User talk:98.170.164.88

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

Todo: see if it's possible to cite Trimount/Trimountain, an archaic name for (part of) Boston, MA

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary! We notice that you're making changes anonymously. Although this is perfectly all right, we'd like to encourage you to take the time to create an account and sign in to it when editing – it's free and easy. A list of good reasons to do so is at Wiktionary:Why create an account?.

Please note that we are not Wikipedia. If you have edited there, then it won't be very difficult for you to find your way here, but there are a number of differences. For example, Wiktionary is case-sensitive: Kind (German) is not the same as kind (English, Danish, Dutch etc.) Also note that Wiktionary uses no parenthetic disambiguation, so where Wikipedia might have separate articles on Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology), Wiktionary will only have one entry on Mercury which addresses proper noun uses, and an entry on mercury which addresses regular noun uses.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Questionable entries will be listed for verification, and, if they fail that process, will be deleted. Also, keep in mind our copyright policies: don't copy material from copyrighted sources here. Such additions will be deleted on sight. Submissions from IP addresses are looked at more closely, unfortunately, so please take a minute to create an account.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question in the appropriate discussion room or ask me on my talk page.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

You're 70. right? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence?[edit]

Y'know, it's crazy! I brought this up to @Surjection and @Chuck Entz just the other day. The latter, and Svartava, actually impeded the page 'Mestizean' from being removed back in June. It's ironic because the former two admins are supposedly committed to upholding Wiktionary's values and yet let an unattested page stand until I reintroduced the topic, pointing out their hypocrisy. Hopefully you're a legitimate user and not just a sock-puppet account for one of the aforementioned. Your request that the term be verified is something that these pharisees have never had the guts to pull-off. — This unsigned comment was added by Wordbookeeper (talk • contribs) at 21:15, 23 October 2022.

Hello! It was not actually a coincidence. I was browsing Special:RecentChanges, saw the thread on Surjection's talk page, and checked out the entry Mestizean since you mentioned it. You were right about the word not being attestable (as far as I can tell from all the sources I've checked). To be fair, Chuck Entz, in his comment here, was right about RfV being a more appropriate procedure than speedy deletion for challenging terms. In practice, some terms that are obviously unattestable are just speedy deleted anyway, but this is usually when terms are obviously wrong or they had just been created. Once a term has been on Wiktionary for a while, the standard is to give it a month to see if anyone comes up with sources. 98.170.164.88 22:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense! I appreciate your clarification.

Thanks for template fixes[edit]

Hey there, just wanted to stop by and leave a note thanking you for your fixes to Template:R:cel:EDPC! It really is appreciated, take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For alerting the block error. MathXplore (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore: Don't mention it! It's the least I could do to help a fellow victim of the misclick. Good job cleaning up vandalism, I've seen you in RecentChanges quite a bit. :) 98.170.164.88 08:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I'm pretty sure you're our favorite IP editor. Why you don't make an account I don't understand, but I don't need to to understand and appreciate your edits. Cheers! Vininn126 (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vininn126: Thank you, I'm glad to be of service! :-) There are a lot of great unregistered editors though. 98.170.164.88 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first cite at dogdoctor was a scanno (actually hyphenated)[edit]

Always check the actual page layout. The Google snippets (etc.) get this wrong frequently. Equinox ◑ 06:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: No, it was right. My mistake was linking to the wrong page. (The reason I linked to the wrong page was because I added &pg=PA12 to the URL, but Google Books has misnumbered the pages for whatever reason. I normally check that, but overlooked it in that case.)
Go to the page 12, it's on paragraph 2, line 13, word 3. Some other editions of the same work have it hyphenated at the line boundary, so it's at least a varia lectio (and is quoted in this spelling here). 98.170.164.88 06:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Not in the version I found. There must be various printings that differ. I imagine the unhyphenated one was a printer's error at some point. Equinox ◑ 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was the version you found also the third edition, dated 1775, as I cited? As for whether it's an error, it's possible, but there are other words like "eyedoctor" that sometimes occur without a space ([2], [3]), and there are even other attested one-word terms for this particular profession (e.g., dogtor). It's probably borderline. Btw I always check the original page layout when available, and generally avoid citing when it's not (except maybe when the reading is crystal clear). 98.170.164.88 07:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't remember the discussion (I am clearing up some ancient "notifications") but good for you. Thanks. Heh. Equinox ◑ 05:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest errors[edit]

Apologies for these - they're the casualties of the sortkey rollback. I suspect part of the issue is simply down to the fact that there's just More Stuff. The errors on the Chinese pages make no sense to me at all, though. Theknightwho (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

RIR WHOIS lookup: America Europe Africa Asia-Pacific Latin America/Caribbean

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.170.164.88&oldid=70421378"