Talk:anally inflicted death sentence
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic anally inflicted death sentence
Deletion debate[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
No citations, no references. — This unsigned comment was added by Kraŭs (talk • contribs).
- Some book hits, plenty of blog and web hits. Please check first before listing here. The fact that the entry does not yet have any cites does not mean they don't exist. --Dmol (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why should I check other people's words for them? Kraŭs (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because nominating terms/senses that are certain to pass rfv is a waste of time and space. There are hundreds of thousands of entries without cites- we have to focus our efforts on those few where the existence of the term is disputed, or we will just get bogged down in oceans of minutiae. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Other people's words?!! This is a wiki! We have a collective responsibility to maintain and improve all of our entries, whether someone else created them or not. Nobody 'owns' individual entries! You may not have meant it this way, but I find your comment unbelievably arrogant. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Considering that almost all of your (Kraus's) entries are now either cited or were shown to be in widespread use after a brief search, can I once more request that you check for usage before listing anything here or on RFD. Actually that onus is on all of us. I've often seen words that I thought should be listed, but have managed to find usage sufficient for it to pass. --Dmol (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Other people's words?!! This is a wiki! We have a collective responsibility to maintain and improve all of our entries, whether someone else created them or not. Nobody 'owns' individual entries! You may not have meant it this way, but I find your comment unbelievably arrogant. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because nominating terms/senses that are certain to pass rfv is a waste of time and space. There are hundreds of thousands of entries without cites- we have to focus our efforts on those few where the existence of the term is disputed, or we will just get bogged down in oceans of minutiae. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why should I check other people's words for them? Kraŭs (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Like a large number of Kraŭs's RFVs, this one was already amply cited even before he brought it here. "No citations, no references" is simply mistaken. (Perhaps he didn't see that quotations are collapsed and you have to click on "quotations" in order to show them.) Anyway, striking. —Angr 18:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that he didn't know to click on it. It has long been my fear that users don't know to do that, because I like the idea of compact entries that expand to reveal hidden depth. Maybe the problem is that it doesn't look like the typical underlined or bolded linked text. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kraŭs, height doesn't have any citations or references, what to try and get that deleted too? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that he didn't know to click on it. It has long been my fear that users don't know to do that, because I like the idea of compact entries that expand to reveal hidden depth. Maybe the problem is that it doesn't look like the typical underlined or bolded linked text. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)