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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wiktionary itself.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

thermidor[edit]

What do you mean? It's a direct quote from an English-language book. The word is italicized however. Rice makes it sound like it's a word used in international relations, regardless of the origin.zigzig20s (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The italics are the clue - that shows that it is a foreign word being mentioned in an English-language sentence. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

How was[edit]

your 2017, Jeff? I had a great time - traveling to South America, getting a kinda promotion, joining a band and enjoying life in Catalonia. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It had its ups and downs (that I can't mention here) - but I survived it. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

p.s. There is an email link on my homepage if you want the details. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably won't be emailing you. BTW, there's a spelling mistake in the last sentence of this page --Gente como tú (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And you spelled gullible wrong in the third paragraph, too. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
And a Merry Xmas to you too. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AWB applicant[edit]

Pkbwcgs has contacted me regarding xyr request for AWB CheckPage addition of more than 24 hours. I noticed you have edited that page somewhat recently so I am forwarding the ping. - Amgine/ t·e 18:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

dicky bird[edit]

I think I can see why you reverted my edits on the two related pages - they did have errors (which I was in the process of fixing), but I think it would have been better to not delete the edit entirely but fix it - "dicky bird" (in several forms) is recorded as Cockney slang for "word" and I think the snippet from Simple Simon was worth mentioning as an example (although it was an alternative form - that might have been the main problem?). Maitchy (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you have an admirer[edit]

‎TemperBlotto (talkcontribs) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

copper-bottomed[edit]

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)

  • I thought that it was just repeating our existing definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • This is very shoddy. You had reverted a perfectly good bolt-on referenced definition of mine, and then you reverted my deletion of a made-up word. All this without explanation, except a glib message putting the onus on me, to defend my edits, which I later did. I note also that when you realised I was correct in the latter case, there was no such word, you then deleted the non existing word, rather than rollbacking it. The nett effect was you increased your edit stat, did not accrue a delete, and wiped out my entire Wiki stat (now logged as deletes, all six in one swoop), making me look like a vandal. I asked for your justification, and got a somewhat glib answer. Then, when I gave you a full and correct justification for my change you ignored me. I also notice from your User page that you take pride in your own stats. It's not within the remit of an Administrator to deal out abrupt treatment to willing editors this way. What are you going to do about this? BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @BeckenhamBear: Please don't take this the wrong way. We're dealing with many shoddy edits in a day, and sometimes good edits get mistakenly reverted as well. SemperBlotto reremoved himself the made-up word not because he wanted to increase his edit stats (or at least I don't think so), but because it was a good edit of yours that he mistakenly undid. Notice that your contributions still appear in the "history" tab; by no means are they wiped out from the system.
      • The "glib message" you're speaking of is automated; we have no way to change it.
      • As for the definition you added, I think it should possibly be readded, but not in the usage notes: it'd be better to make it a third sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Woman as gender[edit]

Why did you delete this section from the talkpage of the article woman? 31.154.8.98 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Because it was incomprehensible. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This definition relates the idea that gender and sex are different traits, so a woman by one definition is not necessarily a woman according the other definition. 31.154.8.98 19:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

cathode and anode[edit]

Hey SB. Are the definitions for cathode and anode OK? The pages have been on RFC for 200 years now, it'd be sweet to remove 'em. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • They look OK to me. Most dictionaries have shorter definitions, but I think ours are better, if a bit encyclopedic. I'm going to be bold and remove the RfC section. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User Page Deletion[edit]

The summary "and no further edits" seems to imply I was banned (soft banned if you will). Am I just infringing on that? Otherwise, how is your comment supposed to be understood? Rhyminreason (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC) I just noticed you might have intended to say, I had not done any edits except on my user page. Alright, well, the page wasn't up for long, so there was hardly any time for edits. The pointers to WT:CFI and WT:EL don't seem very helpful if you took issue with the talk page itself, so may I ask: How should I improve on it and how can the text be retrieved for that matter? I did (in the meantime) read Wiktionary:Usernames_and_user_pages#User_pages but didn't find any objection to my draft in it. Rhyminreason (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • First, become an actual editor - add or modify words. Then add a user page that contains babel templates - these tell us how much we can trust your edits. See the user pages of other users to see the format. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

assimilation (phonology)[edit]

As a reader of wiktionary I found your 2006 definition of assimilation (sense:phonology) much more helpful than the current. It is not my place to make alterations to english entries, but... wouldn't it be nice if your definition came back... Thank you. sarri.greek (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

EWDC #4[edit]

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

Equinox 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

thermoclinic[edit]

That's not what this word means. I thought that'd be it as well, but then I checked Google Books and it clearly is the equivalent of baroclinic (which I must confess I don't really understand) but for temperature. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I have amended both definitions. I think (hope) they are accurate. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    Looks better now. Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • -id (taxonomic -idae) is almost always for families. I've fixed a bunch, but please go over your recent taxonomic entries again — many of them have mistakes that can be checked just by googling the word first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    True of animals, but -idae is also used in the other main taxonomic system (plants, etc.) for subclasses. Fortunately there aren't a lot of those. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    There are far fewer of those, hence the "almost always". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, but the simplest way to stop me adding bad entries is to add a good one first. See User:DTLHS for the ones I shall be looking at soonish. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have the time, although I do try to get to some now and then. But I think that you're perfectly capable of making good entries — after all, you've created a great number of them over the years. If you just look a bit more carefully, maybe search the term in Google to see what database results pop up and then in Google Books to skim the first few results to see if the context matches, then you're bound to have almost no bad definitions. It doesn't take too long the manual way, and Equinox has got some way of making it quicker that he can share if you want it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Same issues with elopoid. Most of the time, you shouldn't expect the genus to be what they're referring to; these terms are usually for higher taxonomic ranks. Anyway, just searching this term on Google could have told you that they exist in modern fisheries (so not extinct) and that they include multiple genera, thus indicating that your definition was wrong. Really, looking things up isn't so hard, but if you really aren't willing to do it, you probably shouldn't create taxonomic entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That definition is at odds with everything I've seen in Google Books- it probably doesn't even meet CFI. If an IP had created that, I might very well have deleted it. Heck, you've deleted better entries than that. Why risk damaging the credibility of the dictionary by editing blind? Chuck Entz (talk)

Draft[edit]

Can you please restore the draft page of mine you just deleted? I was compiling them so that a user could look it over and you just erased 45 minutes of work. AncientEgypt23 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have put it in your own userspace: User:AncientEgypt23/Pharaoh names. Equinox 15:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox: Thanks. AncientEgypt23 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And I put it in your User page at the same time. What is it supposed to be? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion so soon[edit]

While I do concur about the opinion of wanting the page deleted, I disagree that the page should have been deleted so quickly. I was wondering what many others than just one editor were going to say about it. Also, now that the page has been deleted, the contents can no longer be viewed by non-admins, so a discussion is less easy because of that.

Isn't there a rule about only deleting the page after one month of discussion and clear consensus at that point, unless the entry is blatant vandalism or something along those lines? PseudoSkull (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Which page are we talking about? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requested entries (other), sorry for not clarifying. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Well there was nothing in it. I can bring it back if you like. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Please do, and can you strike the "Deleted" too in the discussion so people know it's still quite open? It was only the obstruction of process that I was worried about; I know the page was relatively empty, but still gave a general idea of what the page was for nonetheless. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)