User talk:SemperBlotto

Definition from Wiktionary, the 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.

Archives[edit]

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wiktionary itself.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

Removal of translation[edit]

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)

secondary[edit]

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)

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

Deleting Accidental Module[edit]

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

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

coronoid and coracoid[edit]

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)

Assuming that you're even correct, why did you not explain this in your edits? —CodeCat 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, etymology goes in its own section, not in the definition line. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of definition quill[edit]

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

Removing my User Page[edit]

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)

Landlocked rollback[edit]

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)

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)
landlocked is an adjective. Your definition was for a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
@Butwhatdoiknow Totally agree! – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 01:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
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)

Category:Pages with math errors[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • OK - I'll look at the original. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)

Feminine versions of Donald[edit]

Donalda, Dolina and Donaldina are common female equivalents of Donald in the Hebrides where the name Donald originates. [1] 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

quasistatico[edit]

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

phenyboronic, phenyboronic acid[edit]

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

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

Block for User:ITOGWS Community[edit]

I want a Oxygen15.04.1-process-stop.svg block for that user, because the username is promotional.

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

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

Recent move undone[edit]

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. ;) [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)

Move page[edit]

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)

  • Yes check.svg Done. Revert if appropriate. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Thanks, but I meant Module:User:Awesomemeeos/ispronAWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/) 03:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vandalism forgiveness and user reinstatement[edit]

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)

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)
He is now unblocked. We'll see. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Rmagill (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Highfalutin[edit]

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

Your definition is worded as if it were defining a noun. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
I see that highfalutin in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 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)
I've created a noun PoS section with a supporting citation. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Irish twin[edit]

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)

  • 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)

Question[edit]

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

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

prejunior[edit]

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

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

Vandalizing your page[edit]

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.

JCC[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    According to Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg 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)

Names of pesticides[edit]

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)

  • 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)

my user page[edit]

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)

Talk Page Deletion.[edit]

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)

  • 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)

deletion of "Jehovan"[edit]

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)

  • 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)
    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)

definitions needed for mathematics and physics terms[edit]

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)

An interesting bit of vandalism[edit]

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

OMG That's so weird! — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 04:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)

Please delete this page:[edit]

Module:User:Awesomemeeos/mongol

Thank you in advance! — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

droll[edit]

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)

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)
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)

G5, Jesus, God[edit]

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)

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

Evolution of "chiudere"[edit]

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

  • Sorry Kenny, I don't know IPA that well but I think /kju/ would be correct (rather like the English word queue). The audio seems correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @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)

Chaos[edit]

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)

Reversion of my edit to Corleone[edit]

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)

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

Delete Module:mn-pron/documentation[edit]

It is a redirect, but it shouldn't be — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed. You could have fixed it yourself. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant to delete that Module. It is still there — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

reaccommodate[edit]

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)

Vox/Fox[edit]

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: [2]. 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)

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)

Reverted your rollback - you gave no reason in edit summary[edit]

Here's your edit that I reverted: https://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)

Why did you remove my link for dreich?[edit]

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)

  • 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)

denkfaul[edit]

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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I can never remember the difference. Wouldn't a compound be "denkenfaul"? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    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)

Reverted terms[edit]

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)

Wiktionary-focused research project[edit]

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)

Lux Mundi[edit]

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)

-DZIL[edit]

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)

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

destinare[edit]

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 (talkcontribs).

  • 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)

Robert Ullmann[edit]

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)

Bho[edit]

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)
  • I assume anon meant boh. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 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".

Uyghur[edit]

It does use Latin script; See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

geständig[edit]

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 gestandenthe 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 Personthe confessor
  • Straferleichterungen für geständige Täterlighter sentences for those who confess to their crimes
  • wenn der Angeklagte geständig istif 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)

  • 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)

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

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)
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 hydrogen as an example (in English)) SemperBlotto (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

obstructing the field[edit]

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

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)
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)
Hmm. There are many cricket glossaries on the web. Not all of them have this term. [3] 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)

fotus[edit]

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)

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

Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs)[edit]

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)

  • 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)


Sans doute[edit]

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

Ragù[edit]

  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)

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)
  • 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)