User talk:Evrik

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



Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


As you've probably noticed by now, I've formatted your User:Evrik/epicaricacy entry and replied to your comment at User_talk:Connel MacKenzie#epicaricacy. Feel free to undo any changes you think were me going to far, and if you have more questions I'll try and answer them. Yours Conrad.Irwin 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just saw your note on Muke's page. I wouldn't hold your breath on a response from him if I were you, as he hasn't been active on the English Wiktionary for some time. Your entry looks good, but the trick will be citing it. What I would highly suggest is finding cites for it ahead of time. Otherwise, it's unlikely that anyone will support it being reinserted after failing rfv (I won't without cites). Also, I'll go ahead and clean up your etymology. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the etymology's fixed. It turns out there is no such Greek word that combines all three into one word. However, there is ἐπίχαρτος (epíkhartos), which means something similar, and which I'll create shortly. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some cites there, but I can't find any good ones - this is still only borderline as far as CFI is concerned and we've got prejudice to fight too. If you could find a sentence or two from somewhere it'd be absolutely perfect, as it is it might be better with an {{obsolete}} tag at the start of the definition. Good luck! Yours Conrad.Irwin 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the kind of word that many of us dislike because it is rather artificial. It has many times more appearances in books about words (that is mentions) than actual usage. Fortunately for all of us, we have fairly objective standards. I have taken a demanding stance on the Citations page, but am amenable to reasoned argument about my evaluations of the citations. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi. On your citations page, the first one, 1621 — Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, does not seem to have a cite. Do you have a sentence from that example using the word? It would be greatly helpful. p.s. Great work on gathering info beforehand on this. sewnmouthsecret 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi. In the citations page, I bolded the terms. I hope you don't mind; it's easier to read that way. sewnmouthsecret 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another cite (I imagine Wordpress counts as a durably archived source)[edit]

Available here. sewnmouthsecret 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Hiya. I am a bit concerned that all the cites are from websites, but it's certainly not something I'd want to delete in its current form. Looks like you have found good evidence for its use, albeit the word will probably need a {{rare}} tag. Widsith 08:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Just butting in here... Sorry, but you only appear to have two valid cites, spanning less than a year. Blog cites have not generally been accepted heretofore, though you are welcome to argue for an exception. -- Visviva 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)