User talk:SemperBlotto: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Land of the lizard (Talk); changed back to last version by SemperBlotto)
(Unexplained reverts: new section)
Line 694: Line 694:
Could you delete abanic (lower case) as I created it by accident. It was supposed to be capitalized. Thanks [[User:Speednat|Speednat]] ([[User talk:Speednat|talk]]) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you delete abanic (lower case) as I created it by accident. It was supposed to be capitalized. Thanks [[User:Speednat|Speednat]] ([[User talk:Speednat|talk]]) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
== Unexplained reverts ==
'''For Christ's sake STOP making unexplained reverts of my good-faith contributions.'''

Revision as of 11:00, 27 June 2012

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



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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wiktionary itself.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

Wikimedia Foundation


2nd note re: 2nd delete.....The entry of mine you keep deleting is on a disambiguation page, which implies that extraneous relevant material is allowed. Wit: 'disambiguation' remove the ambiguity from; make unambiguous. Please stop wasting volunteer time and energy on petty matters which result in loss of useful information! Additionally, this your talk page, not mine, so the message below (*) would sit here without my knowledge. It doesn't constitute proper notification.Blurbzone 10:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Attn: SemperBlotto: Found you'd deleted a contribution I'd made on 12/19/2011 for the SOS-wiktionary page. Courtesy has it that you should contact the contributor first, before removing work that's not yours. The contribution is valid, and it's back as of 1/3/2012.Blurbzone 08:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Courtesy has it that you should contact the contributor first, before removing work that's not yours". What rubbish, if you did that you spend more time writing on talk pages than you did editing entries. I dunno about Wikipedia, but here we concentrate on the entries first, and the editors second. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your impact

If you pick a species at random and look up its specific epithet on Wiktionary you now have at least a 34% chance of it having an entry (probably a bit more; it's a rough calculation). Back in September you'd only have a 23% chance. Cheers! Pengo 15:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • But from now on, each successive entry will have less and less impact. They are also getting more difficult to define (on average) as we finish with the simple prefix-suffix forms and the surname entries. SemperBlotto 15:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
True, but each new entry still covers around 100 species. I've been looking at making a new list weighted by the hit counts of species on Wikipedia, so as to target epithets (and genera) of better known species. Though so far it seems like quite a task to put the data together. Pengo 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


You recently removed the noun for informatic. Why?

The term is generic here. Other versions are comparative, such as bioinformatic, or geoinformatic, so the case is nominative.Wikimedian 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • You added a noun section between the adjective section and its translations. If the noun actually exists then add it after all the parts of the adjective. SemperBlotto 12:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Is this really a suffix, or just the pronoun si tacked on the the end of a verb? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Our definition :- "One or more letters or sounds added at the end of a word to modify the word's meaning". It's definitely one or more letters added at the end of a word. It definitely modifies the word's meaning. Looks like a suffix to me. SemperBlotto 08:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, Semperblotto. I'd rather call it an enclitic. Otherwise, we would have to classify the English possessive 's also as a suffix... --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A question

Hi SemperBlotto
can your Bot create Kurdish verb forms?George Animal 15:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It probably could. But I'm not going to. I have far too much other work to do, and I wouldn't know how to check the entries. SemperBlotto 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


You might want to revisit your action on this address with particular attention to information available at w:Tim Tebow#Tebowing. __meco 11:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not vandalism

"da" is a real word in Ido: [1] -- 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't say it was vandalism. But there was no headword, and no categorisation. See other Ido prepositions for how to make a properly formatted entry. SemperBlotto 19:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleting an entry that doesn't conform to the standard layout but which does contain a correct definition is counterproductive and a bit lazy too. The entry could have easily been fixed from what I can see. —CodeCat 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat. You could even put {{rfc-auto}}; KassadBot can add both {{head}} and horizontal lines. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to fix it. I haven't got the time. Reversion is a single click. SemperBlotto 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In a case like that, if the content is correct, better IMO to leave it as is (badly formatted) than to revert. AF will add a headword line and tag it for human attention.​—msh210 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with other users here. Reversion may only be one click, but more often than not, it is not the correct action to take. You have to actually [i]think[/i] before reverting, instead of just reverting blindly or because you don't want to take the time to fix the issue yourself. Razorflame 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

[2]? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Because it was wrong. No heroism involved in your definition. SemperBlotto 11:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've heard before that a hero does good deeds. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but doing good deeds doesn't make you a hero - there has to be bravery involved. We do good deeds by adding words to Wiktionary - but that doesn't make us heroes. SemperBlotto 12:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Isn't buprenorphine the normal spelling? Lmaltier 07:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Polite meaning of lei

Why did you revert my edits? As far as I can tell, lei is perfectly correct except in formal contexts:

  • Wikipedia says Lei may be capitalized and also writes lei uncapitalized in some places.
  • WordReference mentions lei in the polite sense without using capitals

--Costa Discordia 13:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I have only ever seen it as capitalized (and you can't trust Wikipedia). SemperBlotto 13:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • p.s. But see the two entries on it.wiktionary.
Obviously some people in this thread have seen it (and use it) uncapitalized too. See this transcript of a phone call with the Concordia captain that uses lei uncapitalized. I don't know what could be the best way to indicate that it is less formal (and perhaps rarer?), but it definitely deserves some mention. Since I don't speak Italian and had to look up lei in Wiktionary, I was misled into thinking the captain was being called a girl. I don't want other people to be misled too if they use Wiktionary instead of another dictionary. --Costa Discordia 13:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
And about it.wiktionary: I would put much less trust in the exhaustivity of wiktionary (especially non-en) than in the correctness of wikipedia :-) --Costa Discordia 13:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My Zingarelli (Italian only) dictionary gives the formal sense as either capitalised or not, but my grammar books give it as capitalized only. I have expanded our definition accordingly. SemperBlotto 14:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

reverting the goose entry

hey, i saw you reverted my changes. i am new here, so please cut me some slack. i found about 30 different phrases and idioms involving goose. what to do with them?

  • Hi there. There were just so many errors in formatting etc. that it was far easier to revert than spend lots of valuable time fixing it. SemperBlotto 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Everything seems ok here apart from the interjection, that looks to be three different titles, especially the third one which uses cazzi not cazzo. Also 'bad sentence' is (to me) clearly the wrong tone for a formal dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, when I've got some time I shall have a cleanup. SemperBlotto 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi, it appears that last year you deleted the page P.G.'. I was trying to include the abbreviation for (Italian) Prigione di Guerra (prison of war), which can be found, e.g., in Wikipedia. Cheers, Bjenks 04:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to create that. The deleted entry was an English abbreviation for "professional geologist", which was not supportable as an entry. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This isn't in any of my Italian dictionaries, and is not in the Italian Wikipedia or Wiktionary. PG or P.G. means procuratore generale or procura generale in Italian. PG also used to mean Perugia on Italian number plates before they scrapped that system. SemperBlotto 08:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


I really don't get this revert - why are those two senses distinct? We don't have the same distinction for any other Greek letters apart from mu (which I have merged as well), and we don't generally have it for Latin letters either, although there are odd cases (e.g. u). 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, you are correct. I've cleaned it up. SemperBlotto 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your vandalism help

Thank you for your vandalism help over at the page santorum. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More linguistic vandalism: Stein's inaccrochable

Jeff, Thanks very much for reverting the entry on accrocher. You are right that Gertrude Stein was committing linguistic vandalism in coining the word inaccrochable in English to describe a story by Ernest Hemingway. However, they were in Paris at the time, so it is clearly a word derived from the French. Moreover, the story has taken on a life of its own, especially among Heminway buffs and no doubt among Stein buffs, so it cannot be said any longer that there is no such word. But part of the discussion in such circles is the meaning of Stein's word, with few thinking to trace it to the French accrocher. Looking around in Wiktionary, inaccrochable did not seem otherwise recorded. The entry on accrocher would seem as good a place as any.

So, subject of course always to your editorial supervision and guidance, do you think it might be possible to make some record of Stein's innaccrochable on the accrocher page? I can understand your own personal distaste for and repulsion at Gertrude Stein's linguistic vandalism. But recording this distinctively Frnch derivation is rather an appreciation of language.

My only interest is that I was asked the meaning of inaccrochable by a Korean correspondent and thought an entry here would help other enquirers. Maybe you have a better solution.

  • It's easy really. Does the word exist? Can you find three independent usages of it? If yes, then add the word (providing a definition). If not, don't. SemperBlotto 08:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


I really like your brisk dispatch of qestions it is so refreshingly to the point. Clearly, inaccrochable is a word Gertrude Stein made up for the occasion. So, there are never going to be uses of the word that are truly independent of her, unless you allow someone else might hit on it independently. Because it is made up, there is also always going to be an issue as to whether it is a real word and, if so, what it means. In fact, as you might expect, much of the discussion turns on exactly such issues: <>. However, anyone reading Hemingway's celebrated memoir of his time in Paris, A Moveable Feast, is going to come across the word and may wonder about it, as my Korean correspondent did.

But you are the expert in this matters. An effort was made to be helpful to enquirers, with reference to Gertrude Stein. I am sure that if you want to help, it is really easy. But I can see that you may feel it more important to oppose linguistic vandalism by not giving such help.

  • I have added the word, and three citations that do not mention Stein or Hemingway. You could have done the same yourself, instead of writing essays. Feel free to add more citations from the original people. SemperBlotto 12:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at whirlpooling

Thanks very much for the help at whirlpooling, you're right about the subject, and it makes it a lot clearer. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

word list reversion

So why did you remove my addition of the word "laboratory" to the "-atory" suffix derived-terms list? If you include "lavatory", which comes from the Latin word "to wash", then a laboratory is a kindred word derived from the Latin word "to work". If done by bot, then your bot is seriously flawed. I must say, I've done editing on Wikipedia for the last 8 years, and this is the first time one of my corrections was reverted for no apparent reason. The British pronounce the word lah-BOR-uh-tory, same as the word lavatory, so you hear the actual similar Latin roots. Any explanation would be appreciated, thanks. 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The entry that we have for -atory specifies adjectives (though it didn't explicitly say so). laboratory is a noun. I have also removed lavatory as this is also a noun. There may be others. We probably need a second definition to cope with such words. I'll have a think. SemperBlotto 19:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Additionally, besides lavatory the words conservatory, crematory, observatory, and purgatory are all included on the list, all of them places associated with their prefixes.
  • And, by the way, you're wrong. Laboratory is also an adjective, as in laboratory equipment. That's what makes English nouns so special.
  • The other place words can be adjectives too. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
  • I have updated -atory. In terms such as "laboratory equipment", the word "laboratory" is still a noun - this is called attributive use of a noun. SemperBlotto 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Damn cool. Thanks. 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Just found this little used Italian template. It should really be {{it-verb form of}} like {{es-verb form of}}, but in all honesty, isn't {{conjugation of}} as good or frankly quite a lot better? I'm asking you as (I believe) our only current Italian editor, Barmar being on long term wikibreak. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, it looks like someone's experiment. I have replaced all occurrences of it by "conjugation of". I shall now delete it. SemperBlotto 14:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your vandalism

Hello, I reported you at the Wiktionary feedback page for coming behind me and reverting just because I didn't want violate the 3RR. If you'd like to defend yourself on the page, you're more than welcome but I have no time for silliness. 18:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Semperblotto! I've reported you for abusing the admin tools. Disagreeing with an edit does not mean you get to instate a block and abuse admin tools. I've reported you here [3] 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A question (Acopia)

Hi. You have recently undone a change to the definition to 'acopia'. The change was an attempt to point out the ambiguity of the word and it's lack of latin route. I would cite the following article which describes the issues very well. How would you suggest these issues can be made know on the page? Many thanks. —This comment was unsigned.

  • The Oxford Journal article shows that the word acopia is used in the way that we define it here. If you think that the word is also used in a different way then all you have to do is provide evidence. (The name of a commercial company, by itself, is not such evidence). By the way, you seem to have destroyed the original contents of the Wikipedia article. SemperBlotto 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian personal pronouns

Hey Jeff, I'm working on a table for the subject forms of Italian personal pronouns and the 3rd person pronouns are causing me some mental stress. From my understanding, lui, lei and loro are the normal everyday forms, but I'm unclear on the usage of esso, essa, essi and esse. Could you clarify at all? — [Ric Laurent] — 18:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, it has always seemed to me that lui, lei and loro are what Italians actually use, certainly in spoken language. Some time ago somebody argued that we should replace lui/lei in our verb conjugation tables with esso/essa but User:Barmar (native of Tuscany) argued against it. I think that esso etc are more common in written Italian, but I can't be sure. I'll see if I can find the old discussion (Barmar has been absent for ages, and seems to have left the project). SemperBlotto 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • p.s. egli is definitely only used in formal, written Italian. SemperBlotto 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I did notice that our conjugation tables have lui and lei, but essi and esse. I did kinda wonder about that.... Anyway, what we have so far is at {{it-personal pronouns}}. I wasn't sure exactly what to do with egli, so I haven't put it in the table yet. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the template, Ric. I have added egli and ella as "written" or should it be "bookish"? Added Loro. Web pages on Italian grammar usually include egli and ella, see also: w:Italian_grammar#Pronouns. --Anatoli (обсудить) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Our own entry for ella marks it as archaic. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed accordingly :) --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected definition of Latin participle exactus

Please verify that there is an adjective exactus, a, um, in Latin apart from the participle. I don't know of one with the meaning "exact". Carlemock 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I admit that it is not in Lewis & Short - but it is on Logos SemperBlotto 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Greybar Hotel Deletion

This is not a protologism. It's been in use for decades (if not longer) as a slang term for jail. Do a Google Books search: not only does it show up in dictionaries of American slang, but in both fiction and non-fiction. Chuck Entz 20:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • OK. Restored and wikified. You might like to add some citations just for the record. SemperBlotto 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi sorry about putting D before E, didn't know to prioritize English, will try to remember later. I based existence of Latin section on "Recorded since 1570, from Late Latin trapezium" from the etymology section. I'm not sure TBH just trying to follow the breadcrumbs. If it doesn't exist we'd need to find a new etymological explanation right? Y12J 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • All you need is evidence. See if you can find it in a Latin text (and add a definition / translation). (We should be able to figure out an inflection) SemperBlotto 20:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll check who added the Etym claim in the history, maybe they'd have one? Also do you know how to get Template:Term to specify Ancient Greek? Currently it says:
"from Ancient Greek τραπέζιον (“irregular quadrilateral”, literally “a little table”), diminutive of τράπεζα (“table”)""
But τράπεζα is a modern Greek term meaning 'bank'. I added a section for Ancient Greek to it saying 'table' but I am not sure how to direct to that part, since if an AG term was derived from it, it must be the ancient meaning. Y12J 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know any Greek (but I like the food). All I know is that we specify {{etyl|grc}} for Ancient Greek and {{etyl|he}} for the modern language. SemperBlotto 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    See comoedia for a Latin word from Ancient Greek that has all the template niceties in the etymology section. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Judaeo-Spanish Ladino, not to be confused with Reathian Ladin

See this in wikipedia, [4]. Ladino could be confused with this, Ladin, wikipedia [5], a neo-latin and romance language that has not spanish, greek, turkish, and hebrew influences. Is it impossible try to clarify this in the entry? --Djudezmoot 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, but why would you want to put it in the language heading of amá? feel free to add a note to the Ladin entry, or maybe its talk page. But remember we are a dictionary - we just define and translate words - so nothing too encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 16:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    It would make no sense to do this for individual entries with Ladino sections, only by editing the template {{lad}}, which should be done by discussing it at WT:BP because of the widespread use and sensitivity of {{lad}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Would you take another look, there is more to prison guard than someone who guards a prison, in fact, there are prison guards that don't work in prisons at all, and in fact their main purpose is not to guard the prison but to guard prisoners from escaping or running amok. Also for the oneword version of the term, I have found three non-scanno uses of the one word form, you can see an actual scan showing the printed original as one word on one line. So I think this counts as a set term, I'd love it if you gave it another looking over.Lucifer 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


(bodyworker)Lucifer 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Continual misuse of tools

This revert is yet another example of your continual misuse of the rollback and page deletion tools. Since you continue to misuse them, and in addition refuse to assume good faith towards me, I have reported you to the beer parlor Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Machine = aeroplane

I object to your deletion of the definition of "machine" as "aeroplane". This is a well-attested and specific usage in Britain, especially during the World Wars. --Jtle515 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But we do have a sense for "computer" (given usex: "pushing the limits of the machine", and it's also common to hear sysadmins etc. asking "does it work on your machine?"). Jtle515, can you provide similar citations for the aeroplane sense? Equinox 23:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


See 20-Hydroxyecdysone. This is one of those chemical words that never seems to occur without its accompanying number. Is it usefully definable? Equinox 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Google search with added -20 gives loads of hits. I'll have a go (this also applies to the next load of words). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Some more words

Here are some (bio)chemical words I have seen recently and don't understand (and they are not in Wikipedia): ventiloquinone and isoventiloquinone, cyclopentannulated, nanaomycin, pyranonaphthoquinone, thysanone, pentalongin, eleutherin and methoxyeleutherin, karwinaphthol, carbazoquinocin, landomycinone, and benzannulation. What is a good thing to do with these? They will be tactfully ignored in Requested Entries. I could potentially merge them into your sandbox subpages. Or possibly you are in a position to dig them up and work out what they are, whereas I don't generally understand those papers. Equinox 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • All done. Feel free to add words to my a-z sandboxes (or to remove blue linked entries). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Italian terms spelled with K

Do you consider this, and equivalent categories for W and J to be a good idea? w:Scrabble letter distributions#Italian says that "The letters J, K, W, X, and Y are absent since these letters are used only in loanwords." NB asking you directly as you're the only active Italian editor. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, what -pedia says is more or less true. You will find J used in parts of Italy once part of the Greek empire (i.e. the south), where it is used (and pronounced) as an I (there is a chain of "Jolly Hotels" that are quite reasonable). I would have no objection to such categories, as long as you don't want me to populate them (ditto for three-letter words etc). Personally, I think that we have far to many useless categories - do we have any evidence that our users ever use any of them? Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Was there some actual reason why you reverted my correction, or did you just mistake me for a vandal or something? Even the Wikipedia entry on the term mentions no suggestion that "mob" has anything to do with crowds -- it's short for "mobile". Keolah (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • If you are User:, then your edit didn't seem make much sense and was grammatically incorrect. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

accusasse is not a Latin verb form

Hi! Could you tell me where exactly it is said that accusasse is an inflected form of accuso? - 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) There are six hits just in Latin Wikisource [6] even one by Ovid. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC) p.s. It is an example of syncopation - we don't bother putting it in the inflection tables.

I see

I didn't get that. I get it now :-) __meco (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

uncareful is not a word

I don't understand why my comment on the discussion for the word "uncareful" was deleted? This is not an English word, the correct word is "careless".

It is a word. See it in books here: [7] Equinox 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proper Nouns

I agree. I will move the pages. If you have some knowledge of Latin vowel lengths, then please check this. Also I do not know the gender of all names, thus it would be useful to check it. Thank you for your help.

User:Dyami Millarson 15:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that I am not authorised to move all the pages, thus the ones that I did not move I would reserve for you to change. Wait some minutes, and then I will be done.

User:Dyami Millarson 15:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The pages leonida and eunomia can be deleted. I am quite new here on wiktionary, so how can I delete a page?

User:Dyami Millarson 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi there.
    • To get a page deleted (if you have added it in error) use the template {{delete}} - a sysop will check it and delete it.
    • You can add inflection tables if you want - see Citro. A bot will eventually add the inflected forms (but it doesn't run very often). I don't know much about vowel lengths of Latin words - so add macrons where you think fit. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Latin genitive in zoological names

According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999), species names ending with -i clearly indicate that the species has been named after a male (female would take -ae, plural either -orum or -arum). I think it is useful to mention this fact in relevant articles, since the majority of the world population have very vague idea about Latin at all and this may halp to trace a particular person who gave rise to the species name.

Many thanks! These words are not Latin, I absolutely agree. I should have said that even fewer people have an idea about rules of zoological nomenclature! :-)


Please note this change I made. --Cova (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I keep forgetting about those. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries. Someone will keep reminding you about them. --Cova (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


You're doing a bloody good job. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • You'll miss me when I'm gone. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
My father said that. So far, he is wrong. Equinox 23:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tories Entry

Why do you keep insisting on reverting my perfectly acceptable changes? The original entry was completely inappropriate. This is supposed to be a dictionary not a left-wing magazine to have a dig at the Tories. My caption is perfectly appropriate and politically neutral and non-partisan. Please accept my version and stop reverting, thank you. Christian58 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Example sentences are meant to illustrate the use of the word in the real world. Your version was just a definition. I have replaced it by an actual citation from a book. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Entry - Radial glial cell

Hello - Please could you let me know what the errors were on my recent entry- I could correct them. Thanks . Scienceexplorer

  • I just thought that it was of a generally poor quality. We aim to do better. I have had a go myself. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I see what you mean. I will strive to do better. Scienceexplorer (talk)


Discussion moved to Talk:青出于蓝.

Thank you, I'll study the page, before moving forward. Scienceexplorer (talk)

  • You are doing Japanese now?? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, why do you ask? Scienceexplorer (talk)

Wow..sorry about that...I had no idea - will stay out of it. Scienceexplorer (talk)

Definition not saved correctly

Hello, I just saved a definition,however, a portion of it is missing and a dotted line outlines what remains. I just realized I might have exceeded the word limit. I'd appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you! Scienceexplorer (talk)

  • You didn't start the definition line with a hash (#). The definition was pretty crap, but I see that somebody else has had a go at it. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Scienceexplorer (talk)


Semper, do you still have tools that will simply and quickly create a "Concordance" (linked word list) from a piece of text? If so, I'd like to have Concordance:Moby-Dick created from the Wikisource edition, which looks to have preserved the spellings from the 1851 original. I'm not particular about the format; but sorted alphabetically would be preferrable. If the chapter number(s) can be listed after each word (once per chapter), that would be a great bonus. If you do not have the tools to complete such a project, do you know who might? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I can produce something like the following. This is just from chapter 1. p.s. I only read it for the first time a couple of years ago. What a truly weird book! SemperBlotto (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

<text moved to concordance>

Yes, something like that would be usable. If you can paste each chapter's individual results into a correspondingly numbered section on the proposed Concordance page, that would work about as well. I am looking both to add missing entries as well as to add quotations to entries. The sectioning will thus help me identify quickly where to look for quotes. I'm attempting now (for the second time) to read the novel through. I made it only about halfway last time before life interfered and I lost my reading time. I have better prospects this time around. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • OK - I've made a start. If you would like to complete the construction of the basic concordance page (adding all the other chapters), I shall add the individual subpages a few at a time (so as not to get too bored). p.s. I have used subpages rather than sections so that the page does not get too big. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • p.p.s. Note: my software throws away special characters (converts them to spaces) - so chapter 2 does not contain "Carpet-Bag", only "Carpet" and "Bag". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • So you might want to manually convert "wouldn" and "t" to "wouldn't" etc. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I had expected that the software would butcher some words bearing internal punctuation, but that's probably unavoidable. Thanks for this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Equinox/ExtractBookWords was also designed for this purpose, and I've used it quite successfully. Equinox 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

pink slime

is under attack by User talk: what can be done!Lucifer (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • We need more sysops. Well, actually we already have more than enough people defined as sysops, but not enough who do any useful sysopping. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jeff. You seem to be the author of the English definition of permutant. Since this is such an obscure bit of info, you might be interested in the newly-created article at w:Circular permutation in proteins. It was the first article contributed to enwiki through a partnership with PLoS Computational Biology and they have asked for local reviewers to take a look at it. I found your definition because I saw that enwiki had nothing on permutant, which was used in their article but not defined there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I have added a link to the -pedia article. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


I think it might be a direct loan from Latin delator. We also lack English delator, delate and delation seem to be missing meanings.This is going back to my Scrabble playing days (delator is the anagram of leotard). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Collins Gem Latin Dictionary has dēlātor (informer). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
And lodestar in the plural. Are we going to add "words from Countdown" next?
You joke, but fr:Utilisateur:Mglovesfun/Dictionnaire Countdown. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
<historical note>On our first ever visit to Paris, the Falklands war was just starting up and we watched it in bafflement on a black and white TV in our little room. We also watched this strange quiz show where people had to make words from letters as a big clock went slowly round. We had never heard of any of the words chosen and left none the wiser. </historical note> SemperBlotto (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jeff,

Can you provide a citation for equinoctal? I can't find it in any dictionary. — Paul G (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Paul. We don't copy from dictionaries, but from real life. Citations have been added by somebody else. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Knaggs. Could you tell me why did you revert my translation of the verb "to shade" with the italian "variare leggermente" form in the sense of alter slightly something, and also the form "tendere a" for "to shade" in the sense of varying in colour(i saw in French is correctly added, and it is a phrase)? I thought there was a free possibility to add correct translations for native speaker in english entries, automatically assisted. Is there a policy did I infringe? Or are you not complaining with my translations? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

  • What has this got to do with equinoctal?
  • You do not seem to have made any previous edits here.
  • Edits to shade were made by an anonymous user at "" - the terms added were not in the Italian wiktionary, or any other Italian dictionary that I either own, or could find online. They seemed to be sum-of-parts combination of other words. Perhaps you meant to add separate words (as in the French equivalents). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

creative intelligence

Why was the term for creative intelligence deleted? Could you please provide the correct form in your response that would have prevented it being marked for deletion?

TheRhythmicThird (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You said that it was an adjective and added an adjective headword template. It would obviously be a noun.
  • The definition "The novel ability to cognitively think, process, and work with information in ways that surpass what is already given." did not seem to actually mean anything to me.
  • However, there do seem to be a number of pseudo-philosophical books that use the term, so feel free to add a better definition, and back it up with good citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, seriously

[8]. This is the fourth or fifth time you've undone reasonable, good-faith, non-vandalism edits without explanation. This has got to stop. Just because you claim to be a linguist doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the rules and undo good faith edits. Do me a favor and stay away from my edits Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 13:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking through your recent contributions, I have found a number of similar good-faith edits that were reverted, even though they appear to me to be perfectly acceptable. Many of them were done so quickly it's doubtful you even read them. That tells me you're abusing rollback. Please, take more care in your editing. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 13:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, you're forgetting that reverting good faith edits is perfectly acceptable here. You might as well criticize him for creating Italian entries. Also, my tip is to stop making bad edits, then people will stop reverting them. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Stop adding crap and I'll stop reverting it. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. And if other sysops patrolled recent changes properly I'd have more time to undo bad edits with an explanation.

Kafkaesque - page has incorrect link


I'm very sorry, I know it's not your page but i noticed you have made edits in the past.

I tried to fix an error where the word 'superlative' is linking to the wrong word in the Wiktionary, unfortunately I found (to my disappointment), that I am not skilled enough to fix the problem. I wonder if you could make the change.

You find the word under the heading Adjective (near the top of the page).

Currently the word links to:

However, it should really go to:

Thanks for your help


Jason McMahon

  • Fixed. It wasn't just Kafkaesque, but was the template used by all English adjectives. Thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jeff,

I've just deleted this. It looks like it was created in error by SemperBlottoBot (the correct form being "si impadronirebbe"). Do you know whether there are any other misspelt entries that your bot might have created? — Paul G (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just found and deleted another: arrendersibbe. is not showing up any others ending in -ibbe but there might be others around. — Paul G (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Paul. Yes, there are lots. The problem arises in cases where there is a reflexive -irsi verb with no corresponding -ire one. As part of the preparation of data for the bot I do a global change of (stem)ire to (stem)irsi and this creates havoc for forms such as "impadroniremo" that have "impadronire" within them. I shall investigate, delete bad forms and create good ones. Thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
All of those done. 8 forms in 11 verbs. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, can you review these? I've been reverting them so far, but should I in fact be formatting them? I'd have asked EncycloPetey but his edits are less regular than yours at the moments. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Good grief. Some correct, some not, none properly formatted (but that can't be helped). I've removed the Latin edits that looked wrong (according to Lewis & Short and my Latin dictionary). I've marked the Greek for attention. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Aruñar - bad redirect?

Should it then be created as its own entry or does that mean it should stay blank? What if someone hears "aruñar" and looks that up but finds nothing (as happened to me at first, I had to go to another site to figure it out)? I'm not trying to dispute the deletion of aruñar, just wondering about the rationale behind it (I'm a bit new to editing Wiktionary so bear with me :) ). Saimdusan (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Saimdusan (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

cite Latin terms at the time you create them

Hi! In relation to the proposed vote on relaxing CFI for endangered and sparsely-attested languages, we're currently discussing (here) whether or not to require the creators of entries for terms in extinct languages to supply at least one citation at the time they create the entries (i.e. to pre-cite the terms). As a contributor of Latin terms, would you care to express an opinion? - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • But Latin is not extinct. It is still being taught, read and written all over the world. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And, of course, any language that has its own version of Wikisource can't possibly be "sparsely attested". SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Would you be so kind as to not fuck around with me when I am bloody well editing?
For Chrissakes, Varlaam (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Odd that you would revert my edit without comment (I timed out so was not logged in) and odd that you should make the term Template:pathology since it is a term we use in Medicine (I am in the Pulmonary Division of our University Department of Medicine). Our Blood Gas samples are analyzed by the Clinical Pathology Lab, but the determination that the numbers that come back are hypoxemic or not is a Medial decision. Kindly advise.

(replied on uer's talk page --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Bristolian in Latin?

Any idea what Bristolian would be in Latin? --Itkilledthecat (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Not yet. I looked at w:la:Paulus Dirac, but they just say "born in Bristol". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I have added the adjective. The noun could well be "bristolus" or "bristolianus". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi SemperBlotto, you have made this edit. I wonder why... The expression "More power to your elbow!" is admittedly a weird, idiomatic expression of encouragement, but the idiom gives 23,900 hits on Google Books. Shouldn't we create an entry for it? -- 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, if I had had more time I would have changed it to more power to your elbow (no capital letter, no exclamation mark) but I was busy with other things at the time. I have created the entry for you. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! -- 21:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Please refrain from completely undoing other people's work without giving them the courtesy of either request for further information or providing your own explanation, unless you know for a fact that the post is wrong. Your ignorance is not an excuse. You appear to make it a habit. If you want to see the data, just ask. The meaning I posted was in wide circulation from roughly 1860 to 1940, especially in the South. All you have to do is pick up a copy of a turn-of-the-century Southern newspaper and look for court reports.

Here's an example a little earlier:

Little Rock Daily Republican. March 18, 1873
Criminal Items. The "City of Roses" Assuming Metropolitan Airs -- A Lively Day with the "Vags" and Petit Thieves. p. 4/6
Yesterday morning seventeen motley-colored vagrants of all nationalities, ages and sizes were arraigned before "the terror," Judge Triplett, and that accommodating official, with that suavity of manner for which he is noted, assigned each the usual twenty-five dollars or thirty days on the gang. They went to the gang.

Alex.deWitte (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is "Chain gang; a sentence to labor on a chain gang." Surely that's not a single definition. "A chain gang" on its own looks quite likely (though I've never come across it in this context) but when you add the extra bit, I can't make any sense of it. Is it two definitions, or one very difficult to understand one? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fair. I've been struggling with a coherent compact definition of someone being sentenced to the gang or to specific time on the gang. The latter may require a separate entry, as it is a very common expression in the period I indicated. But it is the former that should stay under gang. OED does not have "on the gang", but that may change. Alex.deWitte (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes - it made no sense at all. That's why it was reverted. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? Neither the use of "gang" to imply chain-gang, nor a court sentence "to the gang" make any sense to you even after I already explained it above? You're well aware--and I am, obviously, not the only one to say so--that you have a short trigger when it comes to reversion. I suggest doing something to pace yourself--take a break before reverting, even if you don't try to figure out why someone might have wanted to say what they did (which should be the first priority). And, as I said before, ignorance is not an excuse--just because you may be unaware of a particular use or don't think it makes any sense, doesn't mean that it's actually wrong. Quite possibly you simply don't know something. With most of us mortals that happens a lot. I simply assumed that you're a member of the same class. Perhaps I was wrong. In that case, please forgive me--I've never dealt with a divinity before.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't post on a whim. In the case of Wiktionary, what I post is usually a result of hours of research and verification. For this reason, I find thoughtless reversions quite annoying. If it's not vandalism, the first instinct should be to fix, not to revert. If you don't know how to fix, ask. If you don't have time to ask, you are spending too much time criticizing other people's work.
I know several people who do lexicographic work for a living but have quit any work on the Wiktionary because of their encounters with knee-jerk behavior. This is not the intent of this publication. We are not in high school, fighting over territory. This is supposed to be a collaboration.

Alex.deWitte (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi science man, can you please educate the world as to what a discography is, medically speaking. --Itkilledthecat (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Added. I think the medical term is more common with a "k". SemperBlotto (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


This Italian word was incorrectly entered as English (erythrodysesthesia). I don't know how to do it-noun. Equinox 21:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Thanks for spotting it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Another sciencey word for you. I reckon dispensible means something like "used for dispensing", but most of the hits are really too scientific for my brain to fathom. Can you see if you can give it meaning? --Itkilledthecat (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The citations you give look just like an alternative form of dispensable - (able to be dispensed with). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


  • I will add that sense, and technically you are right however in actual usage both are used to describe silicon, for example silicon valley is usually called el valle de silicona, while el valle de silicio while being correct per prestige is looked over due to the common usage.Lucifer (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#attention whore

I'd assume Abc2k and Dotcomman are the same user; can we prove it? I have a feel a whole host of shiny new users will be voting keep on this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


I was trying to cite this as humorous term for a cat lover, instead I found out it's a chemistry term, also cataholism, anaholic, anaholism. Can you create these? I haven't the faintest idea what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the names they have something to do with anions and cations... —CodeCat 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No. You were right about the cat lover. All instances of all forms seem to be OCR errors for catabolic, catabolism, anabolic or anabolism. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


This section goes against my (limited) experience of Latin. What vintage of Latin had this? DCDuring TALK 14:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My Latin dictionary says "late uncommon". Lewis & Short only have essentia (the being or essence of a thing) and essentialiter (essentially). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


I was wondering why the definintion to Torque was reverted back to its original. That is a valid definition. I felt the need to ask before I reverted your revert.Speednat (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The word you're thinking of is torc. The spelling with the -que is not used to reference rigid necklaces. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. My book uses "torque" with a definition, and Websters defines it too.
Further research shows that I was wrong -- I'd only ever seen the jewelry term spelled with the -c, but digging around does show uses of the torque spelling to refer to the necklace. My apologies. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We have the definition at the normal torc and an "alternative form" at torque. There is no point in duplicating the definition. Reverted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't torque be the original, as all my reference books state that as the original. Rather than just inserting a "reverted" here, why don't we discuss it, unless of course I am missing where you are the authority. Speednat (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
On another note, shouldn't you as an "administrator" be trying to solve problems instead of creating problems. see Revert
I agree that the collar can be spelled in both ways, and am not particularly bothered about which one is given as the prime spelling. But your edit gave torque three separate meanings (three # signs) where there were only two meanings. I also confirm that the etymology of the collar is from Latin torques. If you want to, you can move the torc definition to the 2nd definition of torque and replace it by an "alternative spelling of torque" being careful to specify the collar meaning only. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you know exactly what "you" want in this entry, why don't you fix it instead of giving instructions to me. I see it fine the way I have done it. However, if "you" want to change it to fit your criterion then do so. Otherwise I will keep changing it to fit the proper spelling, the way my reference books state it. Speednat (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
My OED agrees with Speednat that "torque" should be the primary spelling. It also appears that the etymology is, in fact, slightly different from the physics def (which is from Latin torqueo, while the necklace is from Latin torquis, which comes from torqueo). I have removed the alt. spelling def, and made the appropriate changes to torc and torq. Hopefully this suits everyone. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's much better. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Atelaes.

On another note, sorry if I ruffled feathers. I am not trying to be disruptive, merely helpful. I like the wiki-culture and have enjoyed editing wikipedia, and would like to start helping on Wiktionary. I am learning that this is a different culture over here and I ask that if I make mistakes that you please let me know and help me become a better editor. Speednat (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


You deleted mention of the third gender here. Do you completely disagree with mentioning them?

  • The definition of intersex contains the words "characteristics of both sexes." So it is not a sex itself. p.s. gender is another matter altogether. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


I added some information for caress, including the etymology. Could you look at what I did and ensure it looks ok. The only item I was unsure about was the sanskrit kāma which in my Websters says akin to first. Thanks

On another note, I was adding some info for riffle and the etymology from that one doesn't match what my books state. It states from German riffelen {to groove}; my book states possibly from the word ruffle; which then has ME ruffelen and then from Low German ruffelen {to crumple}. I want to make those changes but don't want to step on toes, or if my book is outdated. Thanks —This unsigned comment was added by Speednat (talkcontribs).

  • Hi there. I see nothing wrong with these edits apart from the Sanskrit which should be in the Devanagari script I believe. I know absolutely nothing about etymology - as far as I can tell it is pure guesswork, so you should do what you think right. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

horse and rabbit stew

I don't really see how that edit was vandalism? —CodeCat 13:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • It wasn't. I am a human being and sometimes make mistakes. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, sorry. You don't need to be so defensive... —CodeCat 15:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Can I please have it back? Thanks. Rob Hurt (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • User talk pages are primarily used by others to discuss your edits. (see Help:Talk pages) You haven't made any. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep. You're right. But they can't discuss my edits on my talk page if I don't have one. See how that works? ;)
Rob Hurt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes they can. The first time anyone wants to talk to you, they create your talk page for you. Typically, a sysop will create it with a welcome message. Still waiting for you to do something useful. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why you delete my user page?

I just want to know, why did you delete my user page? Is there anything wrong inside it? You should talk using my talk page first if it contains anything that should not be there, not directly delete it. Any more, it is my USER PAGE, not an article, right? Just want to know the reasons.. Best regards, --빛다얕/Muhammad Nur Hidayat 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • User pages are for contributors (this is not Facebook). When you have made at least one contribution to the wiki (added a new, or improved an old entry) then you are allowed one. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor question

I improved this entry that you made but I was just wondering, is the way I've edited it ok? I mean, I presume this is the way the meanings are, right? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Both definitions are countable. I can't really see any improvement. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Really? In the sense of this specific...anion, would saying it's countable not be the same as or similar to saying chlorines or sodium chlorides, etc are valid terms? 50 Xylophone Players talk 03:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither chlorine nor sodium chloride are ions. chloride is an ion and is countable - you can have many ions together. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I understand the situation better now. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi. We have fraticello = "young monk". Also, some sources say that Fratricelli ought to be Fraticelli (i.e. without the second R, perhaps suggesting that the "little brothers" ety is wrong?). Webster 1913 has an entry for Fratricelli: "The name which St. Francis of Assisi gave to his followers, early in the 13th century. / A sect which seceded from the Franciscan Order, chiefly in Italy and Sicily, in 1294, repudiating the pope as an apostate, maintaining the duty of celibacy and poverty, and discountenancing oaths. Called also Fratricellians and Fraticelli." Could you please work out what is accurate and create entries accordingly? Equinox 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • OED has nothing like either. Italian Wikipedia has w:it:Fraticelli. Italian Wikisource has several hits for fraticelli but none for fratricelli. Google book search has hundreds of thousands of hits for fraticelli but only 8,000 for fratricelli (all seem to be in English). It looks like a mistake to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


you deleted "bodily integrity" for having too many errors. Which errors do you mean? Pass a Method (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Plural was wrong.
  • Definition was crap :- "a concept that refers to ..." - but what does it mean
  • Sum of parts.

Feel free to have another go if you really think it deserves an entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that better : bodily integrity ? Pass a Method (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Much better. I'll add a link to Wikipedia. (many people will think that it is still sum-of-parts though) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


to me you trouble maker. You have abused your admin abilities. Hard-on does not always mean its an erection. It is a difficult time and you know that. Next time you do this, i'm reporting you to the founder or someone else and you will be in a lot of trouble and you will be fired. So i suggest leaving the non-slang definition there in that entry!--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have blocked you for longer. Do us all a favor and stop harassing and threatening editors. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


I can't think of any other verbs that act like this, so I think it needs a unique conjugation template. Are you able to make one? Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, the first thing is - I don't know how to conjugate it!
  • Secondly, I don't see the point of constructing a template, if it is only going to be used in one place. Could you possibly use {{la-conj-base}} and fill in whatever parts are used? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The reason for a template is that I really want all the inflected forms to be bot-created. This is almost certainly the single most common Latin word that we do not have inflected forms of. If you think it's doable, I'll explain the conjugation. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, stupid me. I forgot about odi. Those inflected forms were done by hand, though. Anyway, the conjugation's here. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bot-creation is not just dependant upon a template. It has to be programmed for each template by a human being (me). I'm not doing that for a single verb - it would be faster to populate the verb by hand. I'll have a look. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the {{la-conj-base}} template is not much good - it doesn't blank unused terms. See the current system sandbox. The good news is that we have most of the inflected forms already defined. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I guess that basically solves it. I'll do all the rest by hand now. There's a few more I've been meaning to do by hand, so I'll get to it. There's still a bit of a mess at inquam, but I don't really feel like dealing with it at the moment.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The sandbox version doesn't show macrons. I haven't checked if the inflected forms have correct macrons or not. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Latvian sala

I'm adding better templates to the Latvian versions of this page, and also deleting unnecessary division lines. Do you object? Am I doing something wrong? -- 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • We like division lines between languages. Please don't remove them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. I won't anymore. But on a politeness note: maybe next time you could drop me a note before blocking me? I noticed there were many entries without a division line between languages, and since I thought this was neater I started imitating it. But if someone had told me the community standard is having those lines, I would have put them back myself. (PS.: should I also insert division lines in new words / word forms I add? Or is there some bot that will do this automatically?) -- 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed you creating this so I checked out the English glycogenic, and that lists the etymology as glycogen + -ic. Should that perhaps be changed to match the French entry you've made? 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • That would be reasonable. I just copied the etymology from French Wiktionary. Or else it could come from glycogénie + -ique - this looks more likely.
Okay, I've changed it to glycogénie + -ique. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

deletion of page

Hello SemperBlotto, you recently deleted a newly created entry called "vagina faggot". Your justification was that it might be a possible neologism or protologism. I feel inclined to assure you that the term is frequently used in wide parts of the United States, but unfortunately it lacks reference due to the fact that every effort to explain this word in a neutral context has been put off as an insincerity. I therefore impose upon you to enable the possibility for me to create the entry on the condition that it will be as detailed as possible. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

  • You would need to provide evidence of its use (and of its meaning). I can see some use that might have the meaning of lesbian. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. I will bear it in mind.


Sorry, I should have checked... -- Gauss (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:

How can you be sure this is WF if a CU hasn't been done? Razorflame 16:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Because I have known him for years and can recognise his style immediately. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, that would make sense :) Thanks for the answer :) When did you move over from Italian to French? Razorflame 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't bother to keep track of when I start a new project. Just wait for my German chemistry words! SemperBlotto (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I only wish that I could have as free of reign as you do over the languages you can edit. Ah can wish :) I'm quite content to edit Spanish, Ido, and Esperanto, but I might need to start learning another language soon to help ease my uneasiness :) Keep up the good work as always :) Razorflame 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


One for you, my friend


Am I correct in my translation of this French term from polynucléaire to polynuclear? That's my translation, and I'm not going to add it, since I don't know French, but I thought you might be able to make an entry for it since you have some French knowledge. Thanks, Razorflame 23:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks for checking. Equinox 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem :) I would add it if I had the knowledge to do so, but as I don't :( Razorflame 23:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


...I'm glad that block was a mistake :L I was wondering what the hell I did wrong. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Yes - I hit the wrong link. Sorry. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we need another bureaucrat?

Hi SemperBlotto,

I've been asked to accept a nomination for bureaucrat, which I would, except that I didn't think we needed more bureaucrats . . . do we?

Thanks in advance,
11:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, there is very little -crat work to do. I haven't done any in ages. It's no problem to have too many though. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, thanks. :-)   —RuakhTALK 11:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Was wondering if {{feminine past participle of|parlare}} would be better than {{feminine of|parlato}}. Isn't the first one easier to understand? It also automatically categorizes. How to achieve this possible switchover is another matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • OK. I'll do that for all new Italian verbs (but I haven't added a new one in ages). I'll also try to do the same for French ones (very many of which are missing altogether). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Could you delete abanic (lower case) as I created it by accident. It was supposed to be capitalized. Thanks Speednat (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

For Christ's sake STOP making unexplained reverts of my good-faith contributions.