User talk:Equinox

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


What is the opposite of consanguinity? --Romanophile (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of one. Equinox 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Non-consanguinity, unrelatedness. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
aconsanguinity exists, but is pretty rare. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Did you mean that to go to his talk page? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

How are you?[edit]

Hello mate, how's your summer? --A230rjfowe (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It is okay. Going to a little barbecue in a couple of hours. But first: WORDS! Equinox 13:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy the BBQ. I might make entries for grill tongs, barbecuable, rotisseried to celebrate --A230rjfowe (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


See Talk:mis-sold. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


It's true that Category talk:English words suffixed with -work was deleted twice (once for being empty, once for being full of compounds), but -work hasn't been RFD'd, and I'd maintain that in the specific cases listed in the entry, it's a suffix, not a compound (At least one dictionary, Cambridge, agrees). Would you be able to undelete and put the entry up for RFD/RFV? Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

All right. Equinox 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So that's what half means![edit]

Ta for useful edit summary. I was so sure I knew what half meant, I never bothered to check, but it seems my ideolect was unusually restrictive. I happened to have OED open when I received the revert notifications, so checked there, and as with so many modern words, the earliest meanings are rather different to now (sides of an object, opposing sides in a conflict, parties to a transaction). While those had all died out by 1600 (or at least any cites were unknown to OED when OED2 was printed), it does explain why several of the modern uses, which had always irritated me as "wrong" because they did not represent 0.50000000, were in fact totally justifiable, and it was I who was wrong! An interesting few minutes. --Enginear 15:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I'd like to imagine that this is because things (in the real world) are rarely cut into two exact halves (what are the odds of managing this with an apple and a knife?) and people are just pragmatic about it. I don't suppose most people think "it's okay to say half for an almost-half because of ancient etymology"; they just wouldn't know. Equinox 21:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no -- I think there's a huge inertia in formal language, not least because parents and schools tend to object if children breach the norms they're used to. An idiosyncrasy of my mum was that she insisted that it was extremely rude to call somebody's children kids because it was tantamount to calling the parents goats. And of course, using hopefully in the sense of I hope that was marked down at school. As a result, I don't think I used either expression until I was past 40, and I still use them less than most people. If everyone had been taught at school that half must be used only for an exact 0.5, that might now be the predominant use. The word's history provides an indication of why that should never have happened, and probably never did.
While I tend towards exactness in my own use of language, I'm not generally prescriptivist about other people's (my children might disagree), though, like you I think, I feel word usage, grammar and punctuation in Wikt (and even Wikipedia) should be of a high standard. I suspect my annoyance about "misuse" of half stemmed from childhood squabbles with friends who would always end up keeping the big half for themselves -- I wouldn't have minded if someone cut the apple at least trying to make both halves equal, but if they made a straight cut so far off-centre that they missed the core altogether....
So it was amusing to find that my greedy friends had been on solid ground all along -- if I'd been more knowledgeable, I suppose I should have asked for the bigger half myself before they cut it, rather than expecting 50%! And it was also fascinating to see that, after such a long time, the basic meaning behind the usage of half had hardly changed, while over a shorter period some word meanings have nearly reversed, eg awful changing from awe-inspiring to its present meaning, while in other cases, the wording behind the same meaning has somersaulted, eg heels over head to head over heels. I suppose the concept of relationship of two things which are comparable, sometimes because of near-equality, sometimes not, has remained useful.
And the occasional discovery that I have misunderstood the meaning of a common word for over half a century is good for keeping my ego in check! --Enginear 10:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Haha. Good story. I bet that no amount of etymological wrangling would stop mean kids from being mean one way or another! Equinox 17:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Type#Noun (mathematics)[edit]

The definition has what looks to me to be a misleadingly piped inline link to WP, which should be removed. But there is, I think, some substance behind the link, but which is beyond my current paygrade. Can you handle it somehow? DCDuring TALK 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand the mathematics (and often add maths entries to Wikt that are beyond my expertise, trusting Wikipedia etc.). I believe there is a way to convert computer program code (which is Turing complete, i.e. can be reduced to a certain sort of known, solvable problem) into a pure-mathematical system (which I don't really comprehend at all); this might be useful in forming certain kinds of proof à la Hofstadter. But that's as far as I can guess. The link doesn't look too bad to be honest. Equinox 21:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Burton quotation for "minion"[edit]

You requested quotations at minion from Beaumont and Fletcher ("ordnance") and Burton ("minimum"). I dug up the former, but I don't know which "Burton" you're referring to. The only Burtons I could think of are LeVar, Richard, and Richard Francis, in order of what I imagine is increasing likelihood. Could you please specifiy, perhaps with any ideas you might have on work or subject? (I suspect it'll be a bit harder to find this one.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's Robert Burton (scholar). (Props for being a ST:TNG nerd though.) Equinox 21:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Hey, you missed the singular :) --A230rjfowe (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's annoying but, WF, you do something similar by adding words with only an {{rfdef}} template. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You people are all stupid and I refuse to have this stupid argument again. Creating plurals is worthwhile. Suck it. Equinox 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Back to work, everyone. --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

List of missing vernacular names[edit]

User:DCDuring/VernacularNamesMissing contains hundreds of vernacular names missing more than once on Wiktionary (based on usage of {{vern}}). There about 3,000 others missing on only one page.

I also wrote my procedure for adding this kind of entry. I'd welcome your thoughts on automation.

Thanks for goading me to do something about these. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice list. If you want some sort of bot-work like capturing the first 3 sentences for each of those organisms that have a WP entry then I imagine I could do something. I don't see how we can avoid some manual work here. Equinox 00:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocking IP v.6s[edit]

You and @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV have been playing whack-a-mole with a very persistent twit in Chicago for three months:

  1. 2601:241:201:6DFB:393B:2867:463B:9BE2 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked June 17, 2015
  2. 2601:241:201:6DFB:31:AB0F:7311:A04 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked June 19, 2015
  3. 2601:241:201:6DFB:D8D5:98AD:DB1B:C34B (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked June 27, 2015
  4. 2601:241:201:6DFB:F4FC:B1E1:232C:854B (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked July 2, 2015
  5. 2601:241:201:6DFB:D81B:CFF4:89ED:6CDD (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked July 16, 2015
  6. 2601:241:201:6DFB:65D2:6522:AD1E:EE57 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked July 17, 2015
  7. 2601:241:201:6DFB:3037:3627:A29C:F43B (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked July 23, 2015
  8. 2601:241:201:6DFB:ED9E:742E:7567:17BF (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked July 24, 2015
  9. 2601:241:201:6DFB:A5CF:5A14:F5AD:C2B1 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 1, 2015
  10. 2601:241:201:6DFB:6963:5820:A837:2957 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 10, 2015
  11. 2601:241:201:6DFB:7521:BB88:3F32:96BE (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 15, 2015
  12. 2601:241:201:6DFB:89B0:E94:583:CD68 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 16, 2015
  13. 2601:241:201:6DFB:79EF:51C1:F7F2:DB4C (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 18, 2015
  14. 2601:241:201:6DFB:60F8:E5E4:9F9D:1F7F (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 19, 2015
  15. 2601:241:201:6DFB:3C7F:31B9:FAEC:59E (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - blocked August 21, 2015

As you can see, they simply switched IPs after being blocked and picked up where they left off. My point is that ISPs assign a 64- or 65-bit range of IPs to each account, so blocking that single IP solves only 1/ 264th of your problem. You need to add "/65" or "/64" to the IP address when you block an IP v.6.

Not that it will completely stop them: when I blocked the 64-bit range including 2601:D:5500:C1E:35CA:B78A:33CA:8853 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) on May 3, they briefly switched to a mobile account: 2607:FB90:2C1:34:0:47:E429:F201 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks), and then came back in mid-June with another 64-bit block of IPs. Still, the month-long gap in between suggests we can at least slow them down. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My last edit[edit]

Hello May I ask you to have a look at my edit at

The entry is valid for all 4 languages and maybe I should place it at the beginning OR 4 times in the article. I have logged out for this so an Admin would come aling and check it more probably. Thanks

Another question: I tried an enty like Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 61: The language code "granica" is not valid. but it didnt work....

Thanx Rasmusklump

Looking at the history, I think Ungoliant has fixed it. Equinox 22:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want more words[edit]

Rhymes:English/ɛlə(ɹ) has a bunch of redlinks. In fact, I reckon a lot of Rhymes pages do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Better idea: if you want more words, stop voting delete at RfD! Purplebackpack89 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Come on, PB89, get over it already. --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@A230rjfowe I've gotten tired of Equinox beating me over the head with the same old "Well, if we keep this, we gotta have this other thing", in fact so much that he's succeeded in convincing me that, at many junctures, having "this other thing" isn't actually that bad of an idea. Purplebackpack89 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I want fewer of PBP's words. LOL. Equinox 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Too bad the words I actually create have a sticky habit of passing CFI and not getting deleted. Purplebackpack89 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of sticky things: If you cook poached pears and it tastes sticky, you're doing it wrong. --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@A230rjfowe Aw come on! At least wait until the RfD goes my way (which it will; it's heavily trending keep) Purplebackpack89 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would totally vote delete on poached egg, BTW. If it fails, I'll probably re-RFD it a few years later when we have new users. --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Same with fried egg. Now we have the dumb argument "it passes the fried egg test". --A230rjfowe (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess people agree with me on those two. Why waste your time fighting old battles? Purplebackpack89 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a fight, it's all polite conversation in order to improve the dictionary. And if it was a fight, I promise, PB, it isn't against you! --A230rjfowe (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That's good to hear. Purplebackpack89 00:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I used to be pissed at inclusionists too, but then I realised that the problem is not as serious as the discussions at RFD suggest. Why? Because most inclusionists are the sort of user who is more interested in bitching than doing actual work. It’s a lot easier to babble that “Wiktionary needs this, Wiktionary needs that” than to lift one’s fingers and actually add this and that. And of those who do lift their fingers, nearly all are inclusionists only when it comes to languages they don’t edit (usually English), having a greater common-sense skill when it comes to the dictionary-worthiness of words in languages they care about. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I wholly agree. I vote in RFD like a deletionist, but I helped write the changes to the CFI that made most languages have a far lower barrier for being cited, which overall opened the doors to vastly more potential entries. I have an idealised view that as the completeness and quality of our entries increases, we can be more inclusionist (knowing that spurious shit is less likely to creep in), and potentially accept things that would currently be a hassle to maintain. But for now, I want more words that we really should have, not more words that could be a bonus down the road but have no real lexicographical value to the dictionary as it is currently designed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV I think your above comments paint too broad a brush, and don't really acknowledge that users are permitted to distribute their edits in areas however they so choose. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikis need a diverse pool of contributors in order to function well. If we have both inclusionists and deletionists among our editor pool, it helps ensure that a range of views will be represented during discussions, and prevents the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

deep web[edit]

I disagree with your deletion of this. I believe it to be attestable, and that it should have been changed to an alternate form rather than deleted. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as you have ignored my request to undelete this, I have recreated it as an alt-form noun and an adjective. Do not delete it without an RfD or RfV. Purplebackpack89 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for removing the shoes, I goofed it and put it in the wrong page. By the way, are many people here Recent Changes campers? Like you? Hillcrest98 (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Equinox 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)