Robert Ullmann, you've labeled this edit  as "damage" with absolutely no reason in your edit summary other than that rather incivil comment. Please refrain from edit warring and if you have an issue with the edit, come here and explain yourself civilly. Thank you Uponsure98 15:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- User "Uponsure98" is a known Wikipedia troll/vandal, community banned. Robert Ullmann 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- That may be so, however it's irrelevant to his point, which seems logical enough. I'm looking at the edit he's trying to get through and it SEEMS fine to me. I've never heard of smart aleck being used for "pretentious to knowledge", of course the language isn't defined by what I've heard, but I certainly have heard it used in Uponsure's sense. All that aside, if someone is repeatedly trying to get their change through, it's nice if editors can give a reason not to let it. I'm putting Uponsure's sense back in with an RFV tag. Language Lover 02:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, we don't do that. This is a vandal that has made serious personal threats; we leave it alone. If you try to be "helpful", you are asking for a block as a possible sock of the vandal. Entry locked sysop/sysop, since I do not want to block you! Robert Ullmann 02:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you off your rocker? Has Language Lover not been around long enough that you would give him the benefit of the doubt, as to his identity? DAVilla 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Sigh! In the end everyone who disagrees with him about this edit will be accused of being a vandal or sock. Rationalizing with him won't help 18.104.22.168 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, "everyone" who shows up to "defend" you is known to be your sock. Robert Ullmann 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
I happen to think the sense in question is fine, some other editors don't though, and keep reverting it without any more explanation than to attack the contributor. Language Lover 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this sense is OK. In support, "wise guy" is given as a sense in The Random House Webster's Unabridged Electronic Dictionary, which in my considered opinion is an excellent dictionary of American English. -- WikiPedant 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to my putting the sense back in with an RFV-sense, Ullman has gone and reverted that and put a protect on the page. Can a sysop kindly restore the rfv-sense'd sense for now and allow the community procedures to run, as opposed to a single editor having carte blanche? Language Lover 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Known vandalism from a WP blocked/banned vandal that has threatened other contributors. Entry is locked for now. Feel free to discuss, but make sure you understand clearly that the pattern of this vandal is to use socks to support his/her position; you will be suspected—or presumed—to be such a sockpuppet. For now, we keep the prior entry. If it needs changing, fine, I'd suggest you take it to the talk page. Robert Ullmann 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care about who the contributor is and I don't care about any scare tactics you want to use. If the contribution is bad, then it won't pass muster here at RFV. This has nothing to do with who made the contribution. If the contributor in question wrote had written our current entry for cat, would you delete and protect that? Language Lover 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. This is a serious vandal, trolling you successfully. That is what that sort of emotionally disturbed person feeds on. Is much better if you do not feed them; take whatever they did out, good or bad, leave the entry as is for a while. Later, meaning months later, go back and see if the entry can use some improvement. Plenty of other stuff to do. Robert Ullmann 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, he may be a vandal (which isn't really relevant), but *I'M* certainly not. And the most recent edit you did was to revert *MY* contribution. There are plenty of people on this page vouching for the validy of the contribution. I lack the power to fix the entry because you blocked non-sysops from doing so. That means the only option will be to put the edit up for a public vote. Language Lover 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would also say that particular sense is valid, at least in the US. That sense is not covered by the other definitions. --EncycloPetey 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seems OK prima facie. Let's see if it can be cited. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated the sense in question with its rfv tag intact. However, bear in mind that this is an rfv, and so it will need its three cites if it is to survive. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hard to find cites for a specific sense like this because many of the uses are such that it's tough to tell at a mere glance which sense applies.
- Jim Aylesworth, Jennifer K. Rotole. "Jim Aylesworth and You". 2005. p80
- "This book is all about this smart aleck fox that goes all around pulling tricks on nice ladies. I am sorry to say, but every time he pulls a trick, Mr. Fox thinks it's funny."
- Virginia Mae Axline. "Play Therapy". 1989. p278
- "Emma: I sure do. (She grinned impishly.) I'm a smart aleck, too. And a sassy, smarty-pants.
- Therapist: Oh! You think you're a smart aleck, and you think you're sassy too.
- Emma: I'm the meanest brat here at this dump."
- Paul Wellstone. "How the Rural Poor Got Power: Narrative of a Grass-Roots Organizer". 2003. p19
- "Being a smart aleck, I stayed two years in seventh grade."
- Shelby Anne Wolf. "Interpreting Literature with Children". 2003. p64
- "Bart subsequently decided that a smart aleck would have his own distinct mode of discourse. In the next rehearsal, he added a flippant tone to his character's voice and ended some lines with "baby" or "honey", explaining that since the fox was "sly" he ought to talk this way. His group agreed. His first attempt in practice sent them into high giggles. and they encouraged him to keep his sarcastic tone."
- Upton Sinclair. "Wide is the Gate II". 2001. p704
- "A century or two ago some wit in Europe had paraphrased the verse, apropos of the success of the Empress Maria Theresa in enlarging her dominion by marrying off her sons and daughters. "Let others make war, you, happy Austria, marry." Lanny, the smart Aleck, only sixteen at the time, had thought it fun to write: "Let others make war, you, happy Budds, make money." His father hadn't appreciated the jest"
- Giovanni R. F. Ferrari. "The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic". 2007. p100
- "To distinguish him from the "wise guy" Thrasymachus, I shall call him a "smart aleck.""
Language Lover 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Two of these seem to favor humor as an essential element of the definition, IMO: Wolf and Sinclair. I don't think that the "smart aleck's" laughing at his own jokes (Aylesworth) is illustrative. The others don't provide obvious evidence of the humor/sarcasm element. The attestation cites don't seem to be giving us good illustrations of usage. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)