Disputatio Usoris:Pantocrator

Salve, Pantocrator!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Ops nexusque usoribus novis ( ca, de, en, es, ia, it, ru, ro, no, tl, eo)
De orthographia ( ca, en, es, tl)
Enchiridion interpretis (Anglice scriptum)
Taberna
Lexica Neolatina
Lexica Latina interretialia
Fontes nominum Latinorum ( ca)
Fontes nominum geographicorum
Index formularum

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!--Rafaelgarcia 23:08, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude what you did with Leonhardus Eulerus. Please not here! It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Rafaelgarcia 23:09, 29 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I post it somewhere? That's quite a bit of work, you know. Pantocrator 01:50, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guglium

Regarding your edit at guglium, there is no reason why such latinisation should exist, and we cannot simply make up latinisations: VP:NF. Secondly, why did you remove the {{non stipula}} if you did not add neither categories nor iw links?--Xave ri us 10:12, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me explain. First, I've never learned how categories and interwiki work; sorry. I guess I'll try to do it if I create or expand any pages in the future.

Second, we do make up latinisations, like Gurges ater and many other astronomical pages. True, those are translations of English phrases, but is latinising a made-up English word any different? Both for Gurges ater and guglium, we are discussing something that's never been used in Latin before.

Third, I don't care if you delete the page, really. It just seems strange that we can have Google but not the word that inspired it. It's true that googol isn't normally used seriously in any language, but one can see by the interwikis how many other languages have similarly adopted it.

Finally, I only came here because of my Euler thing. I don't really read Latin yet, so maybe I don't belong. Pantocrator 17:43, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your second issue, translating into Latin is not the same as latinising a word which has no translation. On your final two, you are most welcome to stay, but I would have reckoned that someone who can make such a large edit in a page would know about how wikipedia works.--Xave ri us 21:52, 1 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio Usoris:189.192.96.194

That was over the top. There's no need to be rude at anonymous users, when simple warning could be enough. If that don't work, there are several other ways to do things.--Xave ri us 23:07, 2 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De Taxo

Usor Bking2280 male delevit formulas quas Iacobus noster addidit. De deletione paginae scripsi apud disputationis ipsae.--Xave ri us 21:27, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video. Solutio hac rerum inueni, suppono. Pantocrator 01:03, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valentia

I reverted your move to Valentia (urbs): I think it needs discussion, as I explained at Disputatio:Valentia.

Thanks anyway for starting the discretiva page. Whenever adding a discretiva page (e.g. xxxx), please add the formula {{Videdis|xxxx}} to existing pages on which it is relevant. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemia

You broke a lot of links at chemia. If you break them could you please fix them. Use the movere command. We are a small wiki which requires that we earnestly try to clean our own messes.Gratias.--Rafaelgarcia 17:54, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Fixed. Pantocrator 01:41, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.--Rafaelgarcia 01:57, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

emails

Hey Pantocrator, I have sent you two emails over the past several days, have you received them? Thanks! --Ioscius^∞ 12:42, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten just one, that starts with "I'd like to take a step back and apologize ..." - if there is another one, you should probably try to send it again.

I accept your apology and hope that you don't still have anger over it. As far as my Latin skill, yes I plead ignorant. When I came here, I knew hardly more than needed to write my Euler index (by the way, is there any way to get it to display properly in wiki?). I'm trying to learn, though. It seems that talking in Latin (I mean, in disputationes) would not help me learn the language, as no one will point out my grammatical mistakes (in articles, I can see what gets corrected although not necessarily why).

However, though I had never put any serious effort into learning the language, I already was convinced that to make Latin useful, it had to be continued as it was the last time it was the international language, that is the 17-19c. Neither classical purism nor treating Latin as a semi-conlang game will help promote Latin usage; and why else do we spend time writing about modern subjects in Latin? Thus it needs to be emphasised the Latin was a real language of communication until not long ago and that we continue that use. Pantocrator 01:05, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had rather discussed things on email, but as I got no response from you, I guess you prefer to discuss things here. I thought email would have given a little more privacy. I will wait until the end of today to hear a response from you by email, otherwise I will respond to your comments/replies here on your talk page. Thanks! --Ioscius^∞ 07:36, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euler index

I just noticed your query above about this. As regards placing it on a page, I don't see why you shouldn't put it on a new page in your userspace, Usor:Pantocrator/Index in Eulerum (or some such name).

As to the format, wiki does not respond as expected to leading spaces on a line. There may be various ways round this, but one way would be to use a word-processor to replace those leading spaces with : :: etc. and then re-load the material to a new page as suggested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching my error with Themisto. I needed to glance at the original version of the page, but then I stupidly edited and saved it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morehu

You may be right, but this is a seriously good contributor so I have started a disputatio rather than delete offhand.

I didn't say this on that page, but the argument "doesn't exist on English" often doesn't persuade. Just like the other language wikis, we have many articles that don't have equivalents on en:wiki. There are currently 758 at Categoria:Nexus usque adhuc absunt, and there are still hundreds of others which we share with other wikipedias but don't happen to be on en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I knew it was an established editor, I too would have been more cautious: I just saw it was an IP. While "doesn't exist on English" is not itself a reason to delete, the fact that en:wiki covers such a wide range means that a page not existing there and not obviously of merit is likely to be (in my opinion) a vanity page at best. Pantocrator 14:02, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a stub, so it may disappear (semiautomatically) in a few days anyway. IacobusAmor 13:17, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting at Bonaparte (familia)

UV is the most knowledgeable and helpful editor we have as regards wikiformatting and the interface generally, so, if you disagree with him over some change, it would be as well to discuss it with him, not simply revert. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but this change was of so little consequence it was not worth it. His edit produced no visible changes other than to make the indentation of one name incorrect. Pantocrator 14:30, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what Andrew means is that while it wasn't worth it to you to discuss it, it obviously was worth it to UV to make the changes. Given that he is "the most knowledgeable and helpful editor we have as regards wikiformatting and the interface generally", perhaps he had a good reason that just didn't occur to you? I for instance would assume that UV has a good reason for everything he does, because he doesn't do anything without a good reason. --Ioscius^∞ 14:43, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Warning

You've deleted the warning placed here by a magistratus, but you did not even gave a reply. I'ts too late to check if that even is allowed or not, so I'll just say it. In the comment you added on the Taberna you avoided that very point too. Simply saying that you have read it (and then deleting the whole warning) does not mean that you will at least consider what it has been said to you. Please, consider what we warned you about.--Xave ri us 01:55, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you really think that the Yogyakarta Principles do not belong here or that they are crap, well, I take that as a personal offence indeed. If you really think that, then certainly I do not want to belong to a project in which people of your sort can be found.--Xave ri us 02:00, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with them being here, but not in that article. I admit my comment was a bit strong, but she does seem to be a 'single-purpose account'. I'm also not sure why you'd consider it a 'personal offence'; I try hard to comment on content, not on the person. Pantocrator 02:08, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to avoid the point of civility, I just don't know what more to say on it. Pantocrator 02:06, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because of the nature of the rights declared in those Principles, being gay myself, I think they are more than necessary. On LilyKitty, there is no problem with single-purposes accounts. Our wiki is rather small, and all contributions are welcome. Nuada seems only to write about Italian villages, and I do not see how that could be possibly bad for our wiki. Maybe her Latin is not perfect, but not too many people around here can say theirs is.

On civility, a simple reply, two or three lines saying actually that you read it and that you understand the importance of it, is enough for me, and it would show your good will towards the project. --Xave ri us 09:55, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Xavierus implies, there's nothing wrong, and everything right, with having an article solely dedicated to such a topic; attempts to promote human rights are generally a good idea, but even attempts to do the opposite must be recognized by a reference work whose domain is all of reality (so notions of crappiness are irrelevant here); and people are free to write about whatever they want. IacobusAmor 13:10, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add a comment about the edit summary linked above. I hadn't seen it before and I, too, consider it highly offensive. Your beliefs about what is "crap" you must either keep to yourself or argue in other, politer, terms. We need to know that you recognise the need for civility. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I don't see how good-faith efforts made in opposition to "Extra-judicial killing, torture and ill-treatment, sexual assault and rape, invasion of privacy, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, [and] denial of employment and education opportunities" (from The Yogyakarta Principles) can be "crap." However, there's no obvious reason that someone reading an article on Spinoza's book should be invited to read about the Yogyakartae Principia. Maybe LilyKitty could explain the proposed connection? IacobusAmor 13:51, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, Iacobe; and maybe that's what Pantocrator meant to say. But he didn't actually say it; instead, he said something offensive. Let's keep to the point. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De obscaenitate

Dear Pantocrator, Before your move is undone - Why did you move Latina obscaena? The page and all its iw links refer percisely to Latin swear-words, not general obscenities. There is a need, I reckon, to keep the old name, because obscaenum ("the obscene") does not really show what the article is about. The very same article specifies that it is a list of Latin obscenities. Further more, "obscaenum" is an adjective - the noun referring to the quality of obscene woulb be obscaenitas, which you have turned into a redirect. --Xave ri us 15:49, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you happen to have mis-spelt it; it should be obscaenum, not obscenum.--Xave ri us 15:50, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the interwikis on the page are to pages on obscene latin not to pages on obscenity per se.Bad move IMHO--Rafaelgarcia 23:49, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is about "obscene Latin words," not about "obscenity." IacobusAmor 02:24, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright; the article is confined to Latin profanity. Nonetheless we should eventually have an article on obscenity in general. Pantocrator 12:17, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. IacobusAmor 12:47, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed all round! But before we move it back, is "Latina obscena" ideal? The meaning and grammar seem unclear until one reads the lemma "(sc. verba)". We want a real noun in that title, surely. Would "Latinitas obscena" or "Verba Latina obscena" be better? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verba Latina obscena sounds better to me. Obscenitates in lingua Latina may not be good enough. --Xave ri us 13:07, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of J. N. Adams's famous book, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, might be relevant, though sex doesn't cover all concepts usually considered "obscene." IacobusAmor 13:24, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, obscenum is the correct spelling, or at least a correct spelling. OLD and L&S make their lemmata obscen-. Pantocrator 12:17, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Cassell's—which, for unprefixed forms, prefers scaen-. Go figure. IacobusAmor 12:47, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see - obscaenum may well be too theatrical, off-the-scene--Xave ri us 13:07, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What unprefixed forms? The derivation of obscenus is not known. Pantocrator 22:37, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason for the wavering spelling. Some thought the word was connected with caenum; others didn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:02, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De igne

On the same line as before, are you sure that links to the other three elements are not needed in ignis?--Xave ri us 15:52, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put them into a new article. There's no reason people reading about 'fire' need to know about an obsolete scientific theory. Pantocrator 12:18, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immo potius, there's every reason for a reference work to provide such information to them, but the deletion challenged here may be OK because the text of the article already has a link to Elementa alchemica, so no extra nudging via "Vide etiam" may be needed. IacobusAmor 12:55, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Links under vide etiam ought (I think) to be kept to a minimum, and their relevance fairly obvious. That wasn't the case here. In a fully-written page Ignis one might well include the links in the text of a paragraph about the place of fire among the alchemical elements: that way, their relevance would be explained. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whitaker's

For the most part, Whitaker's (as has been noted countless times) is rather useless except in moments of extreme laziness or last minute panic (with both of these things I have ample experience and therefore have ample experience using Whitaker's in which I have learned these things). Using a real dictionary shows that there was never a consensus needing to be reached about the gender of canalis, as it gives the gender m, and says in very rare instances you see f. L&S don't even mention Whitaker's n, which even he admits is very rare. --Ioscius ^∞ 20:11, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point, of course, has nothing to do with canalis and everything to do with the importance of using real dictionaries. --Ioscius ^∞ 20:12, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly

Pantocrator, I blocked you and the anonym for a couple of hours. Sorry, but you both contributed to the crossing of the impoliteness threshold.

Think hard before replacing existing text. Your Latin study hasn't yet enabled you to write a grammatical sentence. When it's something new, well, OK: you're not the only Wikipedian who can't write the target language. But when you're replacing something that's weak-but-grammatical with something that isn't, you're likely to be wasting time (yours and others'). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:00, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

block

Was probably more for the combination of edit summaries here: awful and here: bullshit than the edit war. Your disregard for civility has been mentioned in the past and read and deleted. Do not therefore act surprised.

Please do not flatter yourself with conspiracy theories. I have spent the better part of my day learning Devanagari and Sanskrit well enough to write 3 sentences and writing 2 essays in Slovene on the history of Karantanija and the Turkish push into Bohinj that were due last Wednesday. The good Dr. Dalby doubtless has been writing a book, finishing a paper for lecture, and getting work done around here. I assure you neither of us have the time to conspire against you.

--Ioscius ^∞ 00:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you guess? Or perhaps you read my note on Xaverius's talk page? It's true, anyway: paper on King Solomon's luxuries to be presented (in French) next Saturday. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:25, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin praenomen, vernacular nomen!

Hi!

If you view the guidelines, they make a difference between first names and surnames: First names should always be latinised, when there exists an actual Latin form of the name (which is ordinarily does for traditional European names); but surnames should only be latinised, when this latinisation is attested in writing. Thus, in Albrecht Dürer, the first name should absolutely be rendered "Albertus"; but Dürer should remain, unless there is e.g. an attested form "Durerus". Is there such a form? Georgius B 02:23, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (Google it). But I left it as I found it. Pantocrator 02:25, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you just added a redirect... Stupid me.

B.t.w., I hope you noted the existence of extensive and officially approved lists for translations into Latin first names, before you make more efforts of your own list. A merge might be more efficient, doesn't it? (See my latest comments at the taberna!) Georgius B 02:35, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoevsky and his friends

Among all your moves today, this one might come back to bite you. There has been discussion about how to render Russian (Cyrillic alphabet) names into Latin, but I'm not sure whether a consensus was attained. In that context, -ij is not impossible. Wait and see ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moving a user

Please do not do this again. I understand this guy was being a jerk to you, but just wait till morning for an administrator and he will be blocked in due time.--Ioscius ^∞ 06:55, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can additionally use the template {{IP vandalica}} to mark the user talk page of a user who clearly needs blocking (I guess this doesn't really apply exactly to someone who is being rude, but it does apply to the user you spotted last night). To make sure it's noticed, add this template on the user talk page and write "Vandal" or something similar in the summarium. The next admin who comes along will then react. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I and II

It's worth remembering that there are two Latin words for "second", secundus and alter. Alter means the second of a total of two. So some optimists will argue that the Second World War was Bellum Orbis Terrarum Alterum. Maybe you're a pessimist ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I hope there's not another, but it is an open-ended series, not a pair. Pantocrator 23:39, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Andrew is saying. Right now it's a pair. Hopefully it will always be.--Ioscius ^∞ 06:58, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add this isn't the biggest deal in the world, but it does seem to speak, as Andrew suggested to optimism/pessimism. Either you consider it a closed set or an open set. Should there be a third, yes, alter would have to be changed to secundus. But we forget that for a number of years there was no reason to call it the first world war either. Books had to be changed after the second one. --Ioscius ^∞ 07:12, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

roman numerals

Thanks for fixing all those. That's a tedious job. --Ioscius ^∞ 00:44, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Delenda

I'm not sure what you intended here. Redirections in category space aren't really allowed for in the architecture. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:14, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just wanted to create an alternate name. I guess that doesn't work. Pantocrator 21:54, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing Lobia massonica back to life. "Conventiculum" sounds good to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to change the name. Every other language uses a cognate to 'lodge', which in Latin is lobia. Pantocrator 21:54, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English interwiki

One thing I noticed in a lot of your pages is the absence of a link to the English page. Likewise the English page lacks a link to the Latin sometimes (less frequently). Would you mind adding that in the future? Thanks. --Ioscius ^∞ 21:54, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always added such links if the English page exists. Pantocrator 22:51, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were that true, I wouldn't have asked. I'm assuming you want en:Sea level, yeah? --Ioscius ^∞ 23:37, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's already there! Pantocrator 23:40, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is! In the wrong place, of course, which is why I didn't find it. Do you usually leave it at the top of the interwiki links, or put it in its proper alphabetical spot?--Ioscius ^∞ 23:48, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biting vandals

Dear Pantocrator. I've just noticed this: http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specialis:Paginam_restituere&target=Disputatio_Usoris%3AHomer.erat.hic If you want to flag a vandal, there are many ways to do so: as you did before posting it in the taberna, or you can use the {{IP vandalica}} template. However, you should never be rude at them, even if they are vandalising. Going down to their level does not make you better, and if vandals are to be punished, it is a magistratus who should do it, not you. We've told you before about being polite, and that includes all users of the wiki (even vandals).--Xave ri us 14:42, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the vocative of cinaedus is cinaede (nor is the rest of your insult grammatical). He's right though, you were blocked for that before, and it's probably a good thing Xavi is such a nice guy that it didn't happen again. --Ioscius ^∞ 17:22, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And cleverer the poniard than the bludgeon, as with Housman's insults; e.g.:

Three minutes' thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.

My heart always warms to people who do not come to see me, especially Americans, to whom it seems to be more of an effort.

Nature, not content with denying to Mr —— the faculty of thought, has endowed him with the faculty of writing.

Auden spoke of Housman's writing "savage foot-notes on unjust editions." IacobusAmor 17:50, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real names

Something that ocurred to me when I looked at the Alistairs. In this case, you were moving directly from a real name to a Vicipaedia name. Our pages should, somewhere, mention the subject's real name: if we don't do that we are failing in one of the obvious tasks of an encyclopedia. I know we have some pages that don't do this, but they are worse pages because of it.

So, when you make a move of that kind and adjust the first sentence of the article, instead of just changing the lemma from Alistair Darling to Alexander Darling, it would be better to continue to include the real name. Some do it by saying "Alexander (vulgo Alistair) Darling"; some prefer "Alexander Darling (vulgo Alistair Darling)"; there are other variants too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I tried to do that at the start and must have just forgotten. Pantocrator 18:17, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking moves as minor

Have a look at the comment at Henricus Sneevliet. I notice you marked the move as "minor". This isn't a good idea, because it means that people interested in the page are less likely to notice the change. You want them to notice, because, if there is going to be discussion, it should be sorted out early. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been a mistake; I don't mark moves minor. Pantocrator 18:17, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, of course. An easy mistake to make. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:45, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on others' work

I deleted part of your note to Nuada: I took it as schoolkid humour, which doesn't translate. Your note to Lionharde takes a big risk, considering you haven't yet shown you can write grammatical Latin. Yet your note to 93.150.89.221 yesterday was polite and appropriate. Follow that pattern! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:59, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that nonetheless my specific criticisms of Lionhard's Latin were correct, weren't they? Admittedly I'm not absolutely sure about formare, but his use looked awful and as obvious Anglicism. Pantocrator 18:17, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's a bit childish and laughable to remind someone else to attende grammaticam when you can't write a sentence, yeah? The arrogance is the problem. --Ioscius ^∞ 07:17, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Dear Pantocrator. As you once reminded in a very unfriendly manner to an anonymous user, I would like you to remind you that you could remember that glaciarium is neutre, thus its plural is -a, and the same applies to the adjective that may be with it (v.g. continentalis m.sg. >> continentale n.sg. >> continentalia n.pl.). Likewise, de is a preposition whith indicates topic ("about"), not possesion or belonging. For that purpuse, use the genitive. Cf. here. --Xave ri us 19:00, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd understood what I was saying, you would know the genitive is nonsense there. I meant 'came down to', 'came of' means nothing. Pantocrator 19:07, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could make sense: "the glaciers of New York, England and Germany arrived".--Xave ri us 19:11, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's approximately the only grammatical reading: Glaciaria continentalia Novi Eboraci, Angliae, et Germaniae veniebant = 'The continental glaciaries of New York, England, and Germany were coming'. IacobusAmor 19:23, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'de' in that case is nonsense too, as it means the opposite of "down to": it means down from, so failure to understand what you were saying would be understandable. —Mucius Tever 02:47, 11 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

big moves

...like you made in the Taberna (tabularium) should probably be left to an admin. As you see, Amphitrite had to come along and clean up after you anyway. --Ioscius ^∞ 06:54, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I have to clean up, too. index tabulariis isn't really grammatical. Are you thinking "index to the archives" in English?
Wouldn't it just be easier to suggest archiving instead of wasting two people's time fixing your hasty maneuvers? Of course this is the story of your tenure here.--Ioscius ^∞ 07:15, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

since you thought to give advice to Jacob ...

... on the use of {{dubsig}}, I thought I'd give you some: In Latin, and in English, you use "clearly", "indeed", and "of course" altogether too often, especially in cases where it is neither of the three. --Ioscius ^∞ 01:01, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do. However I am not sure what prompted this 'advice' and I wish you would explain straightforwardly. In any case this is only an issue of language style. Pantocrator 01:19, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De alkali

Be patient, my friend, be patient. I was composing a reply when I saw your message. See now Disputatio:Alkali. Vale, --Fabullus 10:11, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional names

That other issue having been put aside for now—for your reference, the discussion on institutional names that we misplaced is at the subpage of VP:TNP talk Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis/en. Vale. —Mucius Tever 04:26, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you came to no conclusion there, apparently. I notice a trend: you will not put down your standards in writings. It would deny your ability to beat up on people like me. Pantocrator 10:19, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pantocrator, what's the need for that? It was completely unnecessary to say it! You are shown the place where you can continue the discussion you so much like, and then yet you come with you will not put down your standards in writings. It would deny your ability to beat up on people like me??--Xave ri us 10:35, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, I think, not to continue. Stop trying to win arguments, PC! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Myces is one of the smartest people I've read online, and has always been gracious with any question I've ever had. If it seems like he's beating up on you, maybe you should check your own actions.--Ioscius ^∞ 14:30, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gender

Please see your words here: [1]

Then see this: [2]

--Ioscius ^∞ 10:47, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I blocked you for one day, for deleting the text of Particula elementaria without explanation. Feel free to explain now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not appropriate to block any regular contributor for a good-faith edit. The obvious reason in that case was that the page had almost no information and a reader would be better served by a redirect to the physica page. Now it has been improved. If you are interested in a usable encyclopedia, then that's a good thing that I accomplished. Pantocrator 03:38, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just started Monasterium Pantocratoris. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're trying to poke fun at my username. Admittedly I should have chosen a better one. Nonetheless my claim stands. Pantocrator 05:27, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, your claim to be ruler of all things? I dispute it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unrelated, but flaming and trolling of this sort [3] will see you a longer block in the future. Collective patience for your uncooperative attitude and tone has worn threadbare. --Ioscius ^∞ 11:36, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that articles should be edited (except for correction of typos etc.) by people with some knowledge of the subject matter and how the article is dealing with it. My comment was not directly personally at Andrew Dalby. Pantocrator 05:27, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was provocative and inflammatory as per your norm and it will not be tolerated again. I, for one, am done with long drawn out arguments. Simply: keep acting like a troll, keep flaming, and you will be blocked. Nothing more, nothing less. Act politely like you were asked months ago, or hit the road. --Ioscius ^∞ 13:28, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amygdala

Hi, Pantocrator. I'm sure you were right to put something at "Amygdala"; I changed it from a redirect to a discretiva after looking at the incoming links. All of them (I think: nearly all, anyway) are for the fruit/nut, not for the anatomical feature. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Cazachica

I just noticed, when you moved the page, you also changed the spelling of the category name. I suspect it was just a slip, and I don't really need to say this, but please avoid doing that -- however much the category name needs changing -- because, until it's been changed, the page is effectively lost to those who use categories to find pages. Instead, please point out the need for change on a disputatio page. Thanks, Pantocrator! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:23, 13 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Pantocrator! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Disp.) 21:53, 16 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]