User talk:Pass a Method

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Following around

No, I just check the Recent Changes very often. Not sure what I was thinking with that marriage change. I didn't read something properly. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

person, penis

What was that about? - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In UK law, thee is a passgae that says "his person" which refers to his penis. Check the 11th paragraph here Pass a Method (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Here's my overall explanation for reverts: disruptive editing. Specifically, you have made edits like person-->penis, which needs to be cited (3 durably archived citations [that means anything printed and Google Groups] spanning over a year). Without citations, it is very reasonable to delete an entry which only says "penis" for its definition. Moreover, you have deleted tags like {{context|US}} which provide valuable information about word usage. Your deletion of the tag for vulgarity is an opinion on the word; keeping the tag makes categrization more effective on Wiktionary. Finally, as far as I can tell, cameltoe refers not to visibility (which is how visible something is), but to the presence of visibility (but I'm willing to be corrected on this one). If anything is unclear to you, just ask. I'm not trying to bite your head off or anything, but we have very specific requirements here. By the way, if you just stop deleting tags and make sure to cite your definitions, you should be fine, and you have made good contributions. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

antisexualist, genophobe

I don't think these are synonyms. From Google Books, erotophobe/genophobe is one who fears sex. Antisexualist is a prudish person who wants to forbid sex. Something like that? Equinox ◑ 13:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition of synonym can be " nearly the same meaning". In that context i think they are synonymous. Pass a Method (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, exhibitionists are people who do it for thrills, while nudists and naturists do it as a lifestyle, not to shock or amaze. Please be careful with synonyms: they need to be accurate (same meaning). Equinox ◑ 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms dont have to mean exactly the same thing. They can be loosely similar. Pass a Method (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

They need to have the same implications, e.g. someone who flashes for sexy fun isn't interchangeable with someone who quietly prefers to live naked. We must not confuse readers this way. Dogs resemble foxes but they are no synonym. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not use the "See also" header? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition of synonym is "nearly" the same. I thnk that applies in this case. Maybe we need input from other editors? Pass a Method (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put up a Tea Room discussion. The actual purpose of synonyms is usually to allow the writer to choose another word, without changing the basic sense of the sentence. The "synonyms" you've been adding would radically change their meaning. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Equinox, these words are not synonymous, and should be in ===See also=== sections, not ====Synonyms==== sections. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Equinox and -sche. Pass a Method is right that a synonyms-list can include near-synonyms, but in the cases listed here, I think the similarity of meaning is too remote. As Equinox says, the main criterion is whether one can generally be substituted for the other without affecting semantic meaning. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

cheat

"Cheat" is often used of boyfriends, girlfriends. Need not be a spouse. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would call a boyfriend or a girlfriend a spouse, just not in the legal sense. —CodeCat 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoah

These are not separate senses of man, girl etc. The whole point of "self-identifying as a man" is precisely that you identify as one of the existing sense of man, not as a new sense. Ƿidsiþ 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but we need a definition on gender identity though right? There are many such definitions avaiable in reliable sources on request. Pass a Method (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical

Not a gloss we use. Seems like putting "((green))" on leaf and tree. Not contextual or lexicographically relevant. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

hypothetical

Because we only define words. That sort of information is extraneous to the definition. For example, when a committed Christian says "I believe in God" they're not talking about a hypothetical being, for them, he is real. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So I suppose for accuracy it should be {{context|hypothetical|_|or|_|not}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about using (mythology) instead? Pass a Method (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

{{hypothetical}} would be a tag of very broad application, covering elementary particles, abstract nouns that name theories, and many other items, even proverbs (Does "a stitch in time save nine" really?) The ideology of science would make all testable scientific propositions essentially hypothetical, always subject to being disproven by facts. It is simply PoV pushing to put this tag on items you don't happen to believe in. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I talked about my dog, well I don't have a dog so that would be hypothetical, but I suggest adding a {{hypothetical}} tag to dog would be unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about using the tag (mythology) instead? Pass a Method (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be good. You and I might not believe in gods and souls, but religion involving them is still rather mainstream. "Mythology" is not generally used to refer to current religion. Equinox ◑ 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

{{sense}}

You are using {{sense}} where you should use {{context}}. Read their documentation for a good explanation. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

hit both ways and swing both ways

You must add headword lines to entries. See this edit. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

neodruidism

When you move a page, please remember to tag the leftover redirect with {{delete}}.

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also — I've deleted [[Neo-druidism]], [[Druidry]], and [[Neo-Druidry]] as copyright violations. Remember that Wiktionary entries are copyrighted, and copying content from them is copyright violation unless you conform to their license, which requires attribution. —Ruakh_TALK 20:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

scissorchick

"scissorchick" to which you have moved "scissor sister" appears unattested, so I have sent it to RFV. See also WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Satan

• Mistake 1: “remove original research”. Please read WT:NOT, especially the second item under “Differences in content” in the “Wiktionary is not Wikipedia” section.
• Mistake 2: Removing a lot of content without explanation. Most of what you removed should indeed be removed, but you should at least have commented here. I doubt you even read it, because you removed the definition “A detestable person or animal.” which got comments opposing deletion from two users (me and WikiTiki).
• Mistake 3: Removing a Biblical quotation and replacing it with a quotation from the Quran, also without explanation. Completely inappropriate. You should have added the Quranic quotation without removing the Biblical one.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Test

Nones Pass a Method (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

creationism

Reply with two possible solutions on my Talk page. If neither option would achieve your goal, or if you are uncertain how to implement the one you wish to use, please post another reply to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

link

Druidic Pass a Method (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of quotations.

Hi,

As you probably saw, I corrected the formatting of the first two quotations at [[Nones]]. I'd appreciate it if you could fix the third one to match. (See Wiktionary:Quotations for more information on formatting of quotations.) In particular, I'd appreciate it if you could linkify the page numbers, so that others can easily check the accuracy of what you've added.

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK
21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, and i appreciate that u guys are verifying whether or not i am truthful. Pass a Method (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And — "truthful" isn't the word I'd use: if someone isn't "truthful", that implies that they're dishonest, i.e., that they're intentionally being deceptive. No one here is verifying whether you're honest or not. But we do check accuracy, because people do get things wrong. (For example, you originally attributed one quotation to the wrong authors, which hid the fact that two of your quotations were actually by the same authors. I am quite confident that this was not intentional on your part; you just took the names that Google Books gave you, without noticing that they were wrong or inapplicable. But the effect was the same.) —Ruakh_TALK 11:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was only kidding. :) Pass a Method (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Babel

Would you please add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

done, did u want me to do anything? Pass a Method (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing definitions

Please, do not remove definitions that haven’t failed RFD or RFV (unless you are merging multiple definitions), like you did at Satan, Christian and sodomy. It doesn’t matter that they are biased, what matters is whether they are accurate or not. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

religionist; religion

These are not appropriate as hypernyms and you are misusing them. Please stop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are they inappropriate? I suppose Calvinism et al could be argued to be "denominations" rather than "religions", but if the second sense of "religionist" is attested (which a quick look at Google books suggests is the case), it seems to be indeed a hypernym of Calvinist et al, even if the rare term "denominationist" could be regarded as an intermediate hypernym. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with sche. Pass a Method (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a google books search too. Pass a Method (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it feels like "religionist" is a hyperhypernym or hyperhyperhypernym of terms like "Calivinist" and "Anglican". The immediate hypernym of those terms is Protestant, which is a hyponym of Christian, which is a hyponym of religionist. Similarly, I would list canid, but not animal, as a hypernym of dog. —Angr 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Re religion: I agree with Angr.

Re religionist: Should never be used as a hypernym. It's misleading, because of the two senses that the word has are quite different. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case i will only use them when they are immediate hypernyms from now on. Pass a Method (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that "religionist" has two senses doesn't stop it from being a valid hypernym. We can quibble over whether it should be a hypernym of Calvinist, or only of Christian (or even only of monotheist or only of theist), but polysemy doesn't invalidate it. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, especially because the principal sense is not the one being used. In a touchy case like this, adding unclear hypernyms is worse than no hypernyms at all IMO. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We disagree, then. I think that, Wiktionary being a dictionary, it's reasonable to expect that people will look up words; upon looking up "religionist" (which is wikilinked in hypernyms sections to make that very simple), they'll see its several definitions. Is there a substitute available? "religionary#Noun" unfortunately has the same "objectionable" sense (and is very dated, possibly obsolete). - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition of hypernym as well as that of various online dictionaries give a broad sense of hypernym. Pass a Method (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So? We mean "hypernym" as in WT:ELE. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to Angr, there are many religious offshoots who are depicted in various sources as being religions. Its especially easy to find sources for Catholicism and Protestantism, for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. In these specific cases the association "hypernym" would be correct. Pass a Method (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And there are no doubt plenty of sources that describe dogs as animals, but canid is still the better hypernym for dog. To escalate to the ridiculous, why not add hypernyms like human being, primate, mammal, or animal to "Calvinist"? —Angr 21:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous when u consider various recent censuses have also depicted denominations as religions, often interchangeably. Therefore it is pretty mainstream. I agree Calvinism might be a stretch, but Catholicism and Protestantism are certainly not. Pass a Method (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me adding "religion" as a hypernym to Catholicism and Protestantism? Pass a Method (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I do. I'd use Christianity for that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whats wrong with multiple hypernyms? For instance iron, wolf, water, cook all have multiple hypernyms. I have given sources above where they are used superordinately to religion. I could easily find hundreds more such sources. Pass a Method (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As it stands now, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Sikh and Christian have religionist as a hypernym, Muslim doesn't anymore, Jew (and probably many others) apparently never did... they should be standardised one way or the other. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sche, i would have preferred if you did not remove "religionist" from Catholic Sunni and Protestant, since there are multiple sources where they are used superordinately to religion (including on official government websites), thus meeting the criteria for a hypernym. Pass a Method (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you object to me adding "religionist" to the above linked pages? Pass a Method (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "religionist" should be added to those entries, because it isn't an immediate hypernym of those words. Since there's debate over whether it should be used at all, I don't think it should be used in places where it isn't strictly appropriate. (Sure, some authorities might laxly label Catholicism a religion, but some people believe unicorns are real, too: we still know better, and define Catholicism as a denomination and unicorns as mythical beasts.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

troponym

Look, you're misusing headers that you clearly don't understand and aren't in WT:ELE. Please stop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Tripitakan

Hi. Where did you see this word? It sounds plausible but I can't find it in Google Books, though it does seem to be an old-fashioned form of Tripitaka (the book): [7]. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean a lower-case version? I can see some links there in the upper-case version. Maybe i should move it back to upper-case? Pass a Method (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists

You can use template lists instead of maintaining various identical lists across multiple entries. For example, see Template:list:Greek mythology Olympian gods/en. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)