The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Is it Wiktionary's goal to include neologistic uses that are only used in online hobbyist communities? If so, please reject this request. (See  for what brought me here; Daniel Case is attempting to get "major dictionary publishers" to use the neologisms so they can be used in Wikipedia articles.) --NE2 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relevant quote:
- I'm going to live with "concurrency" for now while I write letters to the major dictionary publishers urging them to include this meaning. (I've already made the appropriate wiktionary edits to multiplex, duplex and triplex, but since we don't consider Wiktionary acceptable as a source for non-neologism status (although it would pass its criteria for inclusion), it won't have any affect. Still, lexicographical reform has to start somewhere. [...] Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Admitted neologism by contributor. RfV failed. I'm removing the senses. If someone comes back with the appropriate print citations we can reconsider, but these are just wikipedia neologisms being pushed. (I don't believe the "roadgeek common usage" any more than I believe Eddie's friends... ;-) Only google seem to be wikipedia. I added a note to user's talk page to come back with print citations spanning two years; I think it will be a while. Anyone think this is too abrupt? Robert Ullmann 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting that wiktionary isn't "acceptable as a source for non-neologism status". Clearly someone thinks we should be doing better? Robert Ullmann 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
They are well-used on Usenet; is that suitable, or is print required? --NE2 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- In practice three Usenet cites are too sketchy to count for attestation, even from writers who use their full names. A citation in print or even an additional reference as mention in print would help round out the case. DAVilla 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)