User talk:Axl
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Axl in topic sorcerors
Not sure what you were trying to achieve with the {{rfv}} tag. Logically it would mean that sorceror is attested and sorcerors its plural is not. If you're saying that sorceror is a uncommon misspelling, that would be an rfd matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I did rfv the singular form, and the consensus was that it is a misspelling. What is your recommendation for dealing with "sorcerors"? Axl (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, there was no rfv, you withdrew the rfv. There was no consensus, one editor changed it to misspelling of, which is acceptable, so just changing sorcerors to misspelling of sorcerers should be acceptable too. When I say acceptable, it would also seem acceptable for someone to change it back to 'alternative form of'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"there was no rfv, you withdrew the rfv"
- That statement contradicts itself. Anyway, you don't seem to be interesting in getting my help to improve Wiktionary. I leave it you and your colleagues to do as you see fit. Axl (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)