Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:SemperBlotto

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wiktionary itself.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


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

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

How wasEdit

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

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

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

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

AWB applicantEdit

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

dicky birdEdit

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

I think you have an admirerEdit

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


Why did you revert my contribution, the Cambridge dictionary nuance on this is not to your liking? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I thought that it was just repeating our existing definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • They can be both seen as different. “reliable, trustworthy”, is not the same as "safe and certain of success" is it? Also the former is open ended as to what it defines, whereas the latter "is" defined. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • This is very shoddy. You had reverted a perfectly good bolt-on referenced definition of mine, and then you reverted my deletion of a made-up word. All this without explanation, except a glib message putting the onus on me, to defend my edits, which I later did. I note also that when you realised I was correct in the latter case, there was no such word, you then deleted the non existing word, rather than rollbacking it. The nett effect was you increased your edit stat, did not accrue a delete, and wiped out my entire Wiki stat (now logged as deletes, all six in one swoop), making me look like a vandal. I asked for your justification, and got a somewhat glib answer. Then, when I gave you a full and correct justification for my change you ignored me. I also notice from your User page that you take pride in your own stats. It's not within the remit of an Administrator to deal out abrupt treatment to willing editors this way. What are you going to do about this? BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @BeckenhamBear: Please don't take this the wrong way. We're dealing with many shoddy edits in a day, and sometimes good edits get mistakenly reverted as well. SemperBlotto reremoved himself the made-up word not because he wanted to increase his edit stats (or at least I don't think so), but because it was a good edit of yours that he mistakenly undid. Notice that your contributions still appear in the "history" tab; by no means are they wiped out from the system.
      • The "glib message" you're speaking of is automated; we have no way to change it.
      • As for the definition you added, I think it should possibly be readded, but not in the usage notes: it'd be better to make it a third sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Woman as genderEdit

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

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

cathode and anodeEdit

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

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

User Page DeletionEdit

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

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

assimilation (phonology)Edit

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

EWDC #4Edit

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

Equinox 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

Deletion so soonEdit

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

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

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

EWDC #5Edit

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

Equinox 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


Do you know of any sources predating 2012 (or, perhaps better, 2006 to account for the French entry) for this term? That would significantly alleviate my worries about this being a possible citogenesis incident. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • No hits at all on Google ngrams, but there are earlier hits on Google book search - some of which are nothing to do with chemistry. I'll investigate further. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I've added three citations - one for each meaning as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • OK on the first two; unfortunately the third one is from 2016, so it would have been from when the term was up on Wikipedia (in English Wikipedia as an alternative name, in French Wikipedia as the main name). I have had a look and I still can't seem to find any sources using the term in its third meaning before 2012 (except for this single patent from 2010, which, having the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives [sic] as its assignee, may well have been influenced by the French Wikipedia article). Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
        • There are earlier hits on Google books, mostly popular science books about the periodic table. But they don't have full versions of the books to look at and I can't find the actual usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you so much for this reassuring information! Could you at least give me the titles of the books found? I can't find any uses myself of the "carbon group" meaning before 2013 searching for "crystallogen"; I am likely looking in the wrong places. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Just do a Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
              • As you can see from the link immediately above, I did. Every single one of those uses before 2013 uses the term in one of the top two meanings instead. Given this, I am pretty much forced to conclude that there really isn't any support for the term but the citogenesis incident on Wikipedia, given that exactly the same thing happens when I do the search for the French form cristallogène prior to 2013. This of course doesn't mean the meaning should be removed; now that there are actual citations, it's become a real word that merits inclusion. But I wonder if this state of affairs could possibly be mentioned anywhere. Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


Is it really that bad? It was a real AFJ; sorry about the lack of citations. I've actually seen it in a book — can't remember the title, but it was about the accidental creation of a baby universe by colliding uranium nuclei together at RHIC. 08:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry. But our criteria for inclusion says that a word needs three independent citations. I don't think that the April fool word could get those. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

About albanian "Kushtrim"Edit

You reverted my edits and I would like to know why? I added:

  • 1. an example (including translation). Was that a mistake? Was a source needed?
  • 2. It's a fact that "Kushtrim" is a common albanian name. This should not have been removed, imo.
  • However, Kushtrim is name, which HAS the meaning "who's brave"; >> "Kush trim". But it can have the meaning "where we spread (it)" too, bc that's what "Ku shtrim" miterally means. It just depends on HOW you pronounce it and where you decide to "cut" the name/word.
    • KUSH TRIM or
  • If you remove the -m, it could mean "KUSH TRI" = who's three or "KU SHTRI" = "where it lay(s)".
  • However, since it's written together, it goes back to the original meaning: >> command call.
  • In albanian personal names are treated like nouns, because they are nothing but nouns. Thus, there are always indefinite and definite forms of every personal name in albanian. It doesn't matter if names are albanian words or not, suffixes are always attached at the end. Same custom found (for example) in finnic.
  • This means: "Kushtrim" would be the indefinite form. "Kushtrim[i"] = definite > "[the] Kushtrim". The [i] is the masculine definite article. Imagine it as an english "the", but masculine. Like an italian "il", portuguese "o", french "le", german "der", etc. Imagine it as "[the] Kushtrim", "[il] Kushtrim" in italian, french "[le] Kushtrim", germ. "[der] Kushtrim" or "[o] Kushtrim" in portuguese. Now at the end: Kushtrim[the], Kushtrim[il], Kushtrim[der] and Kushtrim[o]. LAGTON (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You edited the entry for kushtrim. The name should be at Kushtrim. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Not only that, but giving it the definition "name (masculine)" is saying that it's an Albanian word for name (like emër or emën), not that it's an Albanian name. We also don't use an "Example" header, the Albanian quote should go first, followed by the English, the quote is longer than it needs to be (everything after"kushtrim" is unnecessary), English apparently doesn't use the phrase "command cry", so it shouldn't be linked to as a phrase, and I'm sure there are other problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • First of all: albanian is not only a language. Albanian represents an own branch. This means two main dialects (tosk+gegë) built one branch, also called "albanian". Tosk/Gegë have severeal subdialects. That's a fact. Also facts: Kushtrim is an albanian word and name. The 'name masculine' - part was wrong. I see. Also true, it's not the word for 'name'. It should be changed to 'masculine name' and an example header should exist, imo.
  • 2nd: Names are nouns. And they are treated like nouns, not only in albanian, but also in germanic languages, etc.
  • {My} [brother] is lazy. (ENGL.)
  • [Kushtrim] is lazy.
  • {Mein} [Bruder] ist faul. (GERM.)
  • [Kushtrim] ist faul.
  • [Vëlla] {im} është dembel. (ALB.)
  • [Kushtrim] është dembel.
  • >> WHO is lazy?
  • Brother/Kushtrim, Bruder/Kushtrim, Vëlla/Kushtrim
  • ■ Note the definite article in albanian, in "brother" and "Kushtrim". You cannot treat albanian like english, bc albanian Vellai is the brother, not just brother. Vëlla[i] [im] është dembel = [The] Brother [of mine] is lazy. >> Would be the correct translation.
  • [Imi] vëlla është dembel. = [My] brother is lazy.
  • why should 'command cry' be incorrect? There's also the alb. word ushtimë (noise). Now tell me german "SchlachtRUF" and "battle CRY" have "nothing" to do with noises. Or german "STIMME" (f. "voice") and "uSHTIMË" (f., "noise/echo") are "not" related...?!

LAGTON (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of Gheg and Tosk: there's no absolute test for the difference between a language and a dialect, so it's hard to say what's a fact and what's an opinion. At the extremes, English is definitely a language, and American English is definitely a dialect, but it's a lot harder to say whether Scots is a language or a dialect. Since I don't speak and haven't studied either Gheg or Tosk, I'm not qualified to say whether they're languages or dialects, but I will note that this has been discussed here, and it was decided to keep them as dialects. You can discuss it at the Beer parlour if you want to request that we reconsider.
As for whether names are proper nouns or common nouns: I wouldn't know. If you look at Category:Albanian given names, though, you'll notice that they all start with a capital letter. We don't mix words that start with a capital letter with those that start with a lowercase letter, so Kushtrim isn't the same as kushtrim, just as hand and Hand are different. You can create an entry for Kushtrim by clicking on the red link, but I would advise looking at other entries in Category:Albanian given names first to see how to format it.
As for the definition: it needs an indefinite article, as in "a name" or "a masculine name". Better yet, use the {{given name}} template and it will take care of that.
As for the "Examples" header: we don't use a separate header. Quotes from sources like books are placed directly under the definition line, but with "#*" at the start of the line instead of "#", and example sentences that aren't quotes start with "#:". See our entry layout page for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 》On the matter of Gheg and Tosk: there's no absolute test for the difference between a language and a dialect, so it's hard to say what's a fact and what's an opinion...《.

>> Wiki quotes: 》Albanian ... is a language of the Indo-European family, in which it occupies an independent branch. ... The two main dialects of Albanian are Gheg and Tosk.《 - You cannot compare american english with Tosk, Gegë. English is not an independent branch.

  • ■ Indo-European:

[Germanic] - Albanian - Armenian - etc.

    • [West Germanic]
      • [Anglo-Frisian]
        • [Anglic]
          • [English] No disrespect, I adore english. But note that for example your sisterlanguage icelandic built their definite articles like albanians, romanians, bulgarian, etc. We add them at the end. English speakers, germans, dutch, etc. put them in the front of the noun. In icelandic personal names have also declensions and suffixes.
  • However, "[Q]elb" Tosk, "[K]elb" Gegë (= "pus") / "[Q]esh" Tosk, "[K]esh", Gegë (= "laugh"). Kinda satem/centum, don't you think? You could (probably) compare tosk and gegë with swiss-german and high-german. Grammar: high-german is more advanced. That's why they teach high-german at school. Swiss-germ: [CH]ue, high-ger: [K]uh, [Ch]ind / [K]ind. However, in albania they learn the tosk dialect. Gegë preserved more than tosk dialect. Also, Gegë/Tosk grammar is not even identical.
  • 》...Since I don't speak and haven't studied either Gheg or Tosk...《... hold on ... but qualified enough to claim "kushtrim" is from "ushtrim"? Alllright then: "Bob" must be from "o.b." (tampon). And the B- used as a prefix; bc it sounds "better", right? LAGTON (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access when blocking usersEdit

I found you tend to revoke talk page access preemptively when blocking a user. What's the purpose of doing this? This's not a common practice in other Wikimedia projects (see w:Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Setting_block_options: "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page".)--Zcreator alt (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, I find it saves further bother. I hadn't seen Wikipedia's policy. I'll refrain from now on.SemperBlotto (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you should restore talk page accesses of all users you formerly blocked (probably need a bot).--Zcreator alt (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Chemical terms in taxonomic entriesEdit

Over the years have neglected to link taxonomic plant name entries to the chemical names that are derived from them. That is despite the fact that you have frequently shown the connection between chemicals and the plants in which they were originally discovered. Would you find it useful to you for me to place such names in a category if they would be redlinks. I would use {{vern}} with a named parameter, eg, "chem=1". I could also use {{attn|topic=chemistry}} if you find that adequate. DCDuring (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey. I think you screwed up the pt. --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Why did you delete this Hebrew letter? If I can know thanks. Gioielli (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • You defined it using Norwegian templates - so it made no sense at all. See the contents of Category:Hebrew letters for how to format such letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, we don't create entries for Hebrew letters with vocalization, so please don't recreate it. --WikiTiki89 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I understood, thanks. If I have doubts I will tell you! Gioielli (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "SemperBlotto".