User talk:SemperBlotto/2016

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

francobollo[edit]

It is, because it comes from franco-, that is etymologically related to Francia. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 09:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<it> Permettetemi l'intrusione, ma controllando sul mio dizionario etimologico G. Devoto del 1968, questo recita che "franco" è da intendersi libero, affrancato, facendo anche riferimento ad un'altra origine dell'aggettivo "franco" come attribuito al popolo germanico dei Franchi, per i quali significava "uomo libero / uomini liberi". Cordiali saluti, --Glo (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

child[edit]

Hello, I believe the addition of a definition of "child" as "A human between birth and puberty" was a valid one. This distinction is frequently made by the public and many medical communities (i.e. "children and adolescents"). Furthermore, the definition I added frequently appears in various dictionaries, such as Oxford and Webster's dictionaries, indicating widespread use. Sega31098 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notificiation[edit]

Template:it-adj is changed, see documentation change for details. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....hello? El Mandito (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please check again[edit]

marxisant#Adjective_2 --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

anagrams and IPA[edit]

Hi SemperBlotto. Why did you delete all the anagrams, IPA, etc. for scale leaf? Ping me back. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

becce[edit]

it=>peel? — This unsigned comment was added by 81.11.220.179 (talk).

Think before you edit[edit]

I removed "{{move|Sueco-}}" because the page was already moved to Sueco-. Why do you think the move request should be left there? Lilac pig (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/90.224.26.232[edit]

You didn’t have to block her. I thought that that definition was pretty cute. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno, SemperBlotto..[edit]

..Mi permetto di scriverti in Italiano visto che ne sei appassionato, ma vorrei esporti anche un mio dubbio, che mi saltava all'occhio allorquando, vagabondando in giro per questi meandri, trovavo le parole "emilianense", col suo plurale "emilianensi" da te introdotte qui in questo en.wiktionary. Ora, melium abundare quam deficere, mi si potrebbe obiettare, ma.. siamo sicuri che esista quella it.parola lì? Perché io, da italiana nativa e qua in Italia residente, mai uditane, mai lettane, neanche sul Dizionario Zingarelli del 2007, nel Garzanti del 1965 e nel Petrocchi del 1912, che sono molto articolati. Un siffatto suffisso l'avevo casomai trovato nei cisterc-ensi, amanu-ensi, e forse potrà trovarsi anche da qualche altra parte, ma suffisso all'aggettivo già di per sè chiaro "emiliano", non mi sembra che si potrà mai trovare. Che ne pensi? Grazie, ciao, --Glo (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. You are correct that emiliano is the normal term to describe something or someone from Emilia. However, emilianense is also used in certain circumstances - but I have given it the wrong translation! See, as an example on the Italian Wikipedia Glosse emilianensi - it means "relating to Saint Emilianus". I shall correct it - thanks for spotting it. By the way, we prefer all talk to be in English so that all other editors can see what we are talking about. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SemperBlotto, and in this manner I 'm also ok in this meaning you say, ok, ok!!. Forgive me for having employed Italian, but also you can see what a bad English I have :-[ . So you 'll force me to improve my English! ;-) --Glo (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian playing cards[edit]

Hi. I've just made the table relating to the French cards, that are used in Italy, as well. It just depends on the game you're playing. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 17:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just noticed a funny thing: in template:table:playing cards, the names of the images are in Italian!! IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophile and lipophile[edit]

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hydrophile after SemperBlotto revert of Lilac pig's edits.

Please explain why these words should not be in Category:English words suffixed with -phile before you undo my adding of this category to those pages again. Lilac pig (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They already were when you added the category. You've simply added the category twice (which does nothing, by the way). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't. Lilac pig (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image at the top of the entry hydrophile after Semper's revert. No doubt @Lilac pig will thing it's faked. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were you aware that templates add categories without their showing in the wikitext? The {{suffix}} and {{confix}} templates are designed for that purpose. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vniust definition and Old v Middle v Modern English distinction.[edit]

I put this as a reply in the new users question area then I realized you probably wouldn't see that so I decided to post here instead. (That is what Talk Pages are for, right?)

The reason I included a definition for "vniust" is because it is really more applicable specifically to the one definition of unjust (3 iirc) than a pure carbon copy of the modern usage of the word, hence why I included a tweaked version of that definition under vniust.

It's not Old English -- it starts popping up in Middle English as "vniuste" circa 1384 but Spenser and the KJV (so ~1580-1596 and then 1611) are considered the start of Modern English just using anachronistic spellings (Spenser and the writers of KJV were purposefully writing words to LOOK like Middle English while intending them to be pronounced like the spellings of their day because it was "more formal") -- so as far as I can tell the word really occurs mostly at a liminal point between Middle and Modern English; at least it's used in both forms of the language and it seems to show up the most in Spenser, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV Bible, all of which would be modern English with goofy spellings (but the Wycliffe Bible is certainly Middle English).

Is there a way to classify it as both a Middle English word and just normal English to illustrate the nuance?

Thanks Bradapalooza (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if it is only ever used in Middle English texts (out of my comfort zone) then it should only have a Middle English section. If it also used in more modern English then it should also have an English section - but I have no idea how to define it. Good luck. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Middle English Dictionary defines it as "adj (a) Of a person, God: wicked, unrighteous, sinful; also as noun: the wicked; (b) of a person: doing wrong (to himself), harmful; (c) of a judge, God, etc: perpetrating injustice, unfair, inequitable; of an official: corrupt." so I'd say it does have a bit of nuanced meaning towards God-related stuff compared to unjust. I'll probably let it simmer for a little then tweak it. Thanks Bradapalooza (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An old bot error[edit]

Hey Semper. It looks like, quite a while ago, your bot may have created some genitive plurals in -orum rather than -ōrum (like in this entry). Do you think you could find any examples of this that persist (the o should always be long, so they shouldn't be too hard to find) and fix them? Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SemperBlottoBot is running against a first small batch now (up to, and including ad...). SemperBlotto (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to limit it to genitive plurals; it's catching other stuff (I've reverted all the bad edits). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK - second batch - only updates the entry of it contains the text "|gen|". (so it didn't update alterniflorum) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I only spotted one error (it updated a translation in "quorum"). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thank you so much. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think nothing of it. If changes to Latin templates have stabilized, I might try running the Latin bot again. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they have, and I reckon there won't be any more changes to the template structure for a while, despite there being some talk of that. The current system is sufficient to cover all situations, which the older templates never were. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed word[edit]

Was trying to add a word, though wasn't sure where to add the word till I came across WT:LOP. Where is my deleted page located? I look at the deleted log and it's blank. Can you move it or give me a link to the deleted page that isn't blank? Nottusg (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nottusg (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=vitaliziata&type=revision&diff=37419442&oldid=37418284#Italian[edit]

--kc_kennylau (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collo[edit]

Is collo (or colli) a good synonym of bagaglio? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does capo mean in Venetian? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 09:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, it has the same meanings as the Italian, but may also mean the upper body. The vec.wiktionary has a few usages of the word, but no entry for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can confirm the meanings here above. See [1] in vec.wkp. --Glo (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its content is:
    • In Geography, cavo (or capo), means "coastal ledge";
    • In Anatomy it is the "head";
    • In Arboriculture that is an unpruned top of a branch;
    • In Navy, a non-comissioned officer;
    • In Tecnology, it means a rope, specially an electric wire;
    • In the work world or in the society, it means the chief, the governor.

--Glo (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

The format of the parameters of the Latin third declension templates (both noun and adjective) will be changed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still do Latin redlink bot-creation?[edit]

Category:Latin adjectives with red links in their declension tables. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'd like to. But there was a time when the templates were being changed faster than I could keep up with them, and lots of errors were introduced as a result (on top of my own human errors). My plan is to wait till activity on the templates has ended, then check my bot against the current templates and start again (slowly, one template at a time). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entries ending with -costus, -setus, and -florus follow 1&2 and the format should not have changed much. Please do deal with them if you want. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in Category:Latin verbs with red links in their conjugation tables? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm going to have a go at both nouns and verbs soon. But I am filling Italian redlinks at the moment. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian redlinks[edit]

Are you still interested in working through Category:Italian redlinks? I was unable to populate the redlinks categories for all languages because the code was generating too many module errors, but apparently I can populate the categories for a few languages without generating any errors.

I populated Category:Italian redlinks because I thought you might be interested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moz - مۆز[edit]

Hello, why this page (مۆز) deleted? Serchia (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk about it in discussion page if there any mistake. This is my first page, but I think there was nothing wrong with input data. Serchia (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aethal, aethalic acid[edit]

Obsolete chemical things I can't work out. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

shearing shed[edit]

thank a lot your edit on shearing shed, i did the same on Spanish version, see there please--181.75.126.188 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Penarc[reply]

biomolecular[edit]

I think that biomolecular is relating to biomolecule. Am I right? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ankle deep[edit]

You said you couldn't move it, could you please re-create it in the correct place because I have no idea what you are talking about.

He already did: ankle-deep. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

white sweet potato[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to reply regarding whether this is a sum-of-parts or not, I think it isn't because it refers to a specific variety of sweet potato (rather than simply a normal sweet potato that is white). See, for example: http://www.foodsubs.com/Sweetpotatoes.html http://www.thekitchn.com/why-is-this-sweet-potato-not-o-70127 http://www.sweetpotatoes.com/About/VarietiesandBotanicalInformation.aspx Just my thoughts. :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a specific variety- there are different types of white sweet potatoes in various places around the world. The fact that it's the flesh that's white and not something else doesn't keep it from being SOP- red apples and green apples both have white flesh, but we shouldn't have entries for either. As for your references, the sweetpotatoes.com one refers to "yamiamo", an obvious mistake for yamaimo, as a sweet potato, but it's a yam. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in its other pronouncements. 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

laxaram, laxaras, laxarat, etc.[edit]

They are created by your bot and claimed to be the pluperfect active indicative forms of laxō, whose PLP.A.I. forms start with laxāver- instead. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "eolgi"[edit]

Why I can't use "eolgi" as a synonym word for "interstate"?

Homoflexibility removal[edit]

Hi. I would like to know why my edit on the homoflexible page was removed. If there is any way I can fix my mistake and put my edit back up, please let me know.

hypsometric[edit]

Surely a example of usage is valuable, the quotation used does little to help!

Generally, a quotation is far better than a usage example. This is a great example of why that is true, because the word hypsometric is nearly always followed by the word curve, and speaking of "hypsometric colouring", though not wrong, would be considerably less common. We thus prefer evidence-based examples, i.e. quotations drawn from books etc. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it might be difficult to find a quotation that illustrates the usage of the word in a concise enough manner. --WikiTiki89 00:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of "About that life"[edit]

I created the entry for about that life, which has been a very popular saying for years. The google search for "about that life" (between quotes) returns 700K returns, and 388K results for the alternative spelling “bout that life” (also between quotes). On Instagram, there are over 400K images published with the tag #aboutthatlife. The saying has appeared in many outlets of popular culture, from song titles to thousands of internet memes. The saying “About that life” is as much here to stay as any other slang, and I was surprised by your deletion of this entry.

I hope to hereby convince you that about that life has the right to exist, and I would like to bring it back to life. However, I spent around 30 minutes creating it, and want to take this opportunity to ask you how I can revert it back into existence? Amin wordie (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought that it was just too new to pass our criteria for inclusion. It also had no headword, and poor grammar in the example sentence. I see that it has been recreated and a headword has now been added. You might like to change the example sentence to an actual citation from the real world. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

so having just done my first edit do i get a nice hello? noooooo, no no no no, i get my user page deleted. well done you! great way to welcome a new editor! yay! show 'em some encouragement! nice work! that'll keep 'em coming back! The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of a User Page is to give other editors information about the editor. Typically so that they can more readily assess the user's contributions. Most User Pages do this by means of babel pages or other factual information. The single word "elves" is not helpful. See the User Page of any regular editor for help in constructing your own. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chi#Italian[edit]

What does the asterisk mean in the IPA? I would have said it's a bot error personally. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

planet gear, sun gear, etc.[edit]

I know nothing about this subject but from Wikipedia I gathered that an epicyclic gear might consist of more than one part: the inner sun gear and the outer planet(ary) gear(s)...? In that case they can't be synonyms. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Likely. Equinox ◑ 05:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Citations:salicide ???[edit]

I see you deleted Citations:salicide because of formatting issues. Could you restore the page so I can reformat? Thanks. By the way I think it's a bit bite-y to delete a page merely for formating issues. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Daniel Carrero[edit]

You blocked Daniel Carrero giving the reason "Adding nonsense/gibberish". However, I cannot find anything that could be considered nonsense or gibberish in his recent history, nor did you revert or delete any of his edits/creations recently. Was this simply a mistake? If so, please be more careful. If not, why did you block him? --WikiTiki89 15:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this: meow meow meow meow meow meow. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Somehow I misread that in the log as "blocked meow meow meow meow meow meow (talk • contribs)", while it actually says "deleted page meow meow meow meow meow meow". I'm sorry for doubting you SemperBlotto, I think that block was legitimate, although I probably would have only given an hour block. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was it. But, as he is a sysop, he will probably unblock himself. At least he didn't delete the main page. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CodeCat already unblocked him a while ago. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I failed to consider the possibility that I would be blocked, but once blocked I was thinking along the lines of "well, I deserved it, so I won't unblock myself". That said, thanks for @CodeCat for unblocking me. I was feeling a little mischievous for once with the idea of creating meow meow meow meow meow meow, sorry about that. In my defense, that was a joke entry with a very conspicuous title, so it was likely to be deleted immediately, as SemperBlotto did. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me is that Semper issued a block on a long-time, experienced and productive editor, for a single edit, using just a standard block summary, and then kept completely quiet about it. —CodeCat 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He’s pretty merciless. I’d rather administrators only prohibit persistent troublemakers. There was a new user on es.wikt whose privileges I revoked for two days even though he only made two edits, but that was because I needed to sleep and I didn’t desire the risk of having him continue while I was offline for hours. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He may be merciless, but without him, Wiktionary wouldn't be able to keep up with all the vandalism out there. --WikiTiki89 19:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Semper does an excellent job fighting vandalism. For the record, he didn't hurt my feelings or anything by blocking me for 1 day. If anything, another admin saw fit to unblock me after only approximately 2h30min, so a given block may be reviewed if others find it too long. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being at the forefront of fighting vandalism does not give one a pass to be sloppy. Semper has put many of my slang and internet related words up for deletion. Semper-logic: Unless a term is frequently used in Nature Magazine since 1970, it has no right to exist in Wiktionary. No wonder all the young kids are on Urban Dictionary every day and haven't even heard of Wiktionary. Amin wordie (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem that way to you, but, judging by the kinds of pages you've been creating, I suspect that you don't really know the rules yet. I could quibble with some of his deletions, but most of them I've seen are justified according to our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this block represents on in a very long series of actions I've seen by Semper. He is far too quick to delete entries and to block editors, and his blocks often are for too long. I'm not sure he can be trusted with the tools. Yes, he may be good at fighting vandalism...because a large portion of his edits are deleting or removing content. Only problem is that some of that content shouldn't be deleted or removed. Purplebackpack89 13:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem especially block-happy to me. Most of the editors he blocks are straightforward vandals- the kind that replace half an entry with "Poop", or who make subtle but obviously bad-faith changes to entries. Aside from spammers and single-purpose accounts that were obviously created solely for the purpose of vandalism, he generally blocks for 1 day. Considering that he patrols more edits than all the rest of us combined, his totals are high- but not his percentages. If you don't believe me, look at his block log. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox made a joke entry in 2011, and so did I. Nobody was penalized. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plumbus[edit]

ADM is a planned language in development, plumbus is a real word in, latin based.

Dvictorjus (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tavoletta[edit]

Hi, sorry I didn't mean to revert edits. Are you sure your correct? The word has several meanings Oelkington (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A phytochemicals list[edit]

User:DCDuring/PhytochemicalsinFood, taken from WP, has some chemical names that are redlinks. I have tried to change the capitalization to ours and added some alternative forms to the list as well. I am using the list for taxonomic and vernacular names of taxa. Enjoy. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolvere[edit]

Hi, as I have not received any kind of feedback from the email I sent you, I just wanted to point that in Italian the verb "Resolvere" is an archaic (and thus unused) version of "Risolvere".

home office[edit]

Hi! In the Wikipedia this term is regarded a German pseudo-anglicism. Maybe you can comment here, I’m not a native speaker. Best --Chricho (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

anti-access area denial[edit]

Hello, I reverted the entry back to the original definition based on the citation, if you want to build a consensus to have it changed to your definition, that would be fine with me. Good luck. IQ125 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @IQi25 But if you look at all the other usages of the term (on Google books for instance) you will see that it does not seem to be actual warfare, just a strategy short of warfare. Also, the alternative form (with a "/") might also be the most common form. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at excellens[edit]

Hi SemperBlotto! If you have the time, do you mind taking a look at excellens? An anon has made some changes which I've reverted, because they don't seem to be improvements. All my reverts have, however, been reverted by the same contributor and I'm not inclinded to partake in an edit war. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin -tio and Italian descendants[edit]

I'm guessing the Italian '-gione' and '-zzone' suffixes were removed from the descendant lists because they're not really productive in the language anymore, as opposed to the learned -zione? There are a few words that use -gione as a suffix still, combined with a verb root. Either way, it has a similar situation as other Romance language inherited equivalents like French '-(ai)son', Spanish '-zón', Catalan '-çó', etc., so why not keep it? Word dewd544 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:
(lat) legio, legionis > (it): le-gione = coorte, milizia
(lat) regio, regionis > (it): re-gione = zona, confini
(it): erba > erbazza > erba-zzone = Reggiano tortino di erbe
(it): acqua > acquazza > acqua-zzone = pioggia pesante
:-) --Glo (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the '-gione' I was referring to was the kind in ragione, stagione, etc, which are actually from evolutions of -tionem (as opposed to legione and regione which are learned terms taken from the actual Latin legionem, regionem, etc). But all in all, it really is only a handful of words, so I could see why this may be contested. It's not a big deal, but just wanted to clarify. There's also the '-zone' in canzone, punzone, etc. Word dewd544 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations & Authorities[edit]

Jeffery hello again = ) I've come to discover a Q&A on Wiktionary which states that it's okay to post a word (term) & without including any citations

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Help:FAQ

"A: Yes! Wiktionary is still much smaller than Wikipedia, but the wiki philosophy is just as strong. If a word does not exist on Wiktionary add it. If you know nothing about etymology that's fine; your humblest contribution is still better than nothing. Someone else can add the etymology later. The minimum you need to include is the language of the word, its part of speech, and its meaning."

I don't mean to show a lack of officiality by not including citations but i think i very well understand the legitimacy, authority, & especially the importance of the term authorities . I do hope we can come to an agreement on this matter for the better of someones understanding of the law & its implication of their rights & freedom . = ) x8BC8x (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlike Wikipedia, we go by usage, not by authoritative sources. There are even terms that you can find in the OED and several other major dictionaries that we don't allow because no one has actually used them as opposed to defining them or mentioning them.
While you're not required to include citations when you create an entry, your content should be verifiable as matching usage according to our Criteria for inclusion.
Also, having read some of your definitions, I would add that a definition that's harder to understand than the obscure legal term it's purported to explain is worse than no definition at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery, I was the one who was making a point through our email messages about using terms from Black's Law Dictionary. Well I found that Q&A & was hoping that would bear some authority when it comes to adding Black's Law terms. = )

Chuck, I would think that the legal terms i have posted have been used to some extent but the instances have just not been made public as there are many judges & jurists who review Black's Law Dictionary & determine that the terms are non-historical and are currently valid. I also was hoping there could be an exception due to the fact that there isn't many sources for some of the terms which were included in my past postings. The "criteria for inclusion" says to include at least three citations although the Q&A doesn't state such a condition? Although It May Not Be In Accordance To The Letter Of Wiktionaries Law/Rule It Seems I Should Be By Its Spirit To Be Able To Include Terms Which Can Be 'Used' As Long As The Term Has Legitimacy. And also now I can't seem to find the quote but wiktionary mentioned something about the attestation being from that of some documention? Would that include documentation such as Black's Law? Could you please reclarify in relation to your comment about how my posting of the legal definitons were, I don't quite follow. Do you just mean that my post was obscure so it's best to post a more simple meaning? = )

I also found this site in regard to secondary authorities and Black's Law. - https://www.loc.gov/law/help/secondary-rsrcs.php x8BC8x (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

On Wikipedia we use templates like uw-vandalism1 and uw-vandalism2 for vandalism. If a person vandalizes past uw-vandalism4, we report them to admins. Is that the same way here? Peter SamFan (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Around here, if you start out by vandalising, you'll probably get blocked. We don't like too much bureaucracy. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge So when do you report users to Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress? Peter SamFan (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's for when you see active vandalism that needs the immediate attention of an admin to stop it from getting out of hand. --WikiTiki89 18:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

symphorol and nasrol[edit]

Can you double-check these, please? They seem to be dated terms so there might be a newer synonym. Equinox ◑ 18:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quaquaversal[edit]

La traduzione di quaquaversal in italiano è periclinale:

http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=quaquaversal

http://dizionari.repubblica.it/Inglese-Italiano/Q/quaquaversal.php?lingua=en

http://www.larapedia.com/geologia_glossario/periclinale.html

http://www.sapere.it/sapere/dizionari/traduzioni/Inglese-Italiano/Q/QU/quaquaversal.html


I motivi per cui Wiktionary deve ignorare questa traduzione mi sfuggono, ma per me va bene così :)

ClaudioMCap (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

phosphopantetheinylate[edit]

Hi. You recently created this noun entry, but the given citation seems to be using a verb. Equinox ◑ 18:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pantalone[edit]

I have only recently received notification of your question re. above. The reference to this commedia character "whose hose were portrayed as being down around his feet" is without basis- unless you are able to cite a reference to prove the contrary. The origin of the name 'Pantalone' ('Pantaloon' in English) is uncertain. Pantalone di bisognosi was depicted as Venetian and his nether wear reflected the Venetian fashion of tight hose, when breeches were had become the customary netherwear. It also accentuated his spindly legs and the lecherous antics of a randy old man. It was the familiarity of this character in the Pantomime that led to trousers being referred to as 'pantaloons.' Nothing to do with them being droped or pulled down. You will find a wide stock of reference for the character here. One click away http://shane-arts.com/Commedia-Pantalone.htm

crebesco -- should be crebresco?[edit]

Hey, I noticed you added crebesco some years ago, but I could not find crebesco or any forms thereof attested anywhere from a quick search (using regex: crebesc\w*) of the Latin corpus on this database, whereas crebresc\w* yields 19 results. I was wondering if it perhaps was a later spelling or the entry was misspelled? — Kleio (t · c) 13:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the wolf from the door[edit]

I don't mind speedy reversions if they accompanied by an explanation - please may I know your reason NealeFamily (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you say or correct, rather than delete first? NealeFamily (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I am an admin at en-wiki with a request for you. Can I ask on behalf of User:Hbomvue82 a relaxing of their talk page or email restriction so that they may appeal their block? They have been name changed and unblocked at en-wikipedia, and I've had to procedurally decline a request for unblocking here as obviously we can't do it. Peridon (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on microphage[edit]

Hi Semperblotto,

I don’t log on very often to the English-language Wiktionary, so I’ve only just noticed this revert you made on one of my edits. I am sure the word microphage is used with that (admittedly very specific) meaning. You can find it for instance on this article by Manuel Sant’iago Ribeiro, published in the AIIC bulletin : http://aiic.net/page/1489/booth-manners-for-interpreters/lang/1. I’m not going to insist for the definition to be put back in the entry if you think it doesn’t belong there, but if you removed it because you thought it was a joke or a mistake, please reconsider. Eiku (t) 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiku: I would have reverted it too. We have requirements that words be citeable if they are to be added to Wiktionary, and despite trying several keywords in Google Books, I can't find any evidence of use of this term that would pass. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wasn’t aware of the 3 independent occurrences in permanently-recorded media  rule, so I thought the occurrence in the link I provided was sufficient as it is authoritative and used in a context where it is clear that the author thinks the reader understand the meaning (i.e. not just to introduce a rare and funny word to the reader).
I have found two other occurrences: here in the comments section of a blog – but the comment is by the author herself and here on a personal page. These two sites probably don’t count as “permanently recorded media”, but the first link I gave does, since it was first published more than 20 years ago in AIIC’s bulletin. I too failed to find it in Google Books, though this doesn’t mean the word has never been printed in that acception (Google Books isn’t exhaustive and it’s OCR is “only” very good, not perfect). Eiku (t) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just noticed that the text at the last URL I gave is also an excerpt of a printed book. However, the word is in double-quotes and its first occurrence ("Les microphages") indicates that it is meant as a loanword, so perhaps it should be included only in the French section of microphage… I don’t know exactly what the rules are for loanwords here. Eiku (t) 00:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the French Wiktionary has the word defined as an adjective. Pretty sure they actually use it as a noun though. I'll add it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maluwat: a long time[edit]

Is an adjective in Tagalog dialect, with no exact translation in English. Maluwat is a lingering feeling of being settled for good.

Semperblotto are you still angry with me with the removed note with 'annoying' (see etymology of annoying). I suppose I have a good grasp of language, tagalog and english. It's not about if a word or a phrase definition reads as a noun to you, you have to appreciate the sentence and its construction. For instance, asking what "long delayed cheers" or "hanged (to death) for good" is quite self-explanatory if you are dealing with literature by a national hero. JaijetJasmin (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)JaijetJasmin[reply]

Added note from here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#maluwat:
The word "maluwat" contains figurative aspects typical to Tagalog dialect. It emphasizes a steady resolve towards the end, an acceptance of a natural slow process. The use of "maluwat" has declined in urban areas. JaijetJasmin (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

olito and revival[edit]

Hi! Are you sure that this exclamation mark you added is necessary: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=revival&diff=38702357&oldid=38701879
And this strange unformatted text: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=olito&diff=38702350&oldid=38701575 --88.78.208.186 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maluwat: a long time[edit]

Is an adjective in Tagalog dialect, with no exact translation in English. Maluwat is a lingering feeling of being settled for good, which may be used as an adjective or an adverb following the rules of Tagalog grammar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_grammar. Be wary of commenting without prior knowledge of any language.

Coppa della ruota.[edit]

HI!
Could you kindly explain me why you have undone my changes at the plural of "coppa della ruota"?
"coppe delle ruote" is absolutely not a plural of "coppa della ruota": it means many hubcaps of many wheels; it colud suounds a little bit tryckly but "coppe ruota" is instead correct.

Examples:
"Ho perso tutte le coppe delle ruote." === "Ho perso tutte le coppe ruota"
"Devo cambiare le coppe delle ruote." === "Devo cambiare le coppe ruota"
when you talk, for example, about your car that has indeed four wheels.
BUT we say:
"Vendesi coppe ruota come nuove." because "Vedesi coppe delle ruote." does not have any sense

Thank you!
--Einreiher (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you are half right. My plural was wrong - It should be "coppe della ruota" (very many Google hits for this form). It doesn't make any grammatical sense for the plural to be "coppe ruota", but I can see that the term is used very often. It is the plural of "coppa ruota", which seems to be a synonym of "coppa della ruota". I shall add these other forms. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Well, "coppa della ruota" is not a noun proper, is a noun phrase where "coppa" means approximately "something bowl-shaped"; "coppa" is the subject and "ruota" is the "complemento di specificazione" (our gentive). The plural form is so affected by the rules of the Italan's complements; that's why we (expecially who use those words often) prefer the forms "coppa ruota", "vite ago" (a spare part of my sewing machine), etc. but those are colloquial forms indeed.
The exact meaning of "coppa della ruota" would be "the hubcap on the whell", respectively, "hubcaps" should be "coppe da ruota", with the "complemento di fine o scopo (purpose)" who, in this cases, is introduced by the prepositions "da" or "per" and not "di".
In conclusion, "coppe della ruota" is grammatically correct even if it does not mean exactly "hubcaps", understandable yes, but for example, when I read that, I think "how many little-bowl-shaped-things has this wheel?
However, suddenly I realized that the word "copricerchio" is substituting the expression "coppa della ruota" almost totally, so the plural of "coppa della ruota" is not so important.
Thank you,
--Einreiher (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insecticide names[edit]

IR3535/w:IR3535/Ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate This is a name created by Merck, which seems to have been adopted in wide use. Do we not allow these?

para-menthane-diol, p-menthane diol, p-menthane-3,8-diol are names used for another insecticide. Where should the main entry be?

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insecticide names[edit]

IR3535/w:IR3535/Ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate This is a name created by Merck, which seems to have been adopted in wide use. Do we not allow these?

para-menthane-diol, p-menthane diol, p-menthane-3,8-diol are names used for another insecticide. Where should the main entry be?

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, we have ethyl acetate so ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate should also be acceptable. They both seem a bit SoP to me.
  • I would prefer menthane-diol to be our lemma, but only because of the immense slippery slope in adding terms with p- or para- (or o-, ortho-, m-, meta-). We have beta-carotene which is a similar construction.
  • But I don't know if this sort of thing has ever been discussed. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no basis for disagreeing with your assessment.
    • It seems a bit like a parallel to the situation with E. coli: For most binomial taxa, we assume that the lemma is spelled out, but we have entries for a few where someone thinks there is a reason. I would continue the practice, but it could be discussed too. What to other general dictionaries do? Chemical dictionaries?
    • I'd be perfectly happy to have no entry for any commercial name, but it would nice IMO to have common brand names as unlinked alternative names, possibly hidden, because some users know some medicines and household chemicals only by such names.
    • Could alternative structures also be rendered searchable in that way? I wouldn't rush to do it widely, but it might address some specific searches for insecticides, medicines, etc, of current interest. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason that E. coli might need an entry is that people don't know what E. could stand for, and which of those genera have a species called coli. (And this one is a special case because it's had a lot of news headline time.) Otherwise, there's a general convention that Anything anythingii can be abbreviated to A. anythingii in context. That's a whole argument of its own, and I don't quite see how it relates to chemical compound names. Equinox ◑ 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At another level of abstraction, it is just a case of the kind of exceptional cases that lead us to maintain policies that are not explicitly in CFI. We have policies against abbreviated binomials, but have some anyway. I'd like to have some ability to help users searching for certain brand names that they don't even know are brand names find the critical active ingredient. For English speakers, {{only used in}} can direct them to the WP article. For others? DCDuring TALK 01:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we seem to be duplicating Wikispecies in wanting every entry of the form Anything anythingii, presumably someone is clever enough to modify the search engine such that X. xii will find Xanything xii. Is that what we want? Has anyone, ever, typed that kind of thing into the search engine? Equinox ◑ 01:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) There are a few taxonomic name abbreviations like E. coli and T. rex that are widely used in the absence of the full spelling. Otherwise, it all depends on context. Normally, someone using the abbreviated form has already used the full form at least once in the same place, and uses the abbreviation the rest of the time to save space/work. It's not uncommon, however, for specialists in a given taxonomic group to not do this when they're writing about their specialty in a publication read only by other specialists. In such cases, you then have to know that there's only one generic name starting with that letter in the taxonomic group in question, or worse, that there's only one species that has a generic name starting with that letter that also has the given specific epithet. Listing all of the generic names that start with that letter would likely be impossible (the list would be HUGE), and would be meaningless without the context, anyway. Even listing the contexts would be problematic, since taxonomy is overflowing with taxa that only a handful of specialists really know: Ichneumonidae, Orchidaceae, Carabidae, Salticidae, Collembola, Tachinidae, Asteraceae (see DYC), Aphididae, Poaceae, Formicidae, Pseudoscorpiones, Cerambycidae, Cichlidae, Chironomidae, Cyprinidae, Tortricidae, Curculionidae etc. (I'm just scratching the surface, here).
It seems to me like species names with single-letter abbreviations for the generic name are really SOP, and we shouldn't even try to sort through them all.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox "Since we seem to be duplicating Wikispecies in wanting every entry of the form Anything anythingii". I have no ambition to duplicate the comprehensive species-level databases. I also don't think we could do it without automated entries. My ultimate ambition would be to have entries with etymologies and hierarchical position for all one-part taxonomic names. Nearer term, my ambition is that we have all names in Ruggiero MA, Gordon DP, Orrell TM, Bailly N, Bourgoin T, Brusca RC, et al. (2015) A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0119248. PMID 25923521, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119248, which goes down to order, that we have all species names that appear in the news, including general scientific news, all type species, and all that correspond to a vernacular name that we have or should have in any language. Other genus and family names should be added as needed. Intermediate names serve to reduce the overwhelmingly long lists of genera, species, etc and serve a purpose. There are some areas of special interest that will have a higher density of name coverage or subspecific taxon coverage, such as for human food plants, human and mammalian ancestry, and similar. DCDuring TALK 09:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2][edit]

What is your resource for Ladin words? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maluwat[edit]

When are you ending the nomination for deletion, I would like to move on. JaijetJasmin (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

waffle[edit]

Are you sure waffles are pastries? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines waffle as a "small crisp batter cake", while it defines pastry as a (food item made from) "a dough of flour, shortening, and water". ZFT (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cryptocyanin[edit]

I think there is a chemistry sense here distinct from the protein. Are you able to add a definition? Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Entries & Wiktionary Administrator Powers[edit]

SemperBlotto, Hello Hello. I haven't used Wiktionary in some time due to working on some other online projects but when I checked if some of the legal terms I added were deleted I atleast wanted to copy & paste the entrys definitions, although some were cut off & I was sadly not able to fully make a recovery of my personally edited meanings. I was wondering if you could find the full terminology of such terms somehow through your magical powers ;)lol but if you could recover them please . I would very much appreciate it . Also if you or another administrator could edit wiktionary so that it does show all the terminology used in the deleted entrys meanings for future convenience of the editors interest of their deleted entries. Thanks yo = ) x8BC8x (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The terms: -Jus Rerum -Jus Regendi -Jus Retentionis -Jus Quaesitum

transferal[edit]

I bet you can't remember what prompted this entry. I've just raised it in the Tea Room. [4]. DonnanZ (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark-Norway redirect[edit]

Hi. I am wondering why you deleted the page Denmark–Norway as a redirection to Denmark-Norway. Is there a rule against this? I'm unfamiliar with this, so could you tell me?

Also, I sent you an email you might want to see, if you haven't already of course. Philmonte101 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philmonte101/RL[edit]

That was a subpage of my own user page! Why did you delete it just because it was a redirect? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird bot edit[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if you knew what happened in this edit. It looks like it was working from a bad entry in the declension table, but it doesn't seem the table at vorausgehend ever included "deen" (certainly not on the day the edit was made). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same happened at deem and dees and dee so it looks like the bot was trying to decline the word "de" for whatever reason - mis-parsing of the language code? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass[edit]

The adjective "mass", although predominantly used in South India as a substitute for words like "excellent", is still not included in many Tamil dictionaries due to its English roots. So I thought that being an English word, but used in both South Indian languages and English, could be included here. If you have a reply, please ping me as I am not frequent on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

poof (verb)[edit]

RE: Poof. It's a perfectly legitimate, and actually fairly neutral, verb for homosexual intercourse. Not sure why you removed.

  • Yes, perfectly reasonable. But I couldn't see any actual usage. Perhaps you could point us at an online text that uses it. SemperBlotto (talk)

stasis lock[edit]

I've now started the entry. I'm pretty sure it means a fictional machine state of termination, similar to a human's shock state, but usually not described to be a permanent state. Unless we can find the definition for this at stasis and lock (I already looked at lock and it doesn't have a definition meaning "a state of idleness or termination"). I took the definition out of context. Just thought I'd tell you because you seemed to take interest in the term a little while back. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tension[edit]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tension

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=nwiZCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=tension+deficit+disorder+donald+maass&source=bl&ots=g0LTcMsGLe&sig=VP0CX11J1bri-0POrclGOUF6JRc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPl-a_trXOAhXDoJQKHWMuCsYQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=tension%20deficit%20disorder%20donald%20maass&f=false

119.64.24.126 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Processing of documents to produce word lists with blue and red links[edit]

"An explanation of why I added it (but make up your own minds):- My method of adding words is to find a large online document and process it to produce a list of all the words that we haven't got. Guess which word is red-linked the most in every single such document. So I thought I would hoist it up the flagpole and see who tears it down. If it survives, I have no intention of adding more than a dozen similar words that are very common as the first words of a sentence."

A quote from you in 2013 at Talk:The.

I wanted to ask you about this. How do you process these documents? Is there a gadget of some kind that does this? I'm really curious, because it will make things such as da:User:Philmonte101/RFV a lot easier. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cultural Marxism[edit]

You once started an rfc on this entry, for good reason. I've trimmed the second definition a little, but I can't find a rfc discussion. Was it ever concluded? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks anyway. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britŏni[edit]

This is the second time I've deleted these. You've got to get your bot not to create entries with breves in them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User:Wyang[edit]

Hi SemperBlotto, for what reason did you delete Wyang out of Wiktionary? S/he was a very good and resourceful person who helped me in a lot of Chinese-language projects!! Awesomemeeos (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

birulò[edit]

hi, on Google you can find many important newspapers sites articles and also books containing that word ----Ulisse0 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit[edit]

Hi! I noticed you reverted my commit on amir page. Can I ask the reason for that? You can see here that it's a valid Turkish word: tr:amir 17.168.76.109 14:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left our welcome template on the talk page for the IP you were using at the time, User talk :17.168.76.103. Read through the pages linked there, especially our Entry layout page. The problem is that you left out a very important part of the entry, the headword. It's not easy for a non-speaker to figure out what parameters to give to the template in a complex language such as Turkish, so he chose to avoid leaving the entry half-done (we have close to 5 million entries, so that might mean it would never get fixed- especially since you left out the part that would let people know the entry exists). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. Since I don't use a static IP, I didn't notice that message at all. And to be honest, I think that was a bit too much information for someone looking for a simple edit. Anyway, I added the same part again with headword this time. Hopefully that is OK. 17.168.76.109 11:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted user page?[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wiktionary and upon creating my account, added a small blurb on my user page as it seems it is custom to do. I logged in today and noticed you'd deleted it. I understand I haven't done anything yet, mostly because I'm still getting my bearings, and I am wondering if this had anything to do with it being deleted as the message said 'no useable content given' and some links to notability instructions. It's a user-page; I'm sorry, I don't understand what content I'm supposed to provide on it. Please let me know so I can fix it, thanks! Eigooms (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no necessity to have a user page. It's function is to help other users (especially admins) decide if your contributions are OK and that you know what you are talking about. Typically we do that by including babel templates and by explaining our personal expertise. If you have made no actual contributions then a user page has no function. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Croatia[edit]

Thank you for your advice. I still have to put less than 100 municipalities in Croatia. I am aware that English doesn't use diacritics like in some Croatian names, but there are a lot of place names on other languages with similar diacritics that are listed like English lemmas. I just wanted to expand English vocabulary, and of course Wiktionary with those place names. I will put the rest of the words in Serbo-Croatian language. Thank you. --Sheldonium (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit[edit]

Hi Semper, Why you reverted my edit. I changed it following to English Wikipedia page, and if you search on Google, globophobia is fear of balloon. --Anonimeco (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tacons[edit]

Unfortunately you have to add |g=m by hand as WT:ACCEL no longer includes it. Also an accidental bot run by MewBot removed gender from thousands of French plurals, see Category:French terms with incomplete gender. Removing gender by bot is very easy but unfortunately adding them back by bot is much harder, as the bot needs to 'look at' the singulars. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

coannihilation[edit]

Apocopic forms linking to themselves[edit]

appressavan, artigliar, barattier. Not sure what the correct target is. DTLHS (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hen's cluck[edit]

I wanted to respond to your question about the sound a hen makes, but my web filter is choking on the title of that section, so here's my comment:

I personally would transcribe the sound of a hen clucking as "buck-buck-buck," but this is more similar:
  • 1907, L. Frank Baum, Ozma of Oz:
…a shrill voice suddenly cried:
"Kut, kut, kut—ka-daw-kutt! Kut, kut, kut—ka-daw-kutt!"
The Nome King nearly jumped off his seat, he was so startled.
"Good gracious! What's that?" he yelled.
"Why, it's Billina," said the Scarecrow.
"What do you mean by making a noise like that?" shouted the King, angrily, as the yellow hen came from under the throne and strutted proudly about the room.
"I've got a right to cackle, I guess," replied Billina. "I've just laid my egg.”

JulieKahan (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have bok. Equinox ◑ 10:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{t-}}[edit]

FYI, {{t-}} is actually long-deprecated; it's been a redirect to {{t}} for almost three years now, aside from a four-month period when it was simply deleted. —RuakhTALK 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate rollbacks[edit]

You reverted my most recent edits to Gamergate and gamergate. The explanations say to leave you a message if I think the rollbacks were in error. But how can I decide whether they were in error when you left no explanation for the reversions? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An update: User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow#Gamergate Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hold reversion[edit]

Other than vandalism, why did you revert my inclusion of the noun form for the English word hold ? Bcent1234 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You placed it as a separate noun section under the wrong etymology, instead of placing it with all the other noun senses that were already there under the correct etymology- which is what he did in his next edit a minute later, that you apparently didn't notice. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for explaining Bcent1234 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on DINK[edit]

Could you explain why you reverted my edit? I know I added value. Did you simply revert because you didn't like the things that were there before I got to it (i.e. the Acronym header) or did you revert because you thought the nuance of mentioning that the implication of more disposable income is available ? or did you revert because you didn't like my bolding of the first letters of the words that comprise DINK ? If you choose not to discuss your changes, I would have to assume that the components of my addition were inadvertently deleted, and I will put them back in. Thank you, 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I will review what I did so I can not do it again. The only formatting change I recall that I did was moving some items from two level "=" indention to three. Is that what you meant ? I'm glad you fixed that. It isn't clear that it should be done. I understand that you didn't have any problems with the information I added, just the format of it ? Bcent1234 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the "history" tab to compare revisions. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the history tab, but noticed several things weren't brought up in the difference page, such as the addition of the 1-syllable category, and my bolding of the first characters of the words in the phrase. Do you think that is a bug or intentional ? I noticed you changed the Acronym header to a noun header, which is cool as I didn't exactly know what to do about that. My main reason that I look at these words is to improve the information known, such as adding pronunciation and syllabification information. In this one, I also tried to bring up a nuance of meaning which i think you accidentally deleted. I've been told simply to add the category for the number of syllables so that is what I've been doing. I've brought up my concerns regarding pluralization of acronyms in a different entry (on the Beer page i.e. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/October#Pluralization_of_Acronyms_and_Intialisms ). I would appreciate your input on that as well. Bcent1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded the category (omitted by accident), and nuancing of meaning, and added a normal noun headword as the term seems to be countable. We don't very often bold the initial letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You didn't need to do that. I don't mind making the changes, just wanted to understand what was going on. And the nuance of meaning I was referring to was that two incomes implies that there is more disposable income, not that two jobs implies two incomes. Don't worry, I'll add it. It is good to work with people who understand cooperation. It makes the common work easier. Thanks ! Bcent1234 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful with the delete key[edit]

Before deleting something, first perform a web search to see if you can find some occurrences.

Please read WT:CFI: most of the web doesn't count for our purposes- it has to be in a durably-archived source. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SemperBlotto does, too often, delete things that are perfectly acceptable according to WT:CFI, apparently because sometimes he simply doesn't check before deleting. I'm deliberately not going to point, because that's going to achieve nothing. Maybe people will argue, maybe they'll say ‘yeah that was wrong’, but in both cases nothing will change. All I want is that SemperBlotto checks whether a word exists before he presses the delete key (and then not press it if it exists of course). And use edit summaries to explain himself; that isn't unreasonable to ask.
See what Chuck said above. A word existing on the Internet does not make it acceptable for Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 08:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinti[edit]

Why dont you have vinti as its translation in english is WON instead of loser or defeated ? 

Bayourob1704 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are getting confused. vinti is the masculine plural form of the past participle of vincere = in that sense (only) it means "won". The noun, plural of vinto, means "losers" and as the masculine plural of the adjective "vinto", it means "defeated". See the Italian version of Wiktionary, or any paper Italian dictionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings[edit]

I question the value of some of these misspelling entries, e.g. rituximub‎: this term is only used by specialists in the first place, and your misspelling has only 7 hits in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

attested terms[edit]

Hi SB. It's great to see you making all those new entries with attesting quotations included. It's rare that people make the effort. Keep up the good work! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know; I've deleted many that have been marked for speedy deletion. I'm just glad you copy the citations over; it adds value to the new entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

allyboration[edit]

Is this just a typo for allylboration? Equinox ◑ 20:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

waeringopterid[edit]

Just a note: please remember that -id almost always refers to a taxonomic name ending in -idae, so a family, not a genus. (Also @DCDuring) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP reports that the family name was not formally published, but there is a superfamily name based on the genus. In any event, saying "closely related to" the genus would be sufficient when the genus is the type for the higher-order names. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

settled in Maori[edit]

Granted, Maori grammar works differently from English, but going by http://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&histLoanWords=&keywords=p%C5%ABwhenua the translation is acceptable. The perfective aspect isn't translated through inflection, but rather through e.g. particles and such.

Disease[edit]

Disease is not the opposite of injury. In fact, there is a case to be made about diseases 'injurying' the body. I think making 'disease' counter to injury is misleading. For example, Brain trauma: http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/brain-diseases — This unsigned comment was added by RyanDanielst (talk • contribs) at 10:44, 19 October 2016.

yRV??[edit]

myelogram ⋅ actions ⋅ popups New revision 2016-10-18 06:41:17 Old revision 2016-10-17 21:04:04

  1. A radiographic image produced by myelography.
  2. reading of (a) marrow smear, describing morphology and giving (WB)cell differential(aoth(ifcosofWORDINthenplREFRASE81.11.206.17 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Any chance of an English-language sentence? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He says "why revert?" "if 'cause of wording then please rephrase". I don't know what "aoth" means. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biography website offline[edit]

This is off-topic and chances are you already know this: anyway, your biography website that you are currently linking in your user page is offline. I think I checked it about 1 month ago and it was offline at that time, too.

Also, I read some of it before and found it interesting. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on finishing all the PMC pages (now you can get to work on arXiv :) DTLHS (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing my change[edit]

Hi! I'd like to know why you reverted my change on tuff.

Thanks! :) — This unsigned comment was added by Sobi2203 (talk • contribs).

centennial[edit]

I contributed toward the pronunciation of the word "centennial" and I wonder why hasn't it been accepted!! — This unsigned comment was added by Sakhokharsa (talk • contribs).

Well dear... Since it's my maiden entry... Certainly I am poor at navigation... Thank you for your part "doing it for me" ... Hope over time I'll be conversant with the Wiki edition formats that are accepted here... Thanks a lot for your considerations.. Take care

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Hi SemperBlotto,

Thanks for your all your work on Wiktionary.

Regards from Amsterdam,

Amin (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for subferulary (if you would be so kind)[edit]

definition Dictionary of Early English

  • under strict control
  • under strict discipline

Use at s:Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 1.djvu/146 "And if it occurred (as very often it did,) that a pretender to a place in any French university, having, in his tenderer years, been subferulary to some other kind of schooling, should enter in competition with another aiming at the same charge and dignity, whose learning flowed from a Caledonian source, commonly the first was rejected and the other preferred"—Urquhart, who wrote in the reign of Charles I

Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a nonce word, only used in that one text. If that's true, it can't meet the three-citations requirement of WT:RFV. (I wonder if ferulary would pass. Perhaps barely.) Equinox ◑ 02:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You are ruling out a 17th century word, and one separately cited in a published dictionary, as you cannot find it in more works (yet). Your modernism approach is weird, as it means that words of long ago cannot be added even when found in older works, and you require someone to go and find more (antiquated) uses to satisfy such a desire? How can English Wikisource direct people to the meanings of archaic words from published works if you just throw them away? I can understand a "nonce word" approach to modern words, but old words in old publications? seems to declare your editorialising is superior to authors of the period. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can also find its use in "Bon Record" (Aberdeen Grammar School) p. 199, and the "Selected writings of John Ramsay", p.223 and neither are quoting Urquhart. [Supplementary: Such a negative approach, and placing a high bar for words in (old) public domain printed books is going to lessen my enthusiasm to bring old words here. Easier to just not bother! Think about how you could have reworded your statements to put across a positive approach to the same result. One would have thought that bringing old words was seen as a positive, clearly not.] — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like our rules — which are the result of years of consensus, not just me trying to attack you — then start a vote to change them. Equinox ◑ 14:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we get the citations at least onto Citations:subferulary. I hope also that the meaning is apparent and that there will be a way of seeing the whole context, either by a link to the source website page or by typing it in. The etymology might be helpful in overcoming any ambiguity in the citations. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of Latin ferularis is "of fennel-giant", fennel-giant being a plant. Latin ferula has several definitions, including "fennel-giant", "a staff", and "a whip, rod, to punish slaves or schoolboys". Presumably the last is what is relevant for subferulary. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added (both). Please create a citations page. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eāsdem[edit]

Is this adverb attested? Thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

puntuat[edit]

That was my bot account- forgot to log in. DTLHS (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clever - your revert[edit]

The word "clever" is commonly known, but according to Wiktionary its main meaning is "nimble", which is very, very misleading.

Look at these, highly reliable, sources:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/clever
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/clever)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/clever

Of course you can always find some very rare or archaic meaning like these:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/clever

But it would be a good practice to emphasize what is common, and what is not. Is that correct? 85.193.217.247 08:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis is one thing. Taking a meat-axe and hacking out most of the entry is another entirely. Like it or not, all those other senses are part of the history of the word. Real people have used the word in those ways in real life. In fact, the word was in use in modern English for a couple of centuries before the meaning you're familiar with even existed. Wiktionary covers all words in all languages- and all senses of those words for all of history. If you can't handle more than one definition per entry, perhaps you should check if the Speak & Spell comes with a dictionary... Chuck Entz (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that I am a kid or idiot, right? No, I am not :-) Although English is not my native language, I do well with dictionaries like https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/, which is for native speakers. If I had known that Wiktionary covers all those archaic obsolete words too, I wouldn't have deleted so many definitions. Getting back to the subject, The word "nimble" is now shown in the first position. But who would use the word "clever" to describe a nimble but stupid girl?
PS. Since you are a native English speaker, please could you do me a favor?
The statement "Wiktionary covers... " holds true in the present. So I didn't change the tense of the word "covers" to simple past.
Is that correct? 85.193.217.247 14:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the tone of my previous remark- it was past my bedtime and I was a bit cranky. I'm not suggesting that you're a child or an idiot, but you were expecting the dictionary to treat you like one. It's important to remember that this is a wiki, so you need to show respect for the contributions and opinions of others. Your edit not only wiped out hours of other people's work, it also represented an attempt to radically change the philosophy and practices of the dictionary without discussion. To be consistent, a change like that would require changes to possibly millions of other entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. I was in complete ignorance of the Wiktionary philosophy. Worse still, I showed no respect for others. Now I am ashamed of my edit. Sorry about that. 85.193.217.247 12:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move "smart, intelligent, or witty" to sense 1 though? I don't think there can be any doubt that more users come for the most common sense of a word than for the oldest. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They may, but there are so many ways that we don't serve them if their needs are simple and we need to avoid confusing them. One thing we share with the OED and many other unabridged dictionaries is historical ordering, ours being crude and inconsistent, the OED's being fact-based, others being derivative, usually of the OED. As we don't have or seek to obtain good frequency data for senses, we would be depending on our dwindling number of contributors to make the assessment of frequency.
Furthermore, is it frequency of use that determines which senses are most sought by users, rather than other factors? New learners may need only the main sense, advanced learners secondary ones, readers of older literature need older definitions, possibly obsolete ones. This hardly exhausts the subject. Judging by the kind of entries that users looked for when there was last an examination of the squid server logs, it doesn't seem to be frequency of use of a term that governs the frequency of its lookup. I'd think the same applies to definitions of the same term.
One interesting approach is what Perseus does with (some of?) its dictionaries: asking the user to indicate which of the definitions on a page was the one being sought. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your response. In my opinion this dictionary is more useful for linguists and historians. It's sophisticated but not very practical for ordinary, even advanced, learners.

PS How is it, that our conversation takes place here, on SemperBlotto's talk page? What about this article's talk page?
85.193.217.247 12:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another deleted User Page[edit]

I used less than 1kb to tell people to post on my Wikipedia User Page if they want to reach me since I won't be on here much. I was working on an edit simultaneously with merging my WP account and posting that sentence, and finished it within 5 minutes, yet you decided in your edit summary that I could already be judged as inactive. Incidentally, there is another edit that I am still working on in text.

If you take the time to read this comment, also look over the timing of the other User Pages you deleted – it should be clear enough, if nothing else at least from the other wikis, that a total newbie often uses such a page to get familiar with the editing process before feeling sufficiently confident to edit mainspace pages. In other words, you bite. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SemperBlottoBot[edit]

Hi, I'm relatively new to the workings of bots but I'd like to learn more. You mentioned that your bot stopped working after the switch from http to https. What caused that? Is there a way I could fix it? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to fix my scripts by just changing http://en.wiktionary.org to https://en.wiktionary.org. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your "scripts" don't use Python and the Wikibot (or whatever it is called) interface. I assume I need to download the latest version of that and maybe also get a newer version of Python. At the moment I can't be arsed. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted before even finishing editing what I wrote[edit]

I tried to add some useful information to the page about Feynmanium . A page that had very little information about why element 133 even by some is called Feynmanium. What I wrote was based on scientific historical sources. It was immediately deleted, even before I had a minute to edit and polish what I wrote. It seems like the quality of wiki is falling, and that new contributors are tried blocked from contributing. Existing editors are over aggressive in editing others contributions.

Well I had just started writing a small section, I was not even half finished writing it, so again I think it is over aggressive editing of others. Why not wait 2 minutes on a page that likely is very inactive anyway? and what is meant with "greater than 137 would need electrons that travel faster than light to become neutral" is this correct?

Clearly someone has too little to do, instead of sitting back a few minutes and see what I was going to write one are out deleting. This is over aggressive editor behavior I think. Best Luck! — This unsigned comment was added by Green2Ocean (talk • contribs).

For future reference, you should click "show preview" to check your edits rather than "save changes". That way you can get it to a final version before anyone else sees it. Unfortunately, with 5 million entries, the only time anyone is likely to run across your edits is right after you make them: they show up (along with many, many others) in Special:RecentChanges. If we don't deal with edits when we see them, any errors could remain for a long, long time. You meant well, and having your sincere efforts rejected is very unpleasant- but what else can we do? As for the matter in dispute: your addition was only a minor rephrasing of the etymology using a different header. I know you were unaware of it, but we have fairly strict rules on formatting. I've left a message on your talk page that will give you a chance to see all of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey, did you not even read the source you link to? Feynman's "limit" of 137 electrons is re-calculated and understood as oversimplified mid-way in an advanced undergrad or 1st-year grad class these days. The article has modern models putting a naïve limit at 173, and I won't try taking time to explain why the word "naïve" should be used when discussing such a limit unless you have a full accredited scientific background.
"What else can we do"? Every modern browser supports tabs; you can hold one in your session for 24 hours – I promise it won't mind. Your PC may even enjoy the exercise of moving a few extra kB of RAM around that day. There are also extensions to keep them out of RAM – fyi I keep both work-relevant and WP articles aside for review that week in this manner. This is two administrators on this wiki with objectively wrong ways of dealing with new material – this would not be tolerated on WP, which in case you haven't noticed still attracts new editors. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SamuelRiv: “This is two administrators on this wiki with objectively wrong ways of dealing with new material” -- and a newbie who apparently prefers to argue rather than accept that there might be a different way of doing things (using the Show preview button, as suggested).
Wiktionary has nowhere near as many editors as Wikipedia. While our edit counts might also be fewer, they are much higher in proportion to our editing community -- meaning that very few editors have to patrol a very large number of edits, every day. If your content was not appropriate, be it in terms of the content itself or the formatting or the headers used, etc. etc., it will likely be deleted. That's just how things work here. We struggle as it is to keep on top of the trollishness, vandalism, and well-meaning-but-badly-formatted edits as it is. We often simply don't have time to take that last category and rework the edits into content that would meet the Wiktionary standards, such as they are. Keeping hundreds of browser tabs open for days at a time is unacceptable and unworkable.
Looking at the edit that Semper reverted, Green2Ocean's content is inappropriate on two counts: 1) the ====History==== header is not acceptable for Wiktionary entries, as described at WT:ELE; and 2) the content added under that header is a restatement of what is already listed above under the ===Etymology=== header, and thus it cannot really be considered “new material”. Granted, the etymology content could use a reworking for grammar and clarity. That said, the removal of Green2Ocean's content is warranted: it is malformed and redundant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Show preview button" Thanks good tips!! I use it next time and i think we then should avoid spending a lot of time on basically nothing.

stick[edit]

OK, I'll stick to this account. --Derrib9 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"direktorijum"[edit]

I see you have mistakenly reverted an edit I made to the entry dirketorijum. However, shouldn't the alternative forms section link to the Croatian form direktorij?

AWB[edit]

Hi SemperBlotto,
I would like to be added to this list. By using the AWB I am going to add Kurdish prons to the entries (by using ku-IPA-template) For example. Thanks in advance -- GeorgeAnimal. 08:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am much obliged to you. ---GeorgeAnimal. 08:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perchers[edit]

@Semper Blotto I can sympathise with the reversion of my edits here, since that term is obsolete and, as far as I know, only found in Ogilvie's dictionary of 1870 and in Funk & Wagnell's 1947 edtition that I have; but also that the semantics were inaccurate - it should have read: "set on an alter", not "above an alter". Am not sure whether Wiktionary accepts obsolete lexemes anyway. I am a believer in the truth, not merely in a scientific conjecture that may be partly true - you find those entries in every dictionary! 

Andrew H. Gray 10:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Andrew (talk)
@SemperBlotto Thank you so much - I will check right away and correct the meaning if you have re-inserted the edit - that I was going to do first thing. Thank you too for your grace about the way I typed your User-name. To be qualified to format anything, I must get these important details right first time! Sorry for the inconvenience it has caused you! You can imagine the stress I received when I carelessly put curly brackets round my user name instead of square ones - my reply, together with the whole of my user page, was added to your Talk Page! In COBOL programming, if you leave off the full-stop at the end of the title, "Identification Division", the computer generates 1,500 errors! Kind Regards.Andrew H. Gray 11:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Andrew (talk)[reply]
A thousand years ago I was a COBOL programmer and have spent hours searching for missing commas and the like. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uther's initial block[edit]

Hey, not that I am defending Uther, but I was curious what led to your 6 month block which then caused his response on his talk page which led to your permablock? Was it this? —JohnC5 15:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uther has just been blocked from Wikipedia. He created some Wiktionary entries (now deleted) with the names of his opponents there, and whose page contents were insults. Equinox ◑ 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: Aha. That explains why it's not in his recent contributions. Thank you and sorry to bother! —JohnC5 16:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you have to remember to check "deleted user contributions". --WikiTiki89 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had never noticed that feature before! Very interesting. Yes, this all makes sense now. —JohnC5 16:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you delete the Berber entry?[edit]

Why'd you delete the Berber entry "ed"?


Baroque[edit]

Hi, why was baroque reverted? I am sure it can be improved, but a plain revert blows my mind.

These are similar definitions of baroque used as an adjective: 

* [Oxford dictionaries]
* [Merrian-Webster]
* [Cambridge dictionary]

Juanpdp (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OK I moved the content to Baroque. Please follow WP:Cooperation, explaining yourself when doing a revert goes a long way in nurturing cooperative projects like Wiktioanry. Thank you. 04:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Romanesque[edit]

Idem. Adding content takes longer than clicking on "revert".

What was the reason for reverting on Romanesque?

Juanpdp (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I recently edited a page called Multan on wikitionary. I added another definition that Multan is a carpet used in North India and Pakistan. It is actually correct. Is it ok for me to edit that page and add that definition since you rollbacked it ? 117.213.46.207 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nadighipunziudu[edit]

I just wanted a reply to my reply about nadighipunziudu, just to get your go-ahead. Seeing as how you made an objection, I figure that it's reasonable to show you my thoughts behind the page creation. Thank you for voicing your concerns. I'll try and keep in mind the suggestions you have made though. (I'm not going to edit Sardinian coverage articles for the next 2 days as a reply to this is pending) Qwed117 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno[edit]

A penniless chemist named Blotto
Took "in manus tuas" as motto:
Deoxygenations
Of pesky relations
Are simpler than winning the lotto.

Equinox ◑ 16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it was a prank[edit]

I agree with the removal of:

  1. Needless to say John Gabriel couldn't solve the math problem with his birdbrain.

From the wiki dictionary entry of bird brain. It was meant as a prank. Janburse (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

confused about rollback[edit]

What's up with this rollback? —Firespeaker (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SemperBlotto/2016&oldid=42339565"