary so haven't really mastered the web language if that was why.

Hi, resident chemist. Could you add some chemistry definition to secondary? Currently we have "Possessing some quality, or having been subject to some operation (as substitution), in the second degree; as, a secondary salt, a secondary amine, etc.", but Collins separates these chemistry terms into subdefinitions. --Quadcont (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I've modified the chemistry definition to make it a bit more understandable. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I made a typo with Module:user:Awesomemeeos. Please delete it – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Did you mean Module:User:Awesomemeeos? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

No – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 05:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I already deleted it. Sorry for the confusion. @Awesomemeeos: for future reference, modules can be moved if they're under the wrong name, as long as both the old and the new names start with "Module:". Chuck Entz (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I removed the line about the beak of a crow on the page for "coronoid" because it's not correct. Coronoid comes from Greek korone meaning curved or bent, or Latin corona meaning crown (which is also from Greek korone). The similar-sounding coracoid is named because it's hooked like the beak of a crow, from Greek korax (which is again also possibly related to korone). I edited the page for "coracoid" too for the same reason. Noparlpf (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that you're even correct, why did you not explain this in your edits? —CodeCat 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, etymology goes in its own section, not in the definition line. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the definition of the additional noun version of the word "quill"? The definition given is another valid description of a quill. Obviously when you are not familiar with the term, it is just easier to delete a definition than to accept that someone just might know what they are referring to. Now that I am aware of the level of intelligence of the folks I am dealing with I won't waste my time trying to improve yours. So long.

• Massive amount of badly-formatted random text. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Not to mention directly copypasted from this. I can understand not wanting to retype your part of it, but you copied everything, including maintenance templates and the text part of the navigation links. Unattributed copying from Wikipedia is a violation of Wikipedia's Creative Commons license, and we can't legally accept that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Funny that, since Wikipedia and Wiktionary are sisters – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 19:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's not where it's copied from or to, it's the breaking of the chain of attribution. If you copy content even from one Wiktionary page to another without saying where you got it from (a mention in the edit summary is all you need), you're violating the Creative Commons license that allows us to use contributed content. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlotto,

How and why did you delete my user page? I believed I had produced a user page that explained my expertise (my parallel user page from Wikipedia is pasted below). Was there some problem?

How can I restore the page? I'm happy to remove anything that is inappropriate.

Kind regards, Michelle Y. Merrill, Ph.D.

I've replied on your talk page. Equinox ◑ 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since you didn't say why you rolledback I don't know what the issue is. What is the issue? 69.179.19.181 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, but I had more time to spend on it than SemperBlotto did, so I reformatted it to our standards and added the necessary three citations to prove that this sense is in use. That should deal with whatever issues there were. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

landlocked is an adjective. Your definition was for a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the future you may want to consider being kinder to your fellow editors in such situations by either (a) providing explanations when you rollback or, better still, (b) fixing the errors. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Butwhatdoiknow Totally agree! – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 01:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is a little hard to deal with the flood of recent changes. SB is by far the most active reviewer of recent changes and that makes him very busy. Most of us appreciate his willingness to put in the effort.

A decision rule that most of us follow in reviewing recent changes is to be more aggressive on edits by unregistered users. We cannot even be assured that a comment on the IP address talk page will get to the intended person and that it will not be confuse the next contributor who uses that IP address. We are usually a bit more explanatory for registered users. Now that you are registered you may find your experience a good bit better. You can also ask questions of those who seem likely to give you a relevant answer. Chuck has given you a model of a good definition with the support it should ideally have. If you don't think you will be able to contribute regularly, but desire that some definitions be added you might try requested entries WT:REE. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you please try to fix these before you create the page? Most of the time it's a simple fix of a bracket being outside of the math tag. DTLHS (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'll try, but I find them confusing. Anyway, aren't we supposed to not change quotations? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • You're not changing the quotation. It's an error from Visviva's math tag parsing code. DTLHS (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • OK - I'll look at the original. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • A possibly related issue is <math>{{{1}}}</math>, which sets off an abuse filter- I'm not sure if the edit filter will even let you save an edit until the triple braces are removed. As far as I can tell, <math>{{{1}}}</math> is identical in output to <math>1</math>, and I've made that substitution on a few pages already with no visible difference. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
        • Ah - I sometimes get a warning that my edit is "harmful". I have just ignored it until now. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Donalda, Dolina and Donaldina are common female equivalents of Donald in the Hebrides where the name Donald originates. I am also unsure why there is a Swedish etymology when the name is obviously just the anglicised Gaelic name anyway. Sologoal (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC

I think there's a mistake somewhere on quasistatico. --Quadcont (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It's OK now. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are these not just misspellings of the phenyl forms? Would the letter L usually vanish? Equinox ◑ 17:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. Fixed (with a little help from my friends). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another questionable one: oleanonic acid, based on the entry contents, seems as though it should be oleanolic acid — though it's quite widespread in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• They seem to be synonyms of each other. Don't really know which one should be the main one - made a random choice. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I want a block for that user, because the username is promotional.

Thanks, 2602:304:68AD:3220:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 17:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• There have been no edits from that user yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, SemperBlotto: I undid your recent move to al cazzo di cane, moving the page back to alla cazzo di cane. I just wanted to let you know that in Italian (just as in French) alla, when denoting a manner etc. is commonly followed by an adjective in the feminine form; but it has now become a fix form also employed with nouns, no matter what their gender is. Oh, but please don't take this as a reproach, I simply wanted to explain the move. ;) _{(parla con me)} 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• No probs. I didn't know that. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlotto,

I'm a Latin teacher and trying to use Wiktionary to help my current and future students. Why did you delete my page creation for the vulgar Latin term boscus? My students are having trouble finding it in Latin dictionaries, since it's used primarily in Medieval Latin (specifically in the Magna Carta for our class), and they will be helped by its inclusion in Wiktionary. I'm hoping that they will be able to create other pages in the future to build up Wiktionary, assuming those pages will not be deleted moments after creation. Please explain your rationale, expanding on "nah," so that I may best know how to help in the edification of Wiktionary and of my students.

Thank you.

Ryan Magill 97.77.97.66 15:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I answered on your talk page.
• After some research, I have managed to find the word in another dictionary. I have added it with suitable formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Let me know if I have chosen the wrong declension. (It would be fiddly for you to change) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • The declension is correct. However, I'd like your advice on what I can do to keep deletion to a minimum. I'm hoping that my students will be able to create many such pages, most or all of which will not be able to be found in Lewis and Short. From what I can surmise, I ought to have them fill out the formatting as you did. Would it be helpful to have them create users? (I've now signed into mine.) Finally, is there anything else I should instruct them to do (and do myself)? Thanks.--Rmagill (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• User IDs are preferred but not obligatory. You and your students might like to read Wiktionary:About Latin. We have many different templates that are used for creating Latin headwords and inflection tables - far too many to remember. You can find them by going to Special Pages => All pages with prefix => Display pages with prefix (la) and Namespace (template). You and your students are bound to make innocent mistakes. That is not a problem. I used to run a bot that added the inflected forms automajically (but not anymore). The easiest thing is to find a similar word and copy its formatting. Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto, can you please move the page Module:user:awesomemeeos/ispron to correct casing? Thanks – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 09:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

•  Done. Revert if appropriate. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Thanks, but I meant Module:User:Awesomemeeos/ispron – AWESOME meeos ！ * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 03:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear SemperBlotto,

On 9 Feb 2017, your user page was vandalized by Jbown4718, who also added an unhelpful and rude section to your talk page. I'm saddened to say that the young man in question is one of my high school students. He was particularly angered by your deletion of the page on boscus (which you and I discussed above) and completely oblivious to 1) why your deletion may have been legitimate, or at least understandable, 2) the significant nature of your contribution to Wiktionary, and 3) appropriate conduct as a responsible internet citizen.

I have talked with him, as well as with the rest of my students, on all three of these points. He has expressed his remorse to me and would like to have his user ID reinstated. I agreed to ask on his behalf, although I leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the sysops. Of course, he has given me his assurance of his future good conduct, if reinstated. Thank you for your consideration (post-Wikibreak, of course). Rmagill (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi - just curious if I'm following the right procedure for something like this. If not, do you have any suggestions for how I should go about it? Thanks. Rmagill (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

He is now unblocked. We'll see. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Rmagill (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit? Take a look at the Merriam Webster definition. Laurdecl ^talk 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your definition is worded as if it were defining a noun. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In addition, it is not really distinct from the existing definition. A modest rewording of the current definition could make it clear the the term applied things and not only people, though this is hardly necessary. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see that “highfalutin”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. defines it as a noun, but modern dictionaries don't. It would be useful to get some citations that confirm that it is actually used as a noun. Relying on a UK source for an Americanism doesn't seem wise to me. A search on Google Books, perhaps limited to the 19th century, for "a highfalutin" or "highfalutins" might yield some usage. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've created a noun PoS section with a supporting citation. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if IP is right. There wasn't much in the way of birth control pre-20th century, was there? Equinox ◑ 12:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Birth control has been practiced since the time of the ancient Romans. It hasn't been very effective until the 20th century. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my revision? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

It didn't make any semantic sense. A type of person is not described by any word ending in -iality as far as I can tell. Do you have evidence for your usage? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

All right. Thanks! ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Can you undelete prejunior plz. I'll redefine it. --Quadcont (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I've added an English term. Feel free to append the Spanish. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Nah, I got bored of that term. --Quadcont (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for messing with your page. It was stupid and I was bored; it won't happen again. Thank you for reinstating me into wiktionary editing. I will just edit/add Latin words, not pages or things I shouldn't change.

I just reverted changes to JCC, but I'm starting to have doubts. Mind taking a look? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Well is seems to be more than just a "Jewish" "community center" - seems to be the name of a specific organization. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  According to Jewish Community Center on Wikipedia.Wikipedia , the Jewish Community Center Association is the umbrella organization, and many of the individual units have JCC or Jewish Community Center in their names, but some are YMHAs and YWHAs. I think that the JCC entry is correct to characterize the term as a common noun, not a proper noun. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do you know anything about any rules behind pesticide naming? They often seem to include "element elements" (no pun intended? okay it was intended) like -phos and flu- and -chlor, but they seem somehow stylistically different from pharmaceutical drug names. I know that drugs sometimes use some very specific rules like the -mab etc. so I wonder if there is/was anything similar for -cides. Equinox ◑ 07:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not aware of anything resembling "rules", but I'll have a poke around. (sorry for the delay,I've been away) SemperBlotto (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit because it was unconstructive. If you don’t agree, please discuss it at | My wikipedia talk page

He might be more tolerant about your Wiktionary user page if there were even the slightest shred of evidence that you're actually a Wiktionary user. The fact that you can't be bothered to come back to Wiktionary to check for replies isn't promising. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I was wondering why you deleted my talk page User talk:Jamesjpk saying that it was "not user talk". All I had on the page was a message saying to direct your messages onto my wikipedia talk page. Am I not supposed to do that? If I remake my talk page, should I tell them just to message there? Please let me know. Jamesjpk (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• You don't make your talk page. Other users make it when they talk to you. But, as you are not a Wiktionary editor, it is very unlikely that anyone would need to do that. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was about to add an entry "Jehovan" (variant form of "Jehovian") for which I'd found citations but noticed you'd deleted that entry. Just wondering what your rationale was? Thanks! Aabull2016 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The version of Jehovan that I has deleted was a rubbish entry created by an anon. I will now create a proper entry. It also seems to be a Finnish word by the way. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Just found your response, thanks for the explanation! Still figuring out how to navigate user talk :P Aabull2016 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

When I got back from holiday, I noticed that you had added several hundred mathematics and physics terms with no definitions, and sometimes without even a quote. As someone who tries to keep a handle on the "definitions needed" page, this made it extremely difficult for me, and seems contrary to what I had assumed was the purpose of the "rfd" macro. Given how little was in the entries, they could be more manageably added to the requested entries list, leaving "rfd" for additional definitions of a word for which you are adding another definition. When the list of "rfd" words gets so huge, no one bothers to check the list and it does no one any good. As far as I can tell, I am the only one who tries to supply these definitions, and frankly, I am about ready to give up because the list is so huge. Kiwima (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Check out the most recent change to this page. —JohnC5 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

OMG That's so weird! — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 04:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This was the supervandal named w:User:EddieSegoura, who was hyperactive here in 2005 and 2006. He was a fanatic about the New York subway system and he created some entries such as double crossover, diamond crossover, and scissors crossover. He tried to invent some protologisms such as "excornt" and, because we would not allow it, he went on a gigantic vandalism spree. He used the many computers at the New York public library to create numerous sockpuppets, and used myriad ways to conceal his bad entries (by adding invisible keystrokes such as a zero-width nonjoiner, or inserted Cyrillic е in place of Roman e, weird punctuation, initial word space, and so on). He impersonated many of our admins and created usernames similar to our actual names, and vandalized other wikis, leaving nasty messages seemingly signed by one or another of our admins here (including links back to our user pages). We were still discovering some of his weirdly named entries years later. w:User:EddieSegoura was globally banned until 2015, when some gullible suckers on wikipedia fell for his fake apologies and reinstated him. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, and here I thought it was just funny. Should we be on the look out for this now? What are the other signs? He seems to have a propensity for Family Guy quotes. —JohnC5 05:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Module:User:Awesomemeeos/mongol

Thank you in advance! — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 23:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I thought this could use a lead; the article is clumsily organized and the definitions don't capture the connotation. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please read our Entry layout page: our page format is extremely standardized and specific- you can't just rearrange things to suit your taste. This follows from the requirements of a dictionary, which needs to present a limited range of information in a very concise and predictable manner. We have heated debates and contentious votes about things like what headers are allowed and in which order. Not only that: if we did decide on that kind of formatting, it would have to be extended to over 5 million other entries to be consistent. Also, your summary doesn't accurately capture the connotation of the adjective (the definition does that much better), let alone the noun or the verb. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are there strong guidelines regarding the use of the comma and semi-colon in definitions? Droll has "oddly humorous; whimsical, amusing in a quaint way; waggish", oddly alternating between comma and semi-colon. Not sure that "amusing in a quaint way" is closer to "whimsical" than it is to "oddly humorous" for instance. Julien Daux (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you saw, but it seems an IP is on an update and edit warring spree about adding a "G5" mention to many God-related entries. Should probably be all reverted? Julien Daux (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I reverted all the edits and blocked already. See the (currently topmost) bullet at WT:VIP. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(pinging @JohnC5 also) The "chiu" part should be /klau/ > /kjau/ > /kju/? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry Kenny, I don't know IPA that well but I think /kju/ would be correct (rather like the English word (deprecated template usage) queue). The audio seems correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kc kennylau: You may find this and this useful. This is just a preliminary search (I'm busy at the moment), but Romance languages experienced a massive simplification of the consonant clusters (see also clavis#Descendants). —JohnC5 17:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Explain your reverts. chaos does exist, has an entry, has the same etymology as Chaos, and fits as a related term (WT:ELE#Related terms). -84.161.43.183 10:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

At Corleone there was a link to the Italian Wikipedia in the form {{wikipedia|lang=it}}. I removed the |lang=it because this is the English Wiktionary and I figured most of its users would want to read an article in English, not in Italian. Otherwise they'd be using the Italian Wiktionary, right? Yet you reverted this change. Why? - Furrykef (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• We aim to have entries for all words in all languages. This particular entry is for the Italian word - so it must link to the Italian Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • But the English and Italian articles are about the same thing. The difference is we can safely assume the reader can understand the one at the English Wikipedia (since he is using the English Wiktionary), but he is not at all guaranteed to understand the article at the Italian one. I see no sense in linking to the Italian article. The alternative would be to add an entry for English (since the city's name is Corleone in English as well) so the entry under English would link to the English Wikipedia and the entry under Italian would link to the Italian Wikipedia... but if we do that, we'd also have to add an entry for Spanish, French, Dutch, Finnish, and every other language where Corleone is named Corleone. I think that's a little silly, and that it was fine the way I had it. I also can't find any Wiktionary policy stating that you can't link to the English Wikipedia under the entry for a word in another language. - Furrykef (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right. The only real justification for linking an English-Wikt, foreign-lang entry to the foreign-lang WP article would be if English WP had no article on it. Equinox ◑ 17:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes I link to both the English and FL Wikipedias. (Guerra dos Canudos, etc.) Maybe Corleone could link to both Wikipedias. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add an English language section with a link to the English Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I told you, if we do that then we have to do it for all the other languages where Corleone is named Corleone. A dozen or more entries all saying exactly the same thing, just with different Wikipedia links. That would be absurd. - Furrykef (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Absurd or not, this is the standard practice here, with apparently 80,000 entries containing the template with a |lang= parameter. Changing a few entries that you notice just makes things inconsistent, and changing all of them would need to have a solid consensus behind it before being even attempted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is a redirect, but it shouldn't be — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed. You could have fixed it yourself. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I meant to delete that Module. It is still there — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was not responsible for the edit you reverted but do think this usage has entered the language as an example of dreadful corporate speak and there are numerous citations available. I will rewrite over the weekend but would appreciate your thoughts. I think that this incident has legs and will be cited for many years. Wickifrank (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm the one who edited the page vox writing that it means fox in Yola. I based that edit on this online translator: . I also used it to translate words I already found in Yola to see if it translates correctly and it did, so I think the words vox is attested and verified rather than being invented. Does it count as a source for Wikipedia? Or is it original research? --93.32.59.251 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You didn't actually write that it means "fox", though. You wrote an etymology, and then there was nothing after that. —CodeCat 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here's your edit that I reverted: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=insurmountable&diff=42650637&oldid=42649712

The edit summary had zero info about the reason. Your edit looks like a bot edit. I hope you're not auto-reverting people. That would be pretty rude. Great floors (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• See Talk:insurmountable. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I put a link to Merriam Webster on the site for dreich because there was no indication of how to pronounce the word on the Wiktionary site, while there even was a spoken example on Merriam Webster's site. I don't understand why you deleted that. Please explain. Strombomboli (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I reverted your edit as you had put an unformatted pronunciation. The Websters link was also wrong - you had it in the Irish section but Websters is an English dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's not a blend. A blend has to actually combine two words in an overlapping way, like Reaganomics. When words are smashed together (with or without inflectional bits), that's just a compound. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I can never remember the difference. Wouldn't a compound be "denkenfaul"? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  The stem is still denk-. As I said, "with or without the inflectional bits". Try reading Blend word if you still don't get it. It's not ideal to be adding a bunch of incorrect etymologies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  If the first element in a compound is a verb, the stem is used rather than the full infinitive, like Laufwerk, Trinkgeld, so what Meta says applies. (There may be exceptions, but I don't know about them.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm just curious that why you have deleted my additions in topic of "cide". I'm sure that those additions was perfectly related to the topic, and please inform me if I've made any error in these terms. Roman sajid (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Firstly, you had spelled them all with an initial capital letter. Secondly, we don't normally add individual words in the related / derived terms of a prefix/suffix. We just add the words with a proper etymology and they get added to the right category. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

So the entire manual list (the one to which Roman added some terms) should probably also be deleted? —Julien D. (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Typically, in such cases, we delete the list when the terms have been added. A better place to list words that you want added is at (for instance) Wiktionary:Requested entries (English). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto—we crossed paths a while back while I was developing an algorithm to identify missing dictionary entries. I'm presently planning another Wiktionary-focused research project that I expect will help with the discovery of entries and example usages. Though it has not yet begun, I would like to present the ideas at this year's Wikimania conference. It you are able to take a look at the abstract, any comments at the bottom would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you know who else might be interested please pass the word along, and feel free to follow up with any questions. Cheers, Jakerylandwilliams (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. So on English Wikipedia disambiguation pages we disallow dictionary definitions (MOS:WTLINK). I made a tool and database report to remove invalid links to Wiktionary (about 1,100). Some of these such as Lux Mundi (disambiguation) include definitions which I'd otherwise delete.

For Lux Mundi specifically, I found a verified Google translation and an entry in The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Cheers. — User:Dispenser 16:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The entry had a language section (Latin) and a definition "Light if the World" but no part of speech, no headword and no inflection table. The Latin term, if a noun phrase, would presumably be "lux mundi" (uncapitalised). Perhaps you meant it as a proper noun, an epithet for Jesus? Feel free to add it again with proper formatting. See Wiktionary:About Latin if you are unsure of our formatting standards. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't know Latin, so gone. Cheers, User:Dispenser 17:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• As an added note: Google Translate isn't verification for anything- it's too unreliable to use for dictionary purposes. If you take the previous sentence, translate it into Latin, then translate it back, you get: "That the note added: terrible for verification anything- it's also possible to use for demonstration purposes dictionary." Chuck Entz (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • No, I'm referring to "Verified: Our Translate Community checked this translation." badge next to the translation in Google Translate. For completeness sake: JM Latin English Dictionary, The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (?), wordinfo.info, and thetipsbank.com. I just want some place to dump potential missing entries. — User:Dispenser 17:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Wiktionary is by no means a place for "dumping" anything. —JohnC5 18:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was in the process of cleaning the entry when you flagged it. The page name is correct: -DZIL is the root, -dzil is a stem of it (found mainly in the perfective and neuter aspects/modes). It's the the analysis by themes that needed improvement. —Julien D. (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• OK. I know nothing of the language. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ciao Jeff. Ho notato che lei creò questa voce qualche tempo fa. Penso, osservando la voce di Treccani qui, che la definizione corretta di questa parola sia "destine" in inglese, è che sia anche un senso secondario di "allocate" o "designate". Lei è d'accordo ? — This unsigned comment was added by Almapple (talk • contribs).

• Hi. I have added that translation, and a few more minor usages. Thanks for pointing it out. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (p.s. We like talk pages to be in English so that everyone can understand)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto. Just calling your attention to a post I just placed on the Beer Parlor, as I don't know if you frequent that page, about the late Robert Ullman, a prolific Wiktionary editor in his day.

Beyond the tactical fix to his user page, which I proposed, I think there probably should be a policy/guideline/working consensus about editors who pass and what the community can or should do with people's user pages once the passing has been verifiably noted by the community.

I appreciate all you've done for this community, from the times I first met you online on this project over ten years ago! Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete that word? It's commonly used in Italy! — This unsigned comment was added by 185.8.24.4 (talk).

• I've never heard it used there. And it's not in any of my Italian dictionaries. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
• I assume anon meant boh. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
• Once a friend of mine was pouring some water in my glass and he said:"Dimmi bho" (tell me when it's enough). It's also used when people are annoyed by someone's behaviour. It's different from the word "boh" since the latter means "I don't know".

It does use Latin script; See https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Uyghur_Latin_alphabet — This unsigned comment was added by 115.27.203.95 (talk).

• Then you must format them appropriately. The entries you created were totally wrong. Ask at the Beer parlour if you need help. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto

When creating the entry geständig you inserted perpetual and persistent as English translations. Unfortunately, these translations are not correct.

However, I'm not sure whether the English translation confessed which you will find in most dictionaries when looking up 'geständig ', is fully correct, because it actually means gestanden (Past participle of gestehen), e.g.:

• der Mann hat öffentlich gestanden ― the man has openly confessed

But the sentence "der Mann hat gestanden" equals "der Mann ist geständig".

And self-confessed also has a broader meaning. A 'self-confessed alcoholic' is not a 'geständiger Alkoholiker'. You rather would say 'ein bekennender Alkoholiker/ ein eingestehender Alkoholiker'.

The adjective 'geständig' is usually relating to some sort of crime.

The problem here is that most of the time in English the sense of 'geständig' isn't expressed by an adjective.

Here are some examples:

• die geständige Person ― the confessor
• Straferleichterungen für geständige Täter ― lighter sentences for those who confess to their crimes
• wenn der Angeklagte geständig ist ― if the defendant admits the facts
• Die Verteidigung verwies darauf, dass die Angeklagten geständig sind. ― The defense stressed that the defendants had pleaded guilty.
• Der Beschuldigte sei zwar vernommen worden, nach Angaben der Staatsanwaltschaft aber nicht geständig. ― The accused has been questioned, but he did not admit to anything according to the district attorney.

So I don't know how to translate the adjective 'geständig' into English. 'admitting' perhaps ? --De-01 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hi there. I used the German Wiktionary as source. I couldn't realy understand their definition "etwas Unrechtes einräumend/zugebend", but their example sentence "Der geständige Dieb wurde zu einer Geldstrafe verurteilt." seeemed to suggest "perpetual" or "long-term". What about "self-confessed"? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I've made that change for the time being, and also corrected the etymology. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The example sentence you mentioned above I would translate as "The thief who confessed to his crime was sentenced to a fine." And this example sentence perfectly points to the problem: The sense of German adjective 'geständig' is rendered in English in a different way from a grammatical point of view.

To me it seems somewhat unusual to say "The confessing thief was sentenced to a fine." In the same way it will be more likely "The criminal who confesses ...." instead of "The confessing criminal ....". I have encountered this problem of expressing the same idea in different ways in different languages more than once and I don't know how to solve this difficulty in a proper way in terms of a dictionary. Perhaps example sentences are the best solution.

As for the translations you reinserted I am not sure about the meaning of self-acknowledged. After having looked up some examples (He stood with lips sealed, partly by surprise at the question, and partly by self-acknowledged ignorance of the answer. / In the old days this was a slouchy, somewhat slovenly dressed individual of a self-acknowledged independence. / the terms nation and region should be taken to mean the same thing: a social construct constituting a self-acknowledged community with a common history and culture. / ... with many others who are self-acknowledged proponents of a free society) I think "sich selbst zugestehend, selbst eingeräumt or selbst anerkannt" " are proper translations of this adjective. Translating "self-acknowledged independence" with "geständige Unabhängigkeit" doesn't make much sense. No one will understand this. By contrast, translating it with "selbst eingeräumte Unabhängigkeit" does make sense.

With regard to the meaning of "self-confessed" I think as a distinguishing feature it should be added that the adjective "geständig" is first and foremost used in context of crimes. Being an alcoholic is not a crime, so you would rather use the adjective "bekennend" instead of "geständig".--De-01 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I agree that there does not seem to be a simple English translation of this word. I suggest adding a range of example sentences or, better, a properly formatted citations page. (See the citations page of (deprecated template usage) hydrogen as an example (in English)) SemperBlotto (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should this be a verb or noun? --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

One can find about 20-30 hits for obstuct/obstructs/obstructed the field in Google News. If there is a non-SoP definition for obstruct the field in the cricket sense, then there needs to be a verb PoS section. It may be that there is a need for a noun PoS as well, should there be evidence of some novel semantics for it or of some usage not expected from a gerund. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

BTW, isn't there a missing cricket definition for give out? It would seem to have more justification that some of the definitions there now. DCDuring (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. There are many cricket glossaries on the web. Not all of them have this term. has the -ing form as an adjective! (and I think "give out" (of an umpire) may be SoP) SemperBlotto (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found the definition of the Latin word fotus in latinlexicon.org and latindictionary.net and added to the entry before you reverted. I saw definition 1 says it 'This term needs a translation to English. ...', this is not a proper def and the entry doesn't have a definition. PlanetStar (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The verb is defined at foveo, so giving a general definition of the verb at the future passive participle makes no sense, and wording it as an infinitive is just wrong. The definition needed is for the future passive participle, and I'm not even sure how to translate those (will be warmed?), so I'm not surprised that there's no definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Definition added. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn’t we just prohibit these accounts on sight? Everybody keeps giving him second chances, but he still makes annoying or significant mistakes even though he’s a big boy now. I use many different Wiki projects, both official and unofficial, and I don’t think that I’ve seen anybody even nearly as persistent as him. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 09:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Well, I make mistakes myself. I only block him when he starts actively vandalizing. On the whole, he does more good than bad. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, sans doute in French means probably, most probably, something very likely but NOT undoubtedly or without a doubt.

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/doute/26518#154895

1. The recipe of the ragù is not always with vegetables unlike what was written in the Wiktionary page. (depend by the local recipe)
   
   
2. "Ragù" is not synonym of "sugo": (1) "sugo" is only the tomato juice, (2) "ragù" instead is a sauce cooked with both tomato juice and meat pieces. So ragù is a "related term" of sugo, not a synonym.

DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

We only use "Related terms" for etymologically-related terms, not semantically-related ones, and we don't use it for listing anything other than links to entries- I'm not sure if "ragù di pesce" or "ragù vegetariano" should have entries. More to the point, its a bad idea for an entry to argue with itself. Either resolve the content dispute or leave the entry as it was- don't try to make your argument part of the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The Italian Wikipedia entry seems, to me, to be spot on in its definition. "Ragù è un termine utilizzato per indicare sugo a base di carne (cotta per molte ore a fuoco basso). Sugo composto da numerosi ingredienti che variano a seconda delle regioni. In cucina sono utilizzati anche ragù di pesce (di spigola, di cernia) o di tofu (nel ragù vegetariano)." I have never come across it as being made just from meat and water, even if onion is the only added vegetable. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Please don't revert good-faith edits without giving any explanation.

If it's related to Cognate, please say so in the edit summary so when I receive the email notification, I know what it is about and I don't have to open the diff.

Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please don't use "ʦ" in pronunciation sections (of German or any other language). Just like the other affricate ligatures ʣ, ʤ, ʥ, ʧ, and ʨ, it's no longer an accepted IPA character. Please use t͡s (easily entered as {{subst:x2i|t__s}}) instead. Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I don't understand IPA. I just copy/paste from the German Wiktionary. It's probably easier if I just stop adding a pronunciation section. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • That's OK too if you prefer. But if you hit "preview" before "save", a message will come up in red telling you exactly what to replace with what. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • OK. I'll do that. If there is the warning message, I'll make it into a RfP. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! SemperBlottoBot is creating new pages with Template:Context, which was deleted earlier this month (see schwadronier). It should be easy to fix (just replacing "{{context|colloquial|lang=de}}" with "{{label|de|colloquial}}"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Thanks for spotting that. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Ah, I was just noticed and was going to report the same thing. Thanks all! —JohnC5 04:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=sikici&action=history On this page there was a rollback on 10 March which is an error. Atikonium (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• But (deprecated template usage) fucker is not an adjective. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I didn't see it. I corrected it now Atikonium (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• But I'd like to add that (deprecated template usage) sikici in Turkish is both a noun and an adjective Atikonium (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • OK. Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You said "Any chance of semaphore?" in the discussion about Morse code (Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Proposal: Creating entries for Morse code characters).

I created three flag semaphore entries. Do you think they should be kept, and do they look good? I tried to imitate the notation used in Category:American Sign Language lemmas.

• LeftFlagDown-RightFlagLow
• LeftFlagDown-RightFlagOut
• LeftFlagDown-RightFlagHigh

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, I saw you making them. You know, of course, that I am an advocate of "all words in all languages" and that not everybody even agreed with the inclusion of Morse code characters. They look good to me. Shouldn't the category Category:Flag semaphore have a language code? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  I designed Category:Flag semaphore and Category:Morse code to be "script categories" like Category:Braille script and Category:Latin script. I even created script codes for them ("Semap" and "Morse").

  It's true, not everybody even agreed with the inclusion of Morse code characters. But the polls about creating Morse code entries for single characters and abbreviations won by majority, so I think they're OK.

  Thanks for your reply. I'll create a BP discussion to see what everyone else thinks about the flag semaphore entries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering, what is the reason that comprehensive explanation of the word was reverted? — This unsigned comment was added by Cobrahman (talk • contribs).

This is a dictionary, we give definitions for words, we don't comprehensively explain them. Even if we did, your edit at excessivism didn't explain anything, it just gave details about the history of the movement. That's another thing: dictionaries are about the words, not about the things they refer to. If you want to discuss the word "excessivism" (within the conventions of dictionary writing), that's fine. If you want to discuss the subject of excessivism, go to Wikipedia. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just fixed a batch of forms of spaurarsi that SemperBlottoBot created with {{head|it}} instead of {{head|it|verb}}. Fortunately, doing that is guaranteed to cause a module error, so I'm pretty sure I got all of them. Just thought you'd want to know. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. -arsi verbs were still in an old format. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you deleted this page before. I'm wondering what the contents were, because I've recently come across this phrase here in the Midwest and it does seem idiomatic, and it also seems dialectal specifically to Midwestern accents. The "way way back" refers to the very back seat(s) of a station wagon or another large car. I think it could also refer to the trunk in some cases, but I'm not sure. I also notice that people usually put a lot of stress on the word "way" used as an adverb, such as "That is wáy cool!", but in this case, the phrase strangely seems to be used very monotonously and quickly. "Go sit in the way way back." Why is this a "protologism"? What did the entry someone created in April 2016 contain? PseudoSkull (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It was that sense. I have restored it. Equinox ◑ 10:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete the entry? It is a perfectly cromulent word.

Why did you delete my edit. The table had been done wrong, but the information was correct. Talsi is real finnish word, but it is used only some forms nowadays. I don't find the guide how to do the table right like in other similar finnish words (karsi, korsi, etc.). — This unsigned comment was added by Kaakkuri86 (talk • contribs).

• You can't put unformatted text in our entries. If you don't know how to format an entry then ask someone (not me - someone who knows Finnish). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. And have a quick look at Wiktionary:About Finnish - it might be of some help. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • p.p.s I have made an attempt at a correct entry. If it is wrong, get one of our Finnish editors to correct it. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

As you have suggested I have made some changes in some pages about Category:Telugu proverbs. Please check whether they are fine.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto. You created the entry schossfest translating the German adjective as "bolting". I'm not sure whether this is correct. On the contrary, I think "bolting" basically means the opposite. To me the adjective "schossfest" was unknown until now, so I had to inform myself about the meaning. Linguee gave me this translation: schossfest = bolt-resistant, and I think it is correct. See this example of Planting Bolt Resistant Lettuce. In this video he is saying that bolting is just a posh way of saying that the plants will create stalks and start to flower. Creating stalks and starting to flower is usually called "schießen" in German (e.g. "die Pflanze fängt an zu schießen"). "schossfest" seems to be a technical term predominantly used in professional horticultural context. Therefore, "schossfester Salat" I would translate as "bolt resistant lettuce".--De-01 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• OK - feel free to correct any of my entries, especially the German ones. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto. Thanks for editing my first dictionary entry.

This is my first attempt at talking, I hope I am doing it correctly.

I have more definitions that I would like to add because people who read my technical publications keep looking for definitions of some of the terms I use and not finding them. In terms of attestation, I could add links to peer-reviewed publications in which the terms are used; however, the authors would be the same. Perhaps the independence criteria could be modified to accept academic, peer-reviewed publications as independent.

Also, I notice that your removed my attribution line. I only included it to be clear about the source. If you think it is not needed, that is fine.

Thanks again, PhilipWSisson (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Phil SissonReply

Philip W. Sisson

Hello
You reverted the changes I made on this page yesterday; I've opened a discussion here if you'd care to say why. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing that: So was it the formatting that was the problem? I'm don't edit here much, so I'm not that familiar with the way things are done, sorry. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your decision to accuse me (184.54.173.22) of vandalism for my edited definition of "femanon" seems to have been somewhat hasty, as well as the choice to not allow my IP to appeal the decision despite what I would consider a well stated rationale for my edit. To call it "vandalism" because it disagreed with the standing false definition seems extreme, though in fairness I'm not all that experienced with the site, so it may fit under the local terminology. Regardless, the definition you reverted to is still incorrect. I've taken a moment to collect a few references to "anon" and the only reference to "femanon" which could be found on 4chan's /b/ and /pol/ boards, which can be seen here. Keep in mind that this 4chan. I covered NSFW parts of images, but the contents are still inappropriate.

If you're curious to see for yourself, searching for the term "anon" or "femanon" on any board will come out the same way. Any connection to the hacker "group" Anonymous is coincidental.

107.77.192.151 00:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The problem was that you overwrote the existing, valid definition. I have added your definition to the original entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Semper,

I am writing you to ask why my contribution to airtight was reverted.

Thank you, Amin (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It was put in the wrong place (before the alternative forms and etymology) and had no headword. Also I had a quick look at Google books and couldn't find any usages of that as a verb with your meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, fair enough. Amin (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your monition. I will solve that problem. I am now creating new entries from here, that is a huge list and I want all links blue. You can join me if you have time. Thank you. --78.3.158.12 13:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

From your discussion on my page, the word Farda means tomorrow in Persian. Nastaliq is a type of font but not a writing system. It is quite common in Persian and in some variation of Persian like Tajiki to use Latin Alphabet.Iranic (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i've seen that you had a problem with your bot and you solved it. (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2017/May#bot_problem)

I have the SAME problem. How did you solve it? --AsturiBot (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• That was weeks ago - I can't remember that far back! I think that I first made sure that I was on a reasonably up-to-date version of Python, then downloaded the latest version of pywikibot (it whatever it is called). I don't think that I had to make any programming changes. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't use Python but the general issue at the time was the switch from insecure HTTP to secure HTTPS. The main thing was just changing the http bit in the address that you connect to. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that is done somewhere inside the pywikibot programs. We don't code it explicitly. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

found this on a website as "p4p", also exists on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/P4P, "Pay for Play, otherwise known as paying for sexual services from prostitutes.". has a few possible hits on google books — This unsigned comment was added by 85.8.41.6 (talk).

• Wikipedia does indeed have a page for P4P, but none of the definitions is for "pay for play". SemperBlotto (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • second to last on the link i gave

I think your rollback is in error68.151.25.115 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree. Although (deprecated template usage) patriotism has a variety of different meanings, we include a gloss here explaining what we mean by the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcome back, Jeff. It's been a long time! — Paul G (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey. This entry and spiacere have a manually-made conjugation. Any way we can templatize it? --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Just needed lots of overrides. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

You probably already know that I am a new contributor to Wiktionary and may be unfamiliar with the the nuances of the criteria of inclusion. I would like to ask you: If a term is in common use in publications both for the general public and medical professions, how many references should I have for the entry? The World Health Organization uses the term Adjuvant Analgesic in the reference I provided and now the term is an article in the en:Wikipedia. Is it okay to create the entry again with more references? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I should think that it actually uses the term "adjuvant analgesic" - but just to mean an analgesic that is used in an adjuvant manner. You will find thousands of instances of "ginger cat" in very many books - but it is simple the sum of its parts. (unless it actually means something more than that) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I recently added a change in "reincarnation" section .. I noticed you deleted it & it was an accurate & logical statement.. whyyou deleted it.. I don't know? I get you are the "patrol" But please don't just go around doing that completely because of your own opinion. Lukeahunt (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The world is full of accurate and logical statements. I'll give you another one: cheese is heavier than marshmallows. Both your statement and mine are out of place in a dictionary, which only deals with words and phrases as words and phrases, not the concepts they refer to. Your statement might be appropriate at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia- but be prepared to explain why your statement is worthy of inclusion in the article, and what references you have for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is really not a useful metric to RFV something. Try Google Books instead. DTLHS (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Oh. I always thought that Google Ngram hits were taken from Google books. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

They must round down small values or something- most of your "zero ngram hits" words are easily citeable. DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page explains Google n-grams pretty well and mentions some differences between the Google Books corpus and the various Google N-grams corpora. One important difference is that n-grams is smaller. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Very interesting. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I even added links. I specifically added it because I didn't find the meaning when I came up on this word. (In the "The Mystery Knight") --Dqeswn (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• The word is (deprecated template usage) coutere I think you'll find. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • No. Are you write only? There's the wikipedia article, and there's the source link with this spelling. Why don't you look at them.

Actually there's no reference with the "coutere" spelling. So the enlish section of the (deprecated template usage) coutere article looks to be wrong in it's entirety. Even a google search gives inadequate results to "coutere" and suggests couter, which gives relevant results. Including multiple wikipedia pages. Which is logical if the alternative form is "cowter". (suggest a cow-ter pronounciation.)

• The OED (which I trust more than Wikipedia) has :- coutere, n. / Forms: Also cowter. / Etymology: < Old French coute (13th cent.), later coude elbow < Latin cubitum: compare French ... / Obs. / A piece of armour to protect the elbow. / ?a1400 Morte Arth. 2567 Bristes þe rebrace with the bronde ryche, Kerves of at þe coutere with þe clene egge. / c1400 (▸?c1390) Sir Gawain & Green Knight (1940) l. 583 Gode cowters & gay, & gloueȝ of plate.
• I'll restore your version and send it to RfV. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC),Reply
  • Okay, I guess then it should be considered another spelling variant...

Hi there. I've noticed you've been adding a lot of French communes and their corresponding demonyms, but I think that quite a lot (most?) of these demonyms would not pass RfV. I don't know if there's an exception to the rules for demonyms of place names that can be attested (if there is, sorry for wasting your time), but the first four I checked all had 0 hits in both Google Books and Google Groups. These were yainvillais/Yainvillais, yermenonvillais/Yermenonvillais, yébleronnais/Yébleronnais and yébulien/Yébulien. Unless you can find and add some examples of these (and all the others recently created) being used in actual French works, I'll have to start taking them to RfV. Cheers, BigDom 15:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Feel free. I've just been taking them from the fr Wiktionary without any checking. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Weighing in late here: please don't do that. If you really feel you must, at least come up with something like the Tbot template that says something to the effect that "these have been imported from another wiki and haven't been checked for compliance with English Wiktionary's standards" and adds a tracking category so people can find such entries to check them. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

{{inflected form of}} shouldn't be used, use {{de-inflected form of}} instead. —Rua (mew) 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• OK. The bit hasn't done those for ages - I'll try to remember. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Look carefully at the images, and you will see that the "bikinis" are integral to the jeans. (otherwise, it would be a sum of parts term, bikinis worn with jeans) This explains the fashion style:

-- 70.51.46.15 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It is difficult to see on those images, but I can't make out any stitching where the biking bottom meets the top of the jeans. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • These images should be clearer then , and another page explaining it -- 70.51.46.15 14:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • OK. Those images (and the text) are much clearer. (I don't think I'll be wearing them any time soon). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi SemperBlotto! I recently deleted Sagitationalism because it was basically a hate page directed towards a teacher who was named, but I can't change the visibility. I've been getting the Wikimedia error message – " currently our servers are busy" – but I see that you're still able to change visibility of deleted pages. Do you mind restricting the visibility of said entry for me? Thank you in advance! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'm getting the same error message now. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Weird, they're usually pretty quick to fix technical issues. Oh well, guess I'll have to wait it out. Thanks anyway! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem now, so I hid the edit summary. The moral of the story: any time you're deleting a page due to inappropriate content, clear all mention of the content from the edit summary. I know it's a pain to select all that text to delete it when there's a ton of other crap to deal with, but the longer libelous content is visible, the more responsibility we share for leaving it that way. I would prefer that we do everything we can to avoid being accomplices. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, agreed! I will do that from now on. Thank you for your help. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A small thing, but could you configure your bot to not leave spaces at the end of language headers (example). DTLHS (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

• No prob. As far as I can tell, it was just -ir verbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I want to thank you for reverting this act of vandalism by 100.14.158.218 on the page vase. Unfortunately, your revert did not go far enough, as the previous edit, performed by 2600:1002:B02C:321C:5C17:F6C5:465B:633A, was also an act of vandalism. I have already corrected the situation, but I thought I'd let you know. Also, looking through the contributions for the two IP addresses, it appears that they were performed by the same person, and they were logged under different addresses due to some technological peculiarity. JMtB03 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is something we watch for, but there's always the one that slips by when we're in a hurry. As for the different IP addresses: one is regular broadband and one is mobile, so they could have been editing on their computer and their phone simultaneously. I've also seen cases where people apparently talked off-site about what page they were going to vandalize, and they were trading insults, competing to see who could come up with the most outrageous things to say, etc. Thanks for the note, and especially thanks for fixing the entry. It's not possible to vandal-proof a wiki, but people like you help to tip the balance back against the vandals. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get frequent sex in the concept? Lysdexia (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It's a synonym of (deprecated template usage) cum dumpster. Your version didn't make any sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

A rag is much smaller than a dumpster. Read my version again; you sound dependent on unneeded prepositions. Lysdexia (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I also strongly object to the singular they in cum dumpster and in this term which is why I removed it. Lysdexia (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "A person who is deposited semen in sex." doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean "A person who has semen deposited in them"? They/them has been used in the singular for centuries - what we like has nothing to do with it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two referents for the same subject doesn't make sense at all. The correct statement for what you think I mean is "A person in/on whom is deposited semen in sex" but the distinction for where the semen makes contact isn't needed. I'm sure the policy tells editors to write accurately instead of follow convention. There are already common-gender singular pronouns: one for indefinite and who for definite. The first literature authors who wrote they instead were stupid, as it comes from a Norse masculine plural. Lysdexia (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"A person who is deposited semen in sex" is definitely ungrammatical. Equinox ◑ 05:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

How? Lysdexia (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It just doesn't parse. Could you please add Babel templates to your User page - I can't believe you are a native English speaker. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"A person who is deposited X" mandates "I deposit a person X" (cf. "a person who is given gifts; I give a person gifts"), but "deposit" is not a ditransitive verb. Equinox ◑ 06:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good rule of thumb: the more 'formal' Latin verbs are not ditransitive, but require "to", "for", etc.; the Anglo-Saxon ones are ditransitive. So you can't e.g. "donate X Y" or "deposit X Y" but you can "give X Y" and "bring X Y". Equinox ◑ 06:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does "am become" or "is come" make any sense? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-the-grammatical-error-in-now-I-am-become-Death-the-destroyer-of-worlds-Was-this-a-stylistic-choice-by-the-translator-Was-it-a-reflection-of-an-intentional-strange-grammar-construct-in-the-original-Sanskrit/answer/Joshua-Engel. This loan construction nonsensically switches active with passive. If I had written "A person who deposits" you'd understand that as the active, so "A person who is deposited" of course means the passive, that someone has deposited by the person. This should be very easy to understand.

Another convention I object to in dictionaries, like this, is that the lemma for verbs has no preposition but the definitions insert "to" for their own verbs, but that changes the meaning. Also that everyone believes to marks the infinitive when it marks the prospective, as in "I am to oversee your work today."

Nobody is a native speaker of English; English has been dead for 1000 years sith the Norman Conquest. Everyone talks in "Einglish" now (note the i-mutation). Anglisc became Englisc became English became normand became Einglish. English came after Ormulum's spelling reform. All of the loanwords you use belong to their original languages; it's inappropriate to call them English; the least you could do is call them hybrids, mongrels, or pidgins of some modified language like I do above, or put a hyphen between the two parent languages.

Edit conflict: "A person to whom semen is deposited" or "A person to whom is deposited semen" appeases ye then? I don't like any of those explications. How about "A person who is or behaves like a semen depository"? Lysdexia (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to go off in a corner and talk to yourself in your vision of etymologically-pure "English" that no one else actually speaks. We're a descriptive dictionary, so we describe the way English is and has been used, and we're trying to communicate with people who speak the version of English that the other %99.99999999 of the English-speaking world uses. I've seen enough of your "everybody is wrong: gravity doesn't exist and the sun rises in the west" statements over the years to know that we're not going to convince you, but I can live with that. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

My two cents: a person who is perfectly capable of communicating in proper English when discussing an issue, and yet apparently incapable of doing so when writing definitions, is trolling. bd2412 T 23:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not someone with this kind of a track record. FWIW, she does lots of high-quality edits in entries where her particular obsessions aren't involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Nobody is a native speaker of English". LOL. Well you clearly aren't. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

My recent edit to prosoma is based on actual fact. You only need to look at this Wikipedia article to confirm this. MarqFJA87 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Ah. I thought I had reverted your addition of "lb|en|entomology" to the Spanish section. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh, that. I was trying to add the page to that category, but due to my inexperience I didn't realize how the markup I was copying from another actually worked. Of course, by the time I realized that mistake, I also realized that "entomology" only covers insects, and since we don't have an "arthropodology" category that could cover insects (yes, they technically have a prosoma; we call it "head" in plain English), arachnids and crustaceans, I concluded that I should just make do with the existent "zoology" category. MarqFJA87 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I created Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2005-02/User:SemperBlotto, because I couldn't find it elsewhere. Thought I'd let you know. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Correction: Daniel Carrero had already created it, but it was misplaced (Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2005-12/User:SemperBlotto). --Barytonesis (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe interesting: Smith & Hall’s English-Latin dictionary now on Latinitium.com. --LA2 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please excuse me, I'm new to wiktionary, regarding this revert, I asked at the village pump where to report missing words and I was pointed to Wiktionary:Wanted entries. Can you point me to a better place to report missing words? Fructibus (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• That's the place to put them. Remember to use the correct capitalization (most English words do not start with a capital letter). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • p.s. I've added (deprecated template usage) catchplate for you. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! I think the definition is missing the brooch catchplate (the bow) item - . Fructibus (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Isn't that the first definition of (deprecated template usage) catch plate? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete this? I made it to be a parent for Category:en:Circus. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It was empty and unused. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • It had only existed for a few minutes, so Category:en:Circus didn't display in it due to the job queue. That happens sometimes with categories in MediaWiki. I found the actual culprit is that the label was not added to the module correctly... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be inclined to revert to the definition that states that the lindworm is bipedal. A lindworm doesn't have to be bipedal it can be limbless or limbed, slithering or bipedal.

The definition that I explained is concise and doesn't read like a encyclopedia. I even shortened the definition in order to be more readable. And there is nothing bad about having a little longer definition which you seem to mind

• Your definition was very long. In dictionaries we aim to be concise. Just link to Wikipedia for a long description. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your right about it being longer. I shortened it even further now, its not long now at all. I shortened it now, just don't revert it to the outdated stub definition.

A while ago I added humorous as a label for whomst and you reverted it. Could you explain why? It's commonly used in a humorous sense on the Internet. Should I have said "sometimes humorous" or added "Internet" to the labels? 24.13.226.156 19:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• There are two quotations given. Neither are humorous. Both are from before the age of the Internet. I think you need to provide some evidence. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I can confirm there is some Internet "meme" where whomst is used in a joky way to suggest grammar pedantry, along the lines of people correcting who to whom (check Google Images). Not sure whether it's CFI-attestable or used meaningfully in running text. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your chemical eye might be useful at Talk:hydrogen_monoxide. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw you reverted my edit of the Descendants category for substance. Is just linking to a page and using a borrowed qualifier preferable to using the descendant template? — This unsigned comment was added by 24.13.226.156 (talk).

• I believe that the current format is the one preferred by our editors. There is probably some documentation somewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello SemperBlotto,

I've left you a message in the discussion page for iber. Thank you.

I'm not sure why you "rolled back" my edit 86.6.74.236 19:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, it seems pretty uncooperative towards other editors to not give a reason for undoing their edits, and to require them to go to your talk page to request that you let them know why. I would have thought edit summaries should explain the edit, albeit briefly, rather than instruct other editors to come to you to request that you give an explanation of the edit. 86.6.74.236 19:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Because it was nonsense. And sorry, but there is so much vandalism and other crud edits that I do not have the time to help newbies. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello @SemperBlotto: I just created the page the good doctor, and the good doctors as its plural. I hadn't thought that the existence of the plural would be controversial, but I saw that you deleted the good doctors and marked the good doctor as uncountable. There are attestations for the use of the plural, in the same idiomatic honorific sense as the singular. For example:

1. An honorific for a group of doctors, especially for a group of doctors of medicine (physicians).
   • 2013, Enrico Gnaulati, "That’s not autism: It’s simply a brainy, introverted boy", Salon, 21 September 2013 (retrieved 2017-10-23; archived from the original 2017-08-13):

     With all respect to the good doctors at the university-based institute who evaluated him, they were not up on the literature on mental giftedness.

And just as with the singular, it is easy to tell the difference between the idiomatic honorific instances versus those (apparently the majority) that merely mean "the doctors who are good at being doctors". Could you please either restore the page the good doctors, or explain further your rationale for asserting that the good doctor is uncountable and that "the good doctors" as used above is not its plural?

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agree, can't be uncountable. If the plural were not attested then the correct singular form would be {{en-noun|!}} i.e. "singular noun, plural not attested". Equinox ◑ 00:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Plural restored. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you reverted this, the episode script does not append an "s" to it.

DrStrauss (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, {{term}} has been deprecated and (after a very long time) successfully completely removed from the main namespace. Please don't use it anymore! Thanks. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There was an odd bot error on this page which has just been corrected by an anon. Could you please go back to your bot's contribs from that time (or use the scripts if you have them) to identify if there are more entries with that error? Unlike most of your Latin bot errors, I don't see how this one could be due to the base page being incorrect. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello chap. Did you know that atrop-abyssomicin C is "a spirotetronate that belongs to the class of tetronate antibiotics, which includes compounds such as tetronomycin, agglomerin, and chlorothricin"? Can I rely on you to "blue" this sentence? Equinox ◑ 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was the IP address that added "doublet of yard" to the etymology. Yerd and yard both come from Old English gerd, but have different meanings. Doesn't that make them doublets, or am I misunderstanding the meaning? Globins (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed the same thing happened with yerk and jerk, both from ġearcian, although some of their meanings overlap. Globins (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why'd you delete my alternate capitalization entry?

• Because (deprecated template usage) earth mother is already defined as the alternative form of (deprecated template usage) Earth Mother. We can't have such definition loops. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

As explained in the Wikepedia article on "The Reverend" style, there is no grammatically correct plural form of "Reverend" because the clerical style is actually an adjective and not a noun. It is simply incorrect English to refer to someone as being a "reverend" and "reverends" is just nonsense. The Wiktionary entry should be factually accurate on this matter. Anglicanus (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you be 100% sure that nobody ever says "reverends"? —Rua (mew) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

1996, James Mastrich, ‎Yvonne Warren, ‎George Kline, Lambertville and New Hope (page 104): "The Reverends Smith and Smith were quite concerned that their parishioners be enlightened and consequently they did their best to increase the literacy rate of their congregation." Equinox ◑ 21:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, could you detail the errors in my entry? I found it condescending and rude to delete it with no explanation of error or message, sorry. --69.40.49.237 01:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC) 1) It started with a capital letter - Portuguese verbs do not do that 2) Brazilian Portuguese is not a language (just use Portuguese plus "lb|pt|Brazil") 3) ===Expression=== is not a valid header 4) You didn't give its literal meaning (from football - to step on the ball while dribbling) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I have created (deprecated template usage) pisar na bola for you.

I'm copying this from the Information Desk:

A great number of Latin perfect passive participles are listed as future passive participles in the etymology section of their articles. I imagine most of these articles were auto-generated (evidently incorrectly). I have manually corrected several over the past months, including just recently those of affossus and lubricatus (if you check their revision histories, you can see that before my edit they were displayed as future passive participles). Perhaps there is a more efficient, systematic way to correct these? Dylanvt (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto ran the bot that created the mistaken etymologies, so it is his duty to find the incorrect entries and hopefully fix them. —Μετάknowledge 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dylanvt (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I'm pretty sure that we are all volunteers here and have no "duty" to do anything. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Take a look at WT:BOTS. There is an explicit expectation that if bot operators proliferate mistakes by bot, they should fix them. But even if that weren't the case, cleaning up after yourself is just the right thing to do. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Answered at Information desk. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you, I appreciate it. A similar search for errors of the type in the history of tacentibus (which I reported above) would also be great. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Can you think of a way of identifying the incorrect entries? SemperBlotto (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Ablative singulars (i.e. Latin entries with the text abl|m|s, abl|f|s, or abl|n|s in the entry) should never end in -ibus. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  OK. When I'm next awake I'll scan all members of Category:Latin participle forms (169,930 entries). If it ends in "ibus" I'll change any "abl|x|s" to "abl|x|p" (where x is m, f or n). SemperBlotto (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Done. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why was this deleted? Is there some rule against dialect forms? Or are my edits being automatically deleted for my coining "eldlogation"(for which I apologise)? JustinCB (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've restored it with some usage examples. DTLHS (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The original modification did not have a headword or any proper formatting. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. I'll try to format things better in the future. JustinCB (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is this obsolete acid? Comes from Cimex (i.e. they squished it out of an insect) and apparently it was "foul-smelling", back in the day when chemists had to drink everything they synthesised. Any idea? Equinox ◑ 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I can't find an accurate identification. Might even be a mixture. I've made an attempt at a definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am a new user at this project, though I have made 1-2 contributions previously several years ago. You helped me with a new page I created yesterday as an IP. I have a question for you on eponyms: shouldn’t they contain a substantive definition? Compare (deprecated template usage) Kafkaesque (“marked by a surreal distortion of reality”) to (deprecated template usage) Shakespearean (“pertaining to Shakespeare.”) Am I wrong to think the other eponyms should contain a non-trivial definition, like Kafkaesque, if it can be sourced? Thanks for your help.

• Yes. The definition should actually say what the word means (if more than just "characteristic of ..."). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • thank you. I noticed several eponyms lacking substantive definitions where there is clearly a sense greater than “pertaining to X” in common use, such as Shakespearean and Nietzschean. I will try to remedy the lack of a substantive definition at these articles. I also added 4-5 philosophy definitions that i thought we should have, from browsing through the Stanford Encylopedia— see my new entries (or new senses of terms already present) at intrinsic value, extrinsic value, animalism, personal identity, and advance directive. You may want to review these in case I’ve made any errors with formatting, style, or any other matters.Kingshowman (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You deleted the adjectival sense. My guess, however, is that it was primarily used in the adjectival sense, since basically all of the usages I could find used apportionate as an adjective. Arguably, it doesn't really matter since this word is no longer used, but I was trying to figuure out the meaning since no one says anywhere and it was red-linked somewhere here.

Here are some examples of apportionate used as an adjective:

"from the square of the apportionate distance of the point K" https://books.google.com/books?id=jus2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=apportionate&source=bl&ots=zGnkEU-JA5&sig=ADpGxlp601UGW-xK1xd1rpmyZL0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin-ZPWneLXAhUC6YMKHYFvAUQ4ChDoAQg1MAQ#v=onepage&q=apportionate&f=false 'has a given ratio equal to the real and apportionate distances of that point from the focus" https://books.google.com/books?id=2iJkAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=apportionate&source=bl&ots=i5EThUglsW&sig=MS9dy-GI6ysOvC5o-WDEQe2rrqo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin-ZPWneLXAhUC6YMKHYFvAUQ4ChDoAQguMAI#v=onepage&q=apportionate&f=false "entitled the holder to an apportionate interest in the company" https://books.google.com/books?id=W7tOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=apportionate&source=bl&ots=Vf1IRhKNWi&sig=5Ob6fw-lWPmx7A3DIwA5HR2Dlm8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4drMneLXAhWWxIMKHX4KBfQQ6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&q=apportionate&f=false

then there's this recent 2011 usage in a book called Political Islam ("an apportionate concept of justice--'to give everyone their due)though this is probably more of a proposal for a concept without wide currency rather than a reflection of usage among any group: https://books.google.com/books?id=mraIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=apportionate&source=bl&ots=24rDwiiFLH&sig=PEsuo4hTQbyprALEBAm49enllXM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin-ZPWneLXAhUC6YMKHYFvAUQ4ChDoAQg9MAY#v=onepage&q=apportionate&f=false

I would infer the adjectival form would also have to be more important, since the verb form is entirely redundant with apportion, and is effectively just a variant form. There is also apportionateness to consider, which doesn't make sense with only a verb form of apportionate.

Apologies if I'm mistaken here. Much of this is just inference since there isn't really any source that actually comes out and says what this means.Kingshowman (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• You added an adjective sense, but then defined that sense as if it were a noun "a proportional quantity" or "an allocation". There does seem to be adjectival usage, so I'll add it. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am well aware of the fear of redirects, along with the practice of turning them into their own entries at all costs, that is par for the course on Wiktionary. But is such a practice really necessary when it comes to such small discrepancies as this one, i.e. a hyphen-minus versus an en dash? The distinction between the two really only matters for technical typological discussion and for digital representations of text (such as that which is necessary for URLs); in fact few people are aware there is a distinction at all, certainly not the majority—and many publishers, even if they are secretly aware, don't care. I would argue that when it comes to such a small difference, there might as well be no apparent distinction other than the functional one: a redirect is therefore more appropriate. After all, what help is it to a user searching a term on Wiktionary only to find they must click onto another page for the desired definition, especially in these such cases where the only distinction is a typological one and has no relevance to semantic clarity? If deletionism is such a commonly held tenet of Wikimedians, why not apply it as well to the separate-pages-versus-redirects issue plaguing Wiktionary?

 — J​as​p​e​t 20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Nothing to do with me. Wiktionary policy is set out in Wiktionary:Redirections. Not everyone agrees on it. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

But in fact Wiktionary:Redirections has nothing to say on this matter, other than that hyphenated and un-hyphenated forms are distinct: it makes no note about different types of hyphenation. I understand you are only following what you interpret as the standard policy; if you prefer, I will leave a message on the talk page there instead of continuing this discussion. Unfortunately the last time this particular issue was discussed was in 2009, and not at all in depth.  — J​as​p​e​t 22:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't the search engine lead one to the same entry no matter which code point for a hyphen one uses? I would prefer that, as a general rule, we don't have an entry or a redirect for representations that the search engine conflates. If the search engine does not now conflate such code points, can we make it do so? DCDuring (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my contribution, if I may ask? — This unsigned comment was added by Agroni (talk • contribs).

• Because it was wrong. You tried to add a foreign-language definition to an English word. I think you were trying to add a translation. I have added both the translation (to (deprecated template usage) Susan) and also the foreign-language definition. See (deprecated template usage) Syzana. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my contribution, the Cambridge dictionary nuance on this is not to your liking? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I thought that it was just repeating our existing definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • They can be both seen as different. “reliable, trustworthy”, is not the same as "safe and certain of success" is it? Also the former is open ended as to what it defines, whereas the latter "is" defined. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Here are your 10 random missing English words for this month.

• tracheate VERB, Champions tiebreak, mesto, acetum, traik, oversupped, murrays, refelled, preving, ceorlish

Equinox ◑ 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Not sure about murrays. OED only has the noun capitalised. Do you have any context? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Obsolete form of moray (eel), apparently. (BTW, I think oversup might only occur as "oversupped". Seems to be a Thackeray nonce word.) Equinox ◑ 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • OK. All done now. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please can I know why did you delete my entry for the word "pelec'h" (which wasn't on the EN Wikimedia, but is on some other ones) for the reason "No usable content given (please see WT:CFI, WT:EL)"? Those articles are way too long and too complicated for me, + I don't have the time to read it all. Sorry :) 90.105.105.211 11:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply