User talk:Barbara Shack

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Please be sure to read our Criteria for Inclusion, Knowing what is permitted will help avoid deletion.


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Versageek 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

external links[edit]

Hi, I've removed external links to commercial sites from a few entries. Sometimes those are acceptable in the 'pedia if in context, but essentially never here. thanks! Robert Ullmann 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


I think you mean "Synonyms" --EncycloPetey 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


You requested verification of "Contemptable person" as a meaning of "Pig-dog". I gave this link. Barbara Shack 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, yes. But the entry needs three, durably archived, independent quotations to meet CFI. A single unattributed quotation from a Monty Python movie is not enough to merit inclusion in this dictionary. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Hiya Babs, please bear in mind that unlike Wikipedia we do not capitalise page entries – unless (like German nouns, or proper nouns in English) they are usually spelled with a capital letter. So Teetotalism should be at teetotalism. Thanks. Widsith 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


We don't trust Wikipedia blindly. In this case, Semper has asked whether three durably archived uses of this spelling can be found. I have always seen this word spelled pidgin, not pigin. The latter could be a misspelling, which I have found happens in Wikipedia article titles from time to time. If it turns out that pigin is a widely accepted spelling, the entry will stay with a note that pidgin is an alternative spelling. If pigin is a common misspelling, then the entry will be modified to say so. If it is an uncommon misspelling, then the entry will be deleted and Wikipedia notified of the rror on their part. All this hinges on finding quotations from books or periodicals that demonstrate use of the spelling in question. --EncycloPetey 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Also, I note that you removed God! as a synonym for the expletive Jesus! I have put it back because this usage has nothing to do with belief in Christianity; it is a swear usage which even atheists I know will use. --EncycloPetey 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making it clear that this is the expletive usage. It wasn't clear when I edited it. Here's s the version just before my edit. Barbara Shack 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be difficult to tell sometimes. Do you edit with Tables of Contents truned on? If so, they can help for cases like this. I didn't notice it right away either, but in the TOC it's easy to see that the Synonyms section is indented under the Interjection header, so the synonyms go with those definitions. There should be a clarifying remark before each list of synonyms, but editors don't always put those in. --EncycloPetey 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

off licence[edit]

Just so you know, Wiktionary doesn't use redirects for alternative spellings like this; instead, we use {{alternative spelling of}}. —RuakhTALK 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I reverted you. The perfect tense is drank; drunk is the past participle - and it's already on the page. Widsith 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Are you sure that incertus is English? —RuakhTALK 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Once again can I remind you that words in Wiktionary are entered in lowercase, unless they are proper nouns. I have moved Homeschooling to homeschooling. Widsith 13:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Is there a reason you refuse to follow Wiktionary format for entries like homeschoolings and Afro-Caribbeans? —RuakhTALK 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create the entry for a word like, say, Africans, your best bet is to go to the edit page, notice the bullet point that says, "If unsure, you can use the preload templates to help you get started", and click the link therein. Then, click the button that says "Plural". This will return you to the edit-page, but with the edit-box pre-filled-in. All you'll need to do at that point is replace {{{1}}} with the singular form of the word (in that case African), and click the "Save page" button. —RuakhTALK 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article for cocksucker[edit]


I have reverted your edits to this article. They did not appear to be adding to the definition of the term or explaining its use. In fact, they appeared (despite the vulgar nature of the term) to be vandalism. It's possible that you were attempting to add a quotation; if so, please see WT:QUOTE for formatting suggestions. --Jeffqyzt 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that you included a link. However, I didn't notice that at the time, as it didn't follow the formatting guidelines specified in WT:QUOTE. If you would like to re-add that quote, (or perhaps a more abbreviated snippet of it) please do so using those guidelines.
Also, in the future, please respond to users' discussion (talk) pages, rather than directly on their user pages. Many regard modifications of their user pages by others as impolite, to say the least. In addition, responding on the discussion page ensures that the user receives notification that they have been left a comment (in this case, I didn't notice you had responded for several days.) --Jeffqyzt 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Please do not link articles to outside discussion boards and call them "references". That's not what the References section is for. If you quote a source, then use the quotations format and cite the source. Do not silently copy quotations. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The source of a quotation is given along with the quotation itself. You can see some examples at the entry for parrot. Examples showing format for citing quotes from an on-line source may be seen at strikesthrough/Citations. --EncycloPetey 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Related terms[edit]

Words in this section are related to the word being described, not the concept. So fatten is related to fattening but cream cake isn't. SemperBlotto 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Related concepts are not linked; terms with lexical relationships are. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Various bad edits[edit]

Please take some time to read the links given in the "welcome" message above. Most people "get it" after a while, but you don't seem to be making progress. I think I'm the 9th sysop to complain here on your talk page. Example sentences never contain "wikified" terms. Please also take greater care not to enter redundant definitions. Please make a concerted effort to not enter circular definitions. your recent edit to cafeteria added nothing usable. --Connel MacKenzie 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, links to blogs are never acceptable citations; they are not durably archived. --Connel MacKenzie 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. Capitalization matters a lot here, unlike at Wikipedia. Please remember that links will be red if you spell them with capital letters and the article is lower case, as you did at sock. You also seem to have been using the heading "related terms"; please use "Related terms," as there are no subject headings that should start with a lower case letter. Also, context tags like {{Internet}} always go at the beginning of a line. Your quotes are also inadequate. Please take a look at WT:QUOTE and redo them. They should be properly cited to preferably a well-known print source (try, and please don't use a Wikipedia page as a citation. Sorry if this seems harsh, but almost every one of your recent edits seems to have inserted simple errors, including a spelling mistake in sock. Dmcdevit·t 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

I see back in 07 someone mentioned this, but I'll remind you (based on your edit to bend the truth). The 'Related terms' section is for words that share common roots, in the way that "bake" and "baker" are related. Other places for words with similar meanings include 'Synonyms' and 'See also', but not related terms.

Also, about your user page's "suggested modification of Wiktionary policy on vandalism" — we're not Wikipedia. We don't play that shit. :p I personally only ban users with accounts if their edits are very obviously vandalistic. Anonymous (IP) users are much more at risk with me. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances of your viagra ban (personally, I rather enjoyed the example sentence you gave, I would've left it alone, and perhaps even remarked on it here on your talk page). At any rate, I think 5 vandal-edits for a short ban is far too lenient, for anons and registered users alike. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

blocking policy[edit]

Hi, Barbara. From your user page I noticed that you were not content with our old blocking policy. Recently a new blocking policy has been indorsed. Hopefully it will encourage you to proceed with your activity here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)