User talk:SemperBlotto

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search

NOTE: Conversations between third parties on my talk page are liable to deletion - talk amongst yourselves, not on my talk page.

Contents

[edit] Archives

This is a Wiktionary user page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wiktionary, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wiktionary itself. The original page is located at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto.
Wikimedia Foundation

[edit] Misspelling of

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

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

[edit] Update: Dasey

Dear SemperBlotto, just letting you know, if you (i.e. not just Mglovesfun or somebody else) do not respond to my request for undeletion of the entry for "Dasey" (posted on your User Talk Page on 19:04, 29 December 2009 UTC) with a decision one way or the other and a detailed explanation for said decision within a week from the time of my original request (in other words before January 6, 2010) I will have no option other than to interpret your lack of response to my request as approval from you to create the entry again as explicitly suggested by Wiktionary:Page Deletion Guidelines, Section 4, "Undeletion." SoccerMan2009 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How about finding proper citations per WT:CFI instead of wikilawyering? Equinox ◑ 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Try it the other way round (per Equinox) show how this meets our criteria, than complaining to the specific person who delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Equinox and Mglovesfun, three citations are NOT needed by WT:CFI, as is clearly specified by the use of the word "or" in the following excerpt from WT:CFI, Section 1.2, "Attestation":
"'Attested' means verified through
  1. Clearly widespread use,
  2. Usage in a well-known work,
  3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
  4. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." (emphasis added)
Based on the use of the word "or," only one of the criteria for attestation must be met by the word for it to be considered "attested." SoccerMan2009 19:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Which does it meet? L☺g☺maniac ☃ 19:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
As I stated in my original request for undeletion of the entry for the word "Dasey" (see the bottom of SemperBlotto's 2009 User Talk Page archives),
"If you search >Dasey< on Google, about 106,000 results come up and if you search >Dasey "Life with Derek"< on Google, about 484,000 results come up (don't ask me why more come up, but they do. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself). I think it is safe to say that 106,000 or 484,000 results on Google constitutes "lots of pages," and even "clearly widespread use," thus meeting the criteria for Attestation as defined in WT:CFI Section 1.2, "Attestation" (see verification method 1)." SoccerMan2009 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
In cases where whether a word is clearly in widespread use is contested, (which is certainly is) we resort to the other methods of verifying whether a word is attested. --Yair rand 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yair rand, is that official Wiktionary policy? I'm not denying that it is, but if so, where is it recorded? SoccerMan2009 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It may or may not be "official". Many Wiktionary policies are understood and not formerly documented anywhere, and the policies that are formerly documented are taken with a grain of common sense. Basically what everyone follows around here is that if three independent archived uses (not mentions) of the word spanning at least a year can be found, it stays; if three such citations cannot be found, it goes. Number of Google hits means nearly nothing; b.g.c. searches are more valuable information. We have some words here as entries which probably have much less than that in raw google hits. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Logomaniac, WT:DELETE, Section 3, "Notes to Administrators," (and yes, Equinox, I know you think I'm wikilawyering, but I'm not) states that


"the following checks, as a minimum, should always be made:...
  1. Check Google. Google can easily throw up hits for random strings of letters. This means that likely pages need to be read to see how the entry is used.
  1. If lots of web pages can be found that support the disputed page, then RFC or format the page as required."
So no, apparently Google hits do not mean "nearly nothing" according to Page deletion guidelines.

On a separate side note which should not be confused or conflated with my main reasoning for why "Dasey" should be undeleted, why can't new entries just be left alone if they are in dispute as to whether or not they meet the criteria for inclusion but they are not vandalism or an incorrect definition? In other words, can't we all just live and let live and focus on our own contributions instead of deleting others'? To put it another way, during the Salem witch trials, a level-headed person once said something along the lines of, "It would be better for ten guilty people to unpunished than for one innocent person to be convicted." SoccerMan2009 20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SoccerMan, our policies do not always reflect well the general standards held by the community. I don't care what the policies say, this is the 'commonsensus' of the community. If you cannot provide three durably archived citations for the word, it does not deserve an entry. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Logomaniac, perhaps you should focus on improving the policies then instead of deleting articles that aren't hurting anything. Also, you said, and I quote, "I don't care what the policies say." Is that an appropriate thing for an Administrator to say? Is that what they taught you in administrator school? I could be wrong but I do not think so. SoccerMan2009 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't focus on improving the policies because that takes a whole load of red tape to do which I am not interested in. Also, most people around here abide mostly by common sense and not by what the policies say. I do care what the policies say; but like I said, most people around here abide by common sense, not the letter of the law, and that usually works pretty well. L☺g☺maniac ☃ 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] m:Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting

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

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

[edit] bagna càuda

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

OK - I've corrected the English Wikipedia link. The facts look OK, especially if you look at the Italian Wikipedia version (i.e. no reference to butter or cream!). SemperBlotto 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Are the alternative spellings and etymology kosher, too? † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think so. I've only ever seen it in Italy either as we have it, or without the accent (which is only there to show you that the stress isn't on the usual "u" (last but one vowel)) SemperBlotto 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. Shall I {{rfv}} those two alternative forms? Should the Italian section have an etymology stating “From the {{etyl|pms|it}} bagna càuda (“‘hot sauce’”).”? Would the pronunciation be /ˌbaɲɲaˈka.uda/ or somesuch? Could you add an etymology and pronunciatory transcription, as appropriate, please? Thanks. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
bagna cauda garlic, anchovies, walnut, or olive oil, butter, and sometimes cream. --Knoblauch 16:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, not an Italian source for the Italian sauce. (but feel free to edit - this is a wiki). SemperBlotto 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Portman

[edit] spingere

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

There are quite a few, I tagged them (as I found them with {{attention|it}}, but there's no rush. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to tag them - I have an offline list - I do a few every week as it's a drag. SemperBlotto 08:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just done cingere accingere attingere circoncingere circumcingere confingere contingere depingere dipingere discingere dispingere effingere fingere impingere incingere infingere intingere mingere pingere precingere recingere respingere riattingere ricingere ridipingere rincingere ripingere risospingere rispingere ritingere scingere semicingere sospingere spingere stingere succingere tingere - that's enough for January! SemperBlotto 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] polirematiche and hyphenations

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

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

[edit] smallcap

I don't think this should be dismissed quite so hastily; there is “smallcapped”, which I haven't managed to confirm as a verb form, but I have found on Google two instances of a verbal “smallcapping” [1] as well as one of “to smallcap” [2]. – Krun 16:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

[edit] Entries

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

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

[edit] Question

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

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