User talk:2602:306:BCF2:32A0:25EF:3262:B56D:D0AA

"Suffixed" means it's a morphological suffix, so eatable has an -able suffix, but table does not. So I'm not sure that it's correct for you to add the "suffixed with -ess" category to words like harbormistress, which was formed as a compound from existing mistress. Equinox ◑ 11:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess so. I'll move all the terms that are most likely compounds to their appropriate sections. 2602:306:BCF2:32A0:25EF:3262:B56D:D0AA 01:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

querying edit of fuckstress

I don't think your edit of fuckstress to - a female fuckster - was very helpful. Indeed, why have all -stress definitions defined in terms of -ster entries? That is, why not define "fuckster" as 'a male fuckstress"? (I'm not being all feminist here, just want to know if you have a reason). True, dictionaries used to (and still do) have such defs in order to save space on the printed page, and because the masculine for was right next to it on the page anyhow - which isn't a consideration here nor the case here. Not only that - fuckster is specifically defined as either a male or a female, so in essence the definition of fuckstress now could be 'a female female fucker' - which is nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the definition of fuckster is not very good in any case. - Pisanus Fraxi (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)