Talk:headly
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
Leasnamism. 1966 "We were discussing this very headly". This must be a typo for something, I am not yet sure what. It's not anything anybody would say, except some sort of Renaissance cosplayer. Equinox ◑ 07:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- But it is something someone did say. You cannot make judgements on what people choose to say and write, whether it makes sense to you or not. Maybe it's just you. Leasnam (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's not to say that ppl don't make mistakes when they write...they do. But that's what book editors are for. If it passes by them, too late. It's out in the public and citable. Leasnam (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ Equinox, do you know where the adverb of this entry originated? Obviously you don't based on your statements above, so let me open a window into my mind at how my mind works (don't worry, it's pretty simple): when searching for attestations of a word, when I see one, I add it. In the past (2013-2014) I had only a mobile phone to work with, so it was very difficult to add citations, but I managed. Incidentally, I also accidentally rolled a lot of things back in error because of the tiny screen, but I digress. In this case I added one for the adjective only to see upon closer inspection that it wasn't an adjective, it was being used adverbially. Realising that adjectives and adverbs slip back and forth, one freely becoming the other and vice versa, I moved it from the adjective section and created an Adverb header. BAM. There you have it. I go on to the next thing that catches my attention. Sorry to keep disappointing you. Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Today, I would just throw the adverbial citation out and not add it, but back then it's what I did. Don't get yourself all in a huff. If you see something I did that isn't right, just fix it. I don't keep a record of your mistakes (and there have been a few--not many but, I'm not one to make a big stink over it. I'm not like that.) Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- What you do seem to be like is one who makes contributions of what are at best archaisms with complete indifference to their attestability and to the quality of citations when challenged. Were there were not such a large number of such entries, all of your devise, no one would make a fuss. We're not like that. DCDuring (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @DCDuring:, you disappoint me, you haven't done your homework well enough...fact is, I make all kinds of contributions, not just archaic English ones. And those were all in the distant past (2008-2011 range). Why do you keep getting upset when you KNOW you're going to keep finding them ???! I've warned you of this. News Flash: In the near future you're bound to come across something I made years ago that is sloppy. Just fix it. This is making me feel like you have some sort of personal vendetta against me :| . And you gripe and complain about minor things, like the "quality of citations"...sure they should be on point, but damn it's not the end of the world when one is bad. I do more good than bad. At least I don't stir up strife and stress and build camps and fortresses. I'm not like that Leasnam (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- I never said that Leasnamisms are your sole contribution, but they are the most annoyingly memorable. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @DCDuring:, you disappoint me, you haven't done your homework well enough...fact is, I make all kinds of contributions, not just archaic English ones. And those were all in the distant past (2008-2011 range). Why do you keep getting upset when you KNOW you're going to keep finding them ???! I've warned you of this. News Flash: In the near future you're bound to come across something I made years ago that is sloppy. Just fix it. This is making me feel like you have some sort of personal vendetta against me :| . And you gripe and complain about minor things, like the "quality of citations"...sure they should be on point, but damn it's not the end of the world when one is bad. I do more good than bad. At least I don't stir up strife and stress and build camps and fortresses. I'm not like that Leasnam (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- While we are on the topic of archaisms and attestations, I would like to say that it pains me so much... you know, the act of having to find an attestation for the word or a version of the word that I have heard in my travels through Scotland and Northern England in the company of a tent preacher just before I went to study navigation in Cardiff... and then you know, there are all those other words from my days as a fish trader in the Northern Sea... damn I have even heard Frisian, Elfdalian and a whole host of "other" Nordic languages. And then comes a considerable stretch of time that I spent navigating ships in the Baltic sea, ships whose crewmen were Lithuanians, Latvians, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and an entire array of other sundry types whose origin I was unable to determine. It just fucking sucks... Mountebank1 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Mountebank1, I understand how you must feel, but those are the rules. The positive side to the equation is that attestations help to ward off unnecessary and fictitious garbage that some may like to put here. At least I feel my contributions are actual words, not made-up ones as some have created (e.g. misbrook) :\ Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- To all: On a lighter note, I'd like to remind us all that policies have changed since I've been contributing at Wiktionary. For instance, we saw a change (don't recall exactly when...) where if a word was attested once in a well known work, it could be included. Not so today. Who went back and removed all the ones we added prior to that change ? (Not me...you're tripping over them now). When I started here, Wiktionary didn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English. Middle English was simply regarded as obsolete English. I've been here for a looong time. I've seen ppl come and go. I adjust to the times. Just keep this in mind and be get-along-able (--that's a Leasnamism; it doesn't exist ;) Leasnam (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a suggestion: why can't we just assign the task of checking all of Leasnam's suspect words to Leasnam ? That way, I can prove that my work has gotten better, and no one else has to burst a blood vessel at how shoddy it used to be ? I'm serious. If I made the mess, I will clean it up. It'll be good practice for me anyway Leasnam (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great idea. That's what I hoped for. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here's a suggestion: why can't we just assign the task of checking all of Leasnam's suspect words to Leasnam ? That way, I can prove that my work has gotten better, and no one else has to burst a blood vessel at how shoddy it used to be ? I'm serious. If I made the mess, I will clean it up. It'll be good practice for me anyway Leasnam (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- To all: On a lighter note, I'd like to remind us all that policies have changed since I've been contributing at Wiktionary. For instance, we saw a change (don't recall exactly when...) where if a word was attested once in a well known work, it could be included. Not so today. Who went back and removed all the ones we added prior to that change ? (Not me...you're tripping over them now). When I started here, Wiktionary didn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English. Middle English was simply regarded as obsolete English. I've been here for a looong time. I've seen ppl come and go. I adjust to the times. Just keep this in mind and be get-along-able (--that's a Leasnamism; it doesn't exist ;) Leasnam (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Mountebank1, I understand how you must feel, but those are the rules. The positive side to the equation is that attestations help to ward off unnecessary and fictitious garbage that some may like to put here. At least I feel my contributions are actual words, not made-up ones as some have created (e.g. misbrook) :\ Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- What you do seem to be like is one who makes contributions of what are at best archaisms with complete indifference to their attestability and to the quality of citations when challenged. Were there were not such a large number of such entries, all of your devise, no one would make a fuss. We're not like that. DCDuring (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Today, I would just throw the adverbial citation out and not add it, but back then it's what I did. Don't get yourself all in a huff. If you see something I did that isn't right, just fix it. I don't keep a record of your mistakes (and there have been a few--not many but, I'm not one to make a big stink over it. I'm not like that.) Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ Equinox, do you know where the adverb of this entry originated? Obviously you don't based on your statements above, so let me open a window into my mind at how my mind works (don't worry, it's pretty simple): when searching for attestations of a word, when I see one, I add it. In the past (2013-2014) I had only a mobile phone to work with, so it was very difficult to add citations, but I managed. Incidentally, I also accidentally rolled a lot of things back in error because of the tiny screen, but I digress. In this case I added one for the adjective only to see upon closer inspection that it wasn't an adjective, it was being used adverbially. Realising that adjectives and adverbs slip back and forth, one freely becoming the other and vice versa, I moved it from the adjective section and created an Adverb header. BAM. There you have it. I go on to the next thing that catches my attention. Sorry to keep disappointing you. Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's not to say that ppl don't make mistakes when they write...they do. But that's what book editors are for. If it passes by them, too late. It's out in the public and citable. Leasnam (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Re @Mountebank1's frustration: remember we do keep archives of everything (RFV/RFD talk, and the actual deleted pages are accessible to admins) so uncited words don't just disappear entirely. Perhaps some day someone will go through them who has access to deeper sources. Equinox ◑ 22:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)