Talk:ĉiseksemo
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. 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.
Esperanto for pansexuality. Nothing on Google Books, Usenet, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like our contributor was misled by our entries ĉi- and neni-, treating them like they were prefixes instead of just a common
denominatornumerator of sets of correlatives. - SEK's suggestion of tutseksema for pansexual is better formed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any good reason we should have pseudoprefixes and pseudosuffixes for the ĉi-, ki-, and neni- sets? It seems like they engender misunderstandings. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you mean...I think our definitions of those prefixes and suffixes are potentially useful to users, but maybe we should edit the entries to clarify that they are only used in a very limited set of correlatives. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any good reason we should have pseudoprefixes and pseudosuffixes for the ĉi-, ki-, and neni- sets? It seems like they engender misunderstandings. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Been over a month and no one has shown up to defend the poor misbegotten thing. 
Deleted with its -ulo and endings, and removed from the sexual orientation list promoting it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)