User talk:Equinox

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

fried egg[edit]

I think we usually invoke "fried egg" in RfD discussions about entries for compound nouns, not for the components of those compounds. One could also invoke it in discussions about a hyperspecialized definition of a component of one of those compounds, eg, fried or submarine. The semanticist John Lyons (linguist) has a discussion about public in public school (UK sense) and country in country house (UK sense).

I think that the metaphorical sense of submarine that is the base of submarine pitch is a bit of a red herring.

Lastly, I think that the definition of submarine has moved farther along the sense-evolution line that I had thought at first. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I just think it's cute when things have names :) prime number is another one that people "voted" to keep because of the collocation (I think?), although one would suppose that a word with a formal mathematical definition would form the worst kind of SoP. The fact that I'd never heard of a "submarine pitch" before this discussion makes it all a bit alien to me really. blah blah Equinox 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi ! Thanks for taking a look at this ! I see that anderoon is labelled obsolete, but I am seeing a lot of post-2000 uses for anderun. Perhaps we should flip-flop them (--make anderoon the obsolete alt form) ? Leasnam (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like. Equinox 15:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is non-aggression principle a proper noun?[edit]

I'm not a grammarian, but I don't see why non-aggression principle is a proper noun. Wiktionary doesn't have the golden rule and the silver rule labelled as proper nouns (but Wiktionary could be wrong). Doing a search for ethical principle on Wiktionary, I can't find any other ethical principles labelled as proper nouns. Additionally, I can't recall ever seeing the non-aggression principle capitalized, and proper nouns are generally capitalized. On Wikipedia, Golden Rule actually is capitalized, despite it not being capitalized on Wiktionary, so maybe it is a proper noun (non-aggression principle isn't capitalized though). If ethical principles actually are proper nouns, then I think you should modify other ethical principles on Wiktionary to reflect that, and change the other versions of the non-aggression principle to proper nouns (nonaggression principle, non-aggression axiom, and nonaggression axiom are still labeled as uncountable and not proper nouns). Otherwise, I think you should change it back to how it was before.

Thanks IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC) IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditto re revolving door syndrome[edit]

Hello Equinox -- I just noticed that you recently changed the POS for revolving door syndrome to "Proper noun" (and I see, above, that you've already got another challenge regarding this sort of change). I've always had the highest regard for your judgment and can probably imagine why you're inclined to think it's a proper noun, but, alas, I'm not so inclined. A major criterion I've long had in mind is that a proper noun should have a unique referent. But revolving door syndrome names a whole class of qualifying situations. Heck, Eq, the term even has 3 distinct senses, all supported by citations. Nothing unique about this big bundle quivering with potential referents. Old EncycloPetey has a subpage on the issue of what qualifies as a proper noun here: User:EncycloPetey/English_proper_nouns. What do you think? Any chance you've wandered a bit off the reservation with your POS-ing? -- · (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before. I was unable to convince Eq. of the error of his ways and just gave up. Perhaps you will have more success. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
How would you prefer to classify "X syndrome" and "Y disease" entries? Where there isn't an attestable plural, they are often entered as "uncountable" ({{en-noun|-}}), but that doesn't seem right because the count-mass distinction is that between (say) "three loaves, one bottle" and "some bread, a little milk". It's a syndrome, a disease, so in theory countable (syndromes, diseases) — but it's one particular thing, like "the Eiffel Tower" (towers). Haven't read Petey's page yet but I will take a proper look at it another day. Equinox 21:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

proper noun[edit]

If Alice chess is a proper noun, then is chess a proper noun too? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's a very good point! But then why is "Eiffel Tower" a proper noun, when "tower" is a common one? Equinox 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's see if I can answer it: The Eiffel Tower is a specific tower in a specific location; I believe the name was given to differentiate it from other towers. A "tower" is any tower.
If I'm not mistaken, "traditional" games and sports are common nouns, including chess, go and basketball, while games which are brand names like Monopoly and Cluedo and any video games are proper nouns. Regardless of whether this distinction actually makes any sense, I believe this is accurate as the tradition in English.
We could make the case that all games and sports should be treated as proper nouns, because by the logic above (again, if I'm not mistaken) then if chess did not exist yet and someone invented it today, it would be a proper noun. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton[edit] - Amgine/ t·e 20:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

163rd game[edit]

I hope my changes have answered your concerns.Purplebackpack89 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

the future[edit]

I haven't added isohydroxybotryococcene yet, but it's only a matter of time. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I started a discussion on the talkpage of whitelash about the definition. I am willing to abide by the consensus. I hope you will participate to improve the definition. IQ125 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

German interjections[edit]

"we regard intj as a class, compare other languages' categories"

German interjections are a word class and I didn't say otherwise. But German interjections "do not belong to any of the inflected grammatical word classes" (notice the word "inflected" before "word classes") as German interjections do not inflect. Of course, the same is true for German adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions. The words of these four word classes do not inflect, hence they are known as particles (and in German Partikeln). - 13:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

wuckas and wucks[edit]

Why a redirect? It's better to stick with the system of making an entry, right? I don't really like redirects. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's never used as a word on its own, only in the phrase, then I don't see how it makes sense to have a full entry for the word on its own. Equinox 06:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do we have Template:only used in then? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't think it's used consistently. A word recently failed RFD for only being used in one phrase, but I can't remember what it was. Equinox 04:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Plus, someone could discover that wucks is in fact a word in a language besides English. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless and until they discover that, we don't need a full entry. Equinox 04:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Kings and queens[edit]

Who are the kingdoms of this world Tiler1913 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for planidial[edit]

Our edits overlapped and were functionally identical, but I had added an example, so I overwrote. JonRichfield (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


I am disappointed that there are zero Google hits for "outhiccough". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Even out-Google is arguably attestable. Equinox 13:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are joking me[edit]

Hi Equinox. "You are joking me" is plainly bad English. Yes, some people use in place of "you are kidding me", nut it is still wrong. I simply changed it to something that is standrd English understood and accepted by all speakers, native and foreign. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly good English. Perhaps you should recognise that the dialect of English you speak is not the only dialect out there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess then you have a very poor understanding of how the project works. We are supposed to use language and terminology that are part of the general English corpus, understood by all users - please read MOS:COMMONALITY. Even when a term is understood by all people in the US, but not very common in the UK; or understood by all speakers in the UK, but not very common in the US, and there being other options that are equally well understood by both sets of speakers, preference should be given to such terms. Naturally this excludes cases where the use of a specific dialectal construction is critical to what the text is about, which is not the case here. So, the way I left, everyone understands, the way it is now, lost of people will see it as wrong. But there is so much to do across the various projects that I am not going to waste my time. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The sense is marked as transitive and I have heard it used by people in real life, so it's real, and we should document it. Equinox 08:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your Wikipedia page says you aren't even a native speaker! We are. Equinox 08:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
"I guess then you have a very poor understanding of how the project works." That's a very disrespectful thing to say to someone with hundreds of thousands of edits more than you.
MOS:COMMONALITY is a Wikipedia policy. This is Wiktionary.
The case in question is a usage example. Enforcing dialect-neutrality in usage examples would be detrimental to learners.
The first part of the usage example, "Twenty euros cover charge?", suggests a British context.
Ungoliant (falai) 11:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
As a native of speaker of English, I happen to agree with Rui Gabriel Correia that this is "bad English". Yes, this phrase is common, but it has always sounded wrong to me. I don't think I have ever heard joke used outside of this phrase with the transitive meaning "to deceive [someone]". I think this probably originated jokingly from the fact that since "kidding" can be replaced with "joking" in "You're kidding!" then let's replace it in "You're kidding me!" as well. Anyway, I think the tag "colloquial" covers this. However, I do think that this definition should be moved to the lemma joke#Verb, possibly with a note on the usage limitations. --WikiTiki89 12:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wanna check this quotation?[edit]

Quotation from John Aubrey, which contains some obsolete spellings. [1]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Regarding this edit to unsecure.

  1. insecure is not "rare". It is the more common term (because it is the correct word). At the very least, that phrasing should be changed.
  2. "unsecure" is not actually a word.
    • "unsecure" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary (checked on my kindle today)
    • Online collins dictionary doesn't deem "unsecure" a word. Searching for it sends you to unsecured, which is a word.
    • My browser spell checker doesn't deem "unsecure" a word
    • Linux doesn't think "unsecure" is a word
      $ egrep "[ui]nsecure" /usr/share/dict/*-english
      (however it also thinks unsecured isn't a word)
    • Whenever someone uses "unsecure" they really mean to use "insecure" or "unsecured".
      • Example: When someone says "The unsecure WiFi" or "The WiFi is unsecure", they sure have used "unsecured" (although insecure is also correct).
  3. The mis-usage is common enough for it to appear on Wiktionary

Tape measure (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares what "Linux thinks". You need to read WT:CFI regarding our rules for inclusion. Equinox 01:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Linux thinks" was a joke - because it also thinks "unsecured" isn't a word when it clearly is. Apologies for going off topic. All the other arguments still stand. I have read the rules. I *think* unsecure falls under Attestation. Which is why I don't think it should be removed, but rather reference the correct usage. I have two questions:
  1. Other than widespread misuse, is there any other reason to declare "unsecure" a word?
  2. Is there any evidence to support the statement that "insecure" is rare?
Tape measure (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah okay, but did you know Linux was developed by a Finn? 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Quiet! We don't talk about that. Someone might find out. Tape measure (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like it, challenge it at WT:RFV, where it will pass and be kept. Equinox 05:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it. I primarily want to change the reference of "rare" next to insecure. I don't know the correct way to say "Enough people use unsecure for it to merit inclusion here as an accepted word, but it originates from places where a writer should have used insecure or unsecured.". Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Tape measure (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've since realized that "(rare)" indicates that unsecure is a rare form of insecure, not the other way round. I think irregardless is a good analogy for unsecure. It's commonly used and its meaning understood, but technically not correct. So maybe I should rather add "usage notes" to unsecure? Tape measure (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)




w/mybigtxt>defsGETBUMPD22.scren(ino~dadsodidntpaymuchatntn2it(daCLIKIN,ys,sigh);buthen,banerz'vFNCTN,wejusned2COMPLETEthisdic.i=afraid..(nthenstil213.49.104.55 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Not that I'm going to second-guess your block, because I've reverted POV edits of theirs, but I doubt they're PaM. You may notice that the IP geolocates to Georgia in the US, and PaM has always geolocated to NE London and nearby Essex (with an occasional short trip elsewhere in the UK). Also, they don't have the same combination of arrogance and pathologically-muddled thinking that makes PaM so annoying, and they haven't touched any of PaM's other obsessions. I read them as just your typical garden-variety political/ethnic/religious proscriptivist.

I haven't seen the real PaM for a while: I made a point of blocking them on sight for two weeks any time they started editing again, and I think they decided to lay low for a while, or (dare I hope?) maybe they gave up. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Misspellings of preve and preven[edit]

Hi. preve and preven are two misspellings in Spanish and Galician. It is coincidence that it is wrong in both.

In Galician the misspellings were because in previr was being used a template of vir. And ve and ven don't carry because are monosyllables, but prevé and prevén aren't monosyllables and carry accent.

In Spanish someone indicated that in prevenir that preve and preven are synonyms of prevé and prevén, but this is false. preve and preven don't exist.

You can check the words in Galician Academy Royal and Spanish Academy Royal dictionaries. For previr in Galician and prevenir in Spanish. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand me. Those two words are a misspellings in both languages, Galician and Spanish. You can check that in Dictionary of RAE in "prevenir" and click in "conjugar" after, those words don't exist. So, please delete preve and preven. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)



dots>nobetrSEPARATEasA.BLE.IST?(avoidzconfusnw/fe.A.BL.EIST(inothat=unlikely,butif1duznt..(ivseen entryzw.suchHYFENATNline ithout62.235.180.5 07:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


=ipafrENWP..(icantry2chekENETfurthr,ivnoSPECIALISTDIX4thatmyslf(paper1s62.235.180.5 09:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

boyfriend usage notes[edit]

I'm of the opinion that "use of boyfriend generally implies that the male is a boy or a young man" is too strong a statement. I don't think that's usage where I live, though I've been known to be wrong about such things, as I don't get out much. How is "use of boyfriend may imply that the male is a boy or a young man", as something that's weaker, and thus perhaps more generally applicable? Thanks, Tamwin (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I just checked three professional dictionaries (Chambers: "a girl's favourite boy for the time being; a male lover in a romantic or sexual relationship"; Merriam: "a frequent or regular male companion in a romantic or sexual relationship"; Oxford: "A person's regular male companion with whom they have a romantic or sexual relationship"), and to my surprise they don't say much about age. So I've removed it again. Equinox 02:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that resolves it. Thank you! Tamwin (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Picket rope[edit]

You can't? I beg to differ.[2][3][4]. And here's a video of a horse doing it himself. SpinningSpark 19:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's abnormal usage. Google Books: "parked the horse" 1 relevant hit, "horse was parked" 2 relevant hits (both putting the word in quotes to show it's unusual). Equinox 03:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


Feel free to revert my redirect as well, if I was too bold! --Azertus (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

However, I don't quite get why deleted =/= passed? It looks to me deleted was used as passed. In any case it must've been deleted, since it was recreated earlier this year... --Azertus (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I get it, if it doesn't get deleted, it gets a "pass"! Sorry for the confusion ;-) --Azertus (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Out of curiosity - from where do you pick up the somewhat peculiar Finnish words for which you ask an entry, like uudenvuodentina or kalsarikännit? You don't mention Finnish in your Bable box, so it can't be that you come by them as you read Finnish texts. It's not that I would have a problem with them - they are actually quite fun to do. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I used to date a nice Finnish girl. 2. I listen to Nectarine demoscene radio. Hugs! Equinox 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

About clad[edit]

I agree with you; I'm not satisfied with the category I created, but I do think it's useful to gather these terms somehow. Would you have another solution? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Find a quote from Georgette Heyer, in reference to Almack's. - Amgine/ t·e 03:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

To your tender mercies[edit]

…I commend - Amgine/ t·e 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Place names votes[edit]

I hope you don't mind me messaging you to say that voting is open on Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Policy on place names. John Cross (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


This word is strongly political so there is no PC examples. --Михайло Марсов (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


I apologize. Like 99.99% of the time, I get quotations from the source (usually Google Books or Usenet, or a TV episode that I actually watched), but that line from I can't hear you over the sound of was the one exception I remember I got from Know Your Meme. I didn't watch the actual episode yet. Actually, I made a mistake because apparently the line was for a 2005 rewrite of the episode, and I failed to mention that. Link: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Fix this entry. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 08:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey! I've been a month sans block. Fancy administering it to me again? --Quadcont (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


What do you think of this? I'm not too happy with the page title, btw. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice list but should probably try to split the topics of wasting time and remaining idly in a particular place. Equinox 09:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kinorhyncha Hypernyms[edit]

Why did you undo my revision. According to [5], nothing links to that template. I have clearly checked before marking this page for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

[6] shows a link from the work in progress at User:DCDuring/Ruggiero Phyla. Equinox 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


I think it probably IS an invented name but, strangely, the UK index of births, marriages and deaths shows three deaths in the September quarter of 1854 (and no other births, marriages or deaths). I assume they have been wrongly indexed. (There is a free copy of the index (not complete) at [7]) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDB says it was chosen in reference to a real person with the surname Withnall. Equinox 14:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


I see that you changed the POS of Spock (the handshape) from noun to proper noun. What about the other RPS handshapes (rock, paper, scissors, lizard), and other handshapes such as shaka, hang loose, thumbs up, corna (no English section), facepalm, fig (sense missing)? It seems to me that they are all common nouns. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, suppose that a new version of the game introduced Paris (the city): Paris is crushed by rocks, or whatever. It's still a proper noun. Being used in a game doesn't change its part of speech, naturally. Equinox 22:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
(Equally, when a button says "play" or "pause" that is still a verb, so I disagree with your consumer-electronics-buttons entries.) Equinox 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your Paris example, because I believe the POS describes each sense separately. Equinox (your nickname) is a proper noun even though equinox is a common noun, and we have Dictionary as a proper noun entry for a nickname. If I say "You win, because you threw rock and I threw Paris.", I'm not actually talking about the city. In the entry Manhattan, there's a common noun sense for a cocktail. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You ARE talking about the city (or whatever): "Spock smashes scissors": it's not a common noun, not "a Spock, one Spock, two Spocks". It's Spock, the man with that name. The cocktail is different because you can order "two Manhattans". This is INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS TO ME, take it to others if you want to argue my edit. Equinox 22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is different, though, since Spock, the science fiction character, isn't really involved. The hand gesture is named after Spock, but it isn't a direct reference to him, any more than an axel is a direct reference to w:Axel Paulsen. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


I added the etym, there was a { { lena } }. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi Equinox,

I'm sorry to see you deleted the entry for polyfidelitous on the grounds that it was a "Creative invention or protologism". I appreciate you pointing me to WT:CFI, a guideline I hadn't previously read but was happy to. I've been kicking around Wikipedia for a while but have been a less regular Wiktionary user so it's true, I'm less familiar with the guidelines around here and it seems like you know more or less what's going on. That said, I want to take a stab at defending polyfidelitous against the Criteria for Inclusion and against the deletion guidelines.

If I understand correctly, the CFI is that a term be attested to at least three independent, meaning-conveying sources spanning more than a year. I promise you I did not just coin the term polyfidelitous because I felt like it but because I came across it while reading an article (the one I used to provide a quotation in the original version of the article, before it was deleted) and saw an opportunity to provide a definition for it. I'm not sure where the suggestion that this word is a protologism or creative invention comes from, as one source was provided from the get-go. I suppose I would have rather you'd asked me to provide more quotations in support of the word's suitability for inclusion as I'm new here and wasn't aware of a three-source minimum but this is why we have talk pages, to hash these things out!

Here, anyway, are several meaning-conveying published sources:

  • 1989: "They have another publication, "Utopia 2–Blueprint for Heaven on Earth," that sort of sketches in the details of why a polyfidelitous Haight-Ashbury commune engaged in creative caffeination, junk food therapy, computer consultation and Gestalt-O-Rama would declare Joan Jett a saint. Sort of." Spin magazine
  • 1992: "In Kerista, jealousy was an unlikely response because, within a polyfidelitous subculture, events that usually trigger jealousy (one's mate having sex with someone else, for example) were not likely to be appraised as threats." Romantic Jealousy: Causes, Symptoms, Cures
  • 1994: "If the percentage of polyfidelitous people grew beyond a certain fraction of the earth's total population, they were supposed to be able to change the world." Beyond the Mainstream: A Search for Alternatives
  • 1996: "Other increasingly common identities are gay bisexual among men, and bisensual, polysexual, polyamorous, and polyfidelitous among both women and men." Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia
  • 2001: "In July 1992, Cummings visited some of the ex-members, who became a new ten-person polyfidelitous commune relocated in Hawaii." What the Bible "really" says about sex : a new look at sexual ethics from a Biblical perspective
  • 2004: "We are a mostly polyfidelitous family — by that I mean that they [the speaker's wife and boyfriend] are both polyfidelitous with me by choice, and I have a couple of occasional outside fuck-buddies, so I'm technically polyamorous." Rites of Pleasure: Sexuality in Wicca and NeoPaganism
  • 2005: "This lack of interest in multi-party marriage among polyamorists is particularly interesting given the fact that, as mentioned above, there is often a legal marriage between at least two of the partners in a polyfidelitous group." The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law
  • 2009: "Cerro Gordo briefly was the home of a polyfidelitous group; this is often overlooked, but both Crabapple and Cerro Gordo were considered centers of the polyfidelity movement in the United States." Eden Within Eden: Oregon's Utopian Heritage
  • 2012: "Polyfamilies are also inclusive of both polyamorous families wherein various LGBT adults may seek external partners and polyfidelitous families wherein the LGBT adults agree to only be in sexual relationships with each other and not be open to relationships outside the group." LGBT-Parent Families: Innovations in Research and Implications for Practice
  • 2016: "I am undecided about whether the government would have legitimate reasons to prefer polyfidelitous polygamy over other kinds of poly families (e.g., where A is married to B and C, but B and C are not married to each other)." After Marriage: Rethinking Marital Relationships

I won't claim this is a word that has "clearly widespread use" but has it been "use[d] in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year"? Absolutely.

Against the deletion guidelines, I offer these responses. Is polyfidelitous:

  1. complete rubbish? No, as demonstrated above and in further sources.
  2. misspelled? No, as above.
  3. a protologism? No. Easily accessible written references to the word date back three decades.
  4. self-promotion? No.
  5. a license violation? No.
  6. a good title, but garbage content? No, the definition page was structured as best as I knew how to structure it based on the structures of related articles. Even if it had been terrible, a more sensible response might've been to point me to guidelines regarding how to reformat the page instead of deleting it outright.

Respectfully, polyfidelitous should be undeleted. I will be happy to add any or all of the aforementioned quotations to the undeleted page; all I ask is your good faith that I'm not attempting to coin arcane academic neologisms all willy-nilly for my own twisted pleasure. (I like to imagine that I have better hills upon which to die, even if perhaps I don't.) In deleting the one instance of the word polyfidelitous from the sole Wikipedia article to use it, you left this edit summary: "remove made-up word". In response to that and on a hopefully lighter note, I leave you with this tweet. All the best, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The word I deleted was polyfidelituous. The word you mention above is spelled differently and has never yet had an entry on Wiktionary. Equinox 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Lol. —JohnC5 19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh my god. I have to leave Wiktionary and never come back, I have burned myself that badly. Good lord. Sorry for what ended up being a massive overreaction and thanks again for pointing me to WT:CFI and WT:DELETE. This was truly the worst hill I've ever died upon. Humbly, Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me some time[edit]

Thanks for creating entries for some of those words I have on my user page! Have you been getting them from there, or did you come across them elsewhere? I've been too busy to create them myself (most of my edits happen as I'm using Wiktionary, not when I set time aside for it), so it's nice to see that they're being taken care of anyway. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I took a few from that page. Equinox 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting reason for article revision[edit]

Link to revision. PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason for "etc" to be italic, and the empty line between the headers should be there. —CodeCat 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
etc. (et cetera) is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase and should thus be italicized, like it is on Wikipedia.
Do you have a source for your claim about the empty lines between the headings?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. As for the second part, see WT:NORM. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is Wiktionary not a sister project of Wikipedia? Obviously, they are separate, but I think linking to a Wikipedia article to prove my point is acceptible. “etc.” is italicized on Wikipedia, so why should we ignore that here?
Unless anyone has a source for the italicization of “etc.,” I will revert Equinox’s revision.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: We do not italicize terms from Latin (or other languages) used in English on Wiktionary. This is in part because this practice is antiquated and unnecessary but mostly because italicized words in entries may have very specific meanings (non-gloss parts of a definition, a mention of a word instead of a usage, etc.). —JohnC5 18:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the helpful explanation, John. PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: No problem. I'm not sure, however, that such a rule exists in writing anywhere on this project. —JohnC5 18:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Creepy Elevator Game[edit]

Hi Equinox, I just decided to see what you're doing on Wikipedia, and I thanked you on an edit you made on a ritual called "Elevator game". I wonder if you'll try doing that one day? I might! — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Equinox 01:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I believe I never heard of that game before. I used to have a lot of recurring dreams where visiting a certain floor on the elevator would lead to alternate dimensions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe those dreams were your real life before you played the elevator game. OH AH OH!! Equinox 01:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I used to have tons of dreams about stairs and steep cliff edges. The obvious Freud/Jung type interpretation is OVERCOMING A CHALLENGE but I dunno. Anyway haven't had that recurring dream for years. Equinox 01:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, the "real life before you played " is clever! :) I don't know about OVERCOMING A CHALLENGE, I would guess dreams maybe are just crazy and random, but I'm not an expert.
I forgot to mention these coincidences: the Wikipedia page says "alternative reality, where nobody exists except for the player"! I had recurring dreams about that. When I was in a "secret" floor (like: 7th in a 6-floor building) and looked out the window, the world was exactly the same but only I existed. (I saw something similar on Haruhi Suzumiya years later and I could jokingly feel that my dream-story was ripped off, but of course it was a coincidence!) Also this: "a girl could appear, in person or disguised, luring the player. The game rules states the girl must be ignored". At some point, I dreamed that a girl tried to trick me into living forever in her floor in her place.
This is not on the Wikipedia page, so maybe I'm introducing something new: I dreamed that you could "unlock" the ability of typing any number, like maybe 89284927 to go to the secret 89284927th floor on the elevator. I probably wrote about these dreams in a dream diary. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit of oppå[edit]

Hello! You seem to have reverted my edit of oppå just now - what seems to be the problem?--Barend (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably that ² is not an IPA symbol. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember reverting that one: I might have hit the wrong rollback link. Sorry. Equinox 18:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

cornerman etymology[edit]

Are you sure that applies to the basketball definition as well as the boxing definition? Purplebackpack89 00:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

About my block[edit]

No, I am not a troll, and I’m unsure as to what my Twitter account has to do with anything that I do on Wiktionary. I use my Twitter account to tell whoever sees my tweets my feelings, and I use Wiktionary to learn new words, as well as improving the dictionary as much as I can.

Just because we have some conflicting opinions and disagreements does not mean that I’m a troll, a person who goes out of his or her way to make other people unhappy. No, I am not that. It is objectively impossible for one person to read all the policies that exist on this website, so I have to learn things as I go, and if I make a mistake, I deserve to be told what I did wrong; I don’t deserve to be insulted or blocked.

I do not make disruptive edits. You accused and insulted me for making an edit that I did not make. Additionally, if I make an edit that you disagree with, tell me why you disagree; don’t insult me and act childishly.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In truth, we have far fewer policies than most other projects. Furthermore, you have been told many times what you have done wrong, but then you ignore this advice. —JohnC5 18:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
By you, I have been told many times that I am wrong, but you’ve never told me what I’ve been doing wrong. How am I supposed to learn when you never want to elaborate?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1. You weren't blocked because of your Twitter account; I merely made the observation. 2. Yes, I was wrong to say you had made one edit which you didn't, but you have also made all kinds of other edit-warring trouble, refusing to learn and understand anything. I blocked you as a cumulative result of this, and not because of any single thing. 3. If you don't think you have done anything wrong at all then you are living in fantasy land and the block should be extended to protect Wiktionary from further ignorant damage. HTH HAND. Equinox 19:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)