User talk:Kiwima

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

Removal of item from Wiktionary:Requested entries (English)[edit]

Hello, I recently discovered that my request for googly moogly was missing from the Wiktionary:Requested entries (English) page. The removal of entries from requested entry pages usually means that the entry has been created, but googly moogly is still missing, and apparently has never existed.

Did you intend to create this entry? Or did you remove the listing for some other reason? Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eirikr - I created googly-moogly, because all the attestable examples I found included the hyphen.


Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt forms[edit]

Hi. Please see my edit at marketgoer. It is preferable to do it this way (with the template) because it lets the software recognise an alternative form, and makes it clear that we aren't saying "a marketgoer is an alternative form"; obviously a marketgoer isn't that, it's a person. Equinox 03:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English entries missing definitions[edit]

You are really kicking arse with these. Keep it up! Equinox 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, although with respect to the scientific jargon you guys keep getting bombarded with, do look for sources where scientists define their own jargon. (Or ask me for earth sciency & bio/palaeo stuff, and Semper for everything else.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are you finding all the meanings?! I spent some time on the definitionless category and it was really tough. Equinox 01:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can be really tough, and you may notice that I am skipping quite a few as I work my way along in alphabetical order. Some of them have definitions in other dictionaries that I can paraphrase. Some of them I go combing through the citations until I find one that defines the term - usually in a different part of the text than the one quoted by google books, so it can be slow going. And in a few (very rare) cases, I already know the meaning. Kiwima (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fix these please[edit]


quantum-> prefix: "quanto-"

--- also:

  • non-lectic: [synonym =] nonverbal, information or signal not transmitted through speech
facial expressions, nonverbal communication - (once again, can't find the citations. I only found two:
  • 2014, Michael M. Nikoletseas, Parmenides in Apophatic Philosophy ((Please specify the language of the quote)), →ISBN, page 10:
    In my work I have struggled to express non-lectic, 'mental' schemata into words.
  • 2011, K Bazhanov & SA Obiedkov, “Comparing Performance of Algorithms for Generating the Duquenne-Guigues Basis”, in CLA Conference Series ((Please specify the language of the quote)), page 54:
    In our future work, we plan to extend the comparison to algorithms generating the Duquenne–Guigues basis in a different (non-lectic) order, in particular, to incremental [17] and divide-and-conquer [19] approaches, probably, in conjunction with newer algorithms for computing the closure of a set [16].

Kiwima (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwima Rocks!!! =)

protophotons - protophoton only as an extrapolation of data[edit]

protophotons - protophoton

Sorry - I can't find any citations for this, but I can find proto-photon. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

旧光子 paleophoton[edit]

Definition of paleophotons or 宇宙マイクロ波背景放射 or 旧光子 The cosmic microwave background radiation. The low energy thermal part of the cosmic background radiation.

I know... very rare but functional. People understand that way that only the old thermal part of the radiation is the CMB and not the CBR (cosmic background radiation)

Place for removed cites?[edit]

I see you removed some cites from Polandball.

Is there a place somewhere else on the page we can add those back, like a new section for other languages?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citations I removed are all on the citations page, organized by language. Kiwima (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt Citations pages don't get deleted along with the entry if it fails rfv, so that the entry can be restored later if someone finds more cites. If you ever have doubts about creating an entry because you're not sure it will pass rfv, the best thing to do is create a citations page before you create the entry, and accumulate cites until you have proof that it meets CFI, then create the page. That way you don't have to worry about it being deleted because people don't think it exists. It also has the benefit of giving you a better idea of how the term is actually used, which often makes for better definitions and a better entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we are on the topic of how to generate entries, @Cirt, it is probably a good idea to simply add a request for an entry on the requests page rather than generating empty entries like this that have no quotations and no definition. Kiwima (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has a definition and quotations. I just had to do more research. Thank you both for your advice, -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I was about to add this one but I was struggling with a definition. Figured it might be better to leave it here than add it as an rfdef. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are serious about this request, and that it is not just a pisstake: There is already a definition of piss-take, so this is just an alternate form. In any case, I'm glad you asked, since "piss-take" did not include the use as a verb. Kiwima (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't even thought that it might come across thus. I somehow didn't think of the hyphenated form (which I hardly ever see, at least in use by the people I talk to). Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't, I just couldn't resist the pun.

rub up on[edit]

Hi. I put an rfdef in here recently and you basically undid it. I still don't think that the citation belongs under that sense. It seems to be something more like "come up against" or "encounter". I don't see stimulation or resonance having much relevance. What do you think? Equinox 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like a form of "stimulate" or "react", by the "to see the stain it leaves." Kiwima (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit. Looks pretty good now. Equinox 01:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Re sense 2, manufacturer: surely the first citation is a scanno for "good maker", similar to getting a novel from "all good bookshops"? A general-purpose "any goods-maker" wouldn't offer telescopes anyway; you need a specialist. The second citation looks weird too: what does "hr" mean here? Was Google able to show you the actual page, and not just a possibly wrong text scan? Equinox 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the actual images not just the scan results. Kiwima (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not closely enough: in this one the "hr" is really "by" and there's a space between "good" and "makers". In this one, not all of the right-hand edge of the page is visible, but there's clearly a space after "good" with a fragment of another word barely visible after that (I would guess it's "cigar"), and "maker" at the beginning of the next line. For the 1882 quote, there's clearly a space between "good" and "maker" (a hit for another scan of the same edition even has "good maker" in the text on the results page). By my reckoning that makes you 0 for 3 on the manufacturing sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Just curious where you found the English definition. No online English dictionary seems to have this word. --WikiTiki89 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the definition in a dictionary - I found it in several of the texts that use the word. I often find it helpful to read the texts from which I take citations. Kiwima (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I wonder to what extent the definitions given in these are influenced by the Hebrew definition, for lack of sufficient knowledge and statistics about English usage. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a point, but as I said, I found the definition in not one, but several texts. Also, it seems consistent with all of the uses in the citations I can find. Kiwima (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with citations[edit]

I was wondering if you could find citations for two senses of sugar: "(chiefly southern US, slang, uncountable) Effeminacy in a male, often implying homosexuality." and "(uncountable, informal) Diabetes." They seem plausible, but are difficult to search for. Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a noun that goes with this adjective? *meroite? DTLHS (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

meroism (state of being meroic) seems to exist, but is very rare. Equinox 23:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
meroism looks to me to be something else entirely. The cites I find refer to germ cell clusters in ovaries, nothing to do with excretory organs. Kiwima (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The zoological dictionary I found it in says that meroic comes from meros. Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Could you take a look at the citations here? I have a feeling there may be multiple definitions. DTLHS (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


You added the 'Verb' section with wrong offset. Also adjective translations are now under the verb. Yurivict (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.


Hi ! Shouldn't we make one of these entries the main entry and the other an alternative form ? I don't care which Leasnam (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ---[reply]


Fancy trying to define it? Etymologically, each element has the same meaning, but compare werehuman. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving discussions[edit]

Please use the proper templates when archiving discussions (as here), and make sure you archive them even when they passed (as here). If you notice, there are "archive" links on the RFD/RFV pages, which can do all this work for you, try it out. --WikiTiki89 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I will try to do it right in the future. Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still doing it manually... Wikitiki wasn't clear if you aren't in the know, but if you go to WT:PREFS and select aWa on Gadgets. It'll make Archive links turn up that nearly everybody uses to semi-automatically archive discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually archive the discussions, rather than just removing them like you did here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you're cleaning out RFV, by the way! Just so you know, you can archive multiple discussions at once by clicking the link for each one and letting them pile up in the popup. It's a good deal more efficient. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be making a habit of archiving RFV discussions that haven't been closed. The top of WT:RFV says to wait a week after a discussion has been closed before archiving, and I think that's a good practice—occasionally there is something wrong with the closure, and leaving that time allows other users to object if necessary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and didn't think I had done so. I am not entirely sure which discussion you are meaning. Kiwima (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of discussions like these: [1] [2]. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. In both those cases, the discussion looked like it ended on agreement over a year ago, but in the future, I will be sure to explicitly let it sit with an RFV-passed comment. Kiwima (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! To echo what Metaknowledge said, I'm glad you've been cleaning out RFV—the work is much needed! —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, this archiving didn't work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Kiwima, you've been a great help around here for a good while now. Fancy being given the burden of administrator powers? I could set up a vote for you. --G23r0f0i (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@G23r0f0i What is entailed in being an administrator? I don't know how I feel about it until I know what is expected. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You get a few extra buttons, primarily the ability to delete pages (e.g. obvious spam and vandalism). Equinox 04:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. I believe I can be trusted with that. Kiwima (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign here. --WF April 2017 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote has passed, you're an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing RFVs[edit]

Thanks for working on RFV! I have a couple notes about closing RFV discussions. When you close an RFV, you can't just say that it's passed or failed and be done with it. If it passed, you actually have to go to the entry and remove the tag, and if it failed, you have to delete the entry. (But before deleting it, you should check the 'What links here', and if any other entries do link to it, you should remove the links; if any of them are inflected forms of the page to be deleted, those should be deleted as well.) One more thing is that when closing a discussion, you should strike out the title with <s></s>. This gives a quick visual cue to anyone who's archiving a bunch of discussions at once that this discussion is ready to be archived as well. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that to make it easier on other archivers, please strike out the section title when you close an RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed item. Where to see reason?[edit]

I see you removed coorne. I fail to see any explanation anywhere; is there any place to see the justification? Furthermore, when I enter the word now, I not only don't see the English entry, but also don't see the Dutch/Belgian material.JonRichfield (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Dutch entry; only the English failed RFV (WT:Requests for verification#coorne). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Development and overlapped edit confusion. Ignore foregoing re Dutch, thanks. I see it has since been restored. I still am concerned about the English, where there are grounds for readers who encounter the word to wonder what it is; there was a previous confusion with "coronet" for exampleJonRichfield (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the link to the RFV discussion? How will there be readers who encounter the word if there aren't places for it to be encountered? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Metaknowledge already answered for me. I do apologise for accidentally deleting the Dutch. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure sense[edit]

This is more vulgar and obscure than many of the senses you've proven preternaturally adept at tracking down citations of, so I understand if you are uninterested or unable to help find any more citations of this, but at Talk:cock#cock_and_vagina, several users mention familiarity with the use of "cock" in the Southern US, before the 1960s, to mean "vagina", and there are two (not-independent) examples of Lucille Bogan using it that way, and other references confirming that's what she meant by it (even though a reading of "dildo" seems almost more plausible). Can you find any other citations? - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from RFV/RFD[edit]

Hi. Remember to delete the inflected entries too, like plural uneutomers! Equinox 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and whinelings! And some others I've done lately :) Equinox 21:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I think this was too hasty. Many of those cites could be a real screen saver. For example Windows comes with one that lets you just set a photo, or a folder full of photos, as the screen saver. Equinox 10:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I looking through them, I think I see at least three that really mean the wallpaper. Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I quote, "a period or condition when food is rare and hence expensive; famine." (wikitionary for dearth). Famine is also shown as a synonym for dearth. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether dearth is a synonym, but rather whether setting up a synonyms header and linking to the term is giving it undue weight. The truth is, basically no one uses it that way anymore, except a few oddball hobbyists like you. You've been warned before about using Wiktionary to push your POV- don't push it... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To hinder someone's point of view is to push your own. By the way... I don't have any set view (even though you think I do). I'm just a worker on here that mostly does OE and some English synonyms. I'm sorry to break it to you, but a synonym is a synonym whether you like it or not. (if you don't know the definition of a "synonym" please see synonym). Please be professional about your work as will I. Anglish4699 (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for insulting you, but my point still stands: we don't list every synonym just because it's a synonym. Also, please point to anywhere in the above where I said anything wasn't a synonym. As for your protestations to not having "a set view", I might be more inclined to believe you if I could find one instance of your adding a synonym of non-Germanic origin. Feel free to point me to one I may have missed. I have no quarrel with your OE work, but your English work is transparently aimed at promoting obscure etymologically-Germanic terms by slipping them in where they don't belong while no one's looking. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving open RFVs[edit]

You should only archive RFVs that have been closed. For example, Talk:superbike shows that it was clearly not concluded, and the entry still has an RFV tag on it. I'll leave that one to you to clean up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

race realist[edit]

Are you sure that the 2006 cite isn't using the term in the second sense? It looks like the author is involved in a research programme called 'Critical Race Theory'. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I'll remove it as it's not really needed anyway.


Hey, Kiwima -- in this edit I noticed you archived the RFV for pedosaur. The word apparently got speedied and stricken out prematurely, then I found 73 cites for it on Usenet. An anonymous IP replied to me about it, but no one undeleted it and added the cites. Then you aWa'd it a week after the last reply. The discussion wasn't really closed. This entry should be undeleted until someone has added some of the good Usenet cites, then the RFD discussion should be kept open unless and until anyone raises objections to the cites. Just a thought. Khemehekis (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Khemehekis:, I have undeleted it. How about you add your cites?

Thanks. I'm a little clumsy with citation formatting. However, these Usenet posts look like good candidates for cites:!search/pedosaur/alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die/VP3b_qhG3ds/P-t-MNtXLoYJ
How can you love the Purple Pedosaur? Don't you see that he only wants to use you until you can no longer serve him?!search/pedosaur/misc.survivalism/UapVgoTECpg/LtrRRvaqPaQJ
More like "getting approving looks from Mr. and Mrs. Moron for having his face buried in a copy of _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_ instead of transfixed by the pictures of Barney the Purple Pedosaur (or whatever the rug monkeys are watching now) on the idiot box.!search/pedosaur/alt.hypnosis/a7c3aHbW7zw/3KC4ec_e84AJ
Death to the Purple Pedosaur and his evil influence over our young children.!search/pedosaur/alt.christnet.dinosaur.barney/TO-tU_Km4k0/nG0gFYOzREoJ
Figures! I think it is because no translator could be paid enough to dub the Purple Pedosaur's voice with his own....!search/pedosaur/misc.activism.militia/7gbMN5Fyjxo/IlVasWDLUvMJ
Well, there's Barney the Purple Pedosaur. Khemehekis (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more formatting nags[edit]

Not a huge deal, but I've noticed a couple of weird formatting things you do: (i) often adding extra blank lines (which show up in the entry and look strange) e.g. [3]) and (ii) not identing your comments in RFV/D discussion, so it's hard to tell them apart from the person above you. (You just have to start the line with a colon: You're wrong / : No, you're wrong!.) Maybe you could format the "normal" way unless you have a special reason. Equinox 23:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


…but why did you remove the Angela Carter cite? Having a well-known author listed is always an advantage IMO and makes a welcome change from the other technical examples. Ƿidsiþ 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the Angela Carter cite, @Widsith, Ƿidsiþ. I moved the Angela Carter cite to room-set, because it was a hyphenated form!
Ah OK, fair enough. However, as a general principle, citations for alternative forms can also be used as citation evidence under the main lemma. But yeah, I don't mind where you put it particularly. Ƿidsiþ 07:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure why someone earlier questioned my account; I came here after a thread discussed old glossaries on a lookist forum. Anyway, could you define the following: AFChick, AFCdom, AFCness? Freepudding0 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define the following: WBAFC? Freepudding0 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Freepudding0 but I can't find sufficient cites to meet our attestation criteria.


Why this reversion? [4] One of your cites talks about "abundant crotovine" which is clearly uncountable (no article, "a", "the"). There's no evidence of countability like "one crotovine, two crotovine". Equinox 23:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, compare "rice". You can say "some rice", but not "one rice, two rices" (unless you're saying "the rices of India and Asia differ"). Therefore it's en-noun|~. "Abundant crotovine" is like "endless rice": there's no grammatical count implied. Equinox 23:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction. I interpreted the cite to be analogous to "abundant fossils" rather than "abundant loam", but I now see where you may be right. Kiwima (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry if I sounded patronising. I see a lot of entries where someone innocently mixed this up (and I'm not sure our templates are well suited to some of the cases) so I'm used to changing it almost automatically. I will leave you to sort out the entry as you see fit. Equinox 23:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen u do a lot of work on Requested entries, some that i have even requested,and i just wanted to thank u for doing all that. Keep it up!


Sounds like a challenge for you… - Amgine/ t·e 17:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Talk:yt, which I also see online but not yet in durably-archived places. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


We don't do barnstars much around here, but...

Original Barnstar Hires.png Barnstar
For your extensive work verifying words, including some 
words that no-one else has been able to find citations of.
- -sche (discuss) 04:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awww...I'm touched. Kiwima (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I was looking through my watchlist and accidentally clicked "Rollback" on your edit. (My computer can be slow and sometimes loads buttons in different locations after I clicked on them in the first location, causing me to click a different button.) PseudoSkull (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though rollbacking is a useful tool, it's one of those things where if you have the rights you wanna be really careful where you click. I left a note at the top of my talk page explaining that sometimes I click the button by mistake, as embarrassing as it is when it happens. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

random-ish thought[edit]

You comment on your user page that the durable-sources rule can be frustrating. I think in terms of "western"(?) UK/US/AU... etc. words it's actually something of a shield. A lot of people, especially spammy Internet entrepreneurs, want to publish their word on one Web page and then get us to promote it. I was thinking of this [I mean I saw it as a word that might suffer from "western underdocumentation"] when I saw your recent addition of Jamaican heartical (which is actually pretty well attested in GBooks, it seems). But more so when I very occasionally encounter a word that almost certainly exists, maybe verifiably from speakers, but isn't well documented in text (might be in some Aussie Aboriginal community, or the harder case like some old London slang that only survives in Dickens, that he presumably didn't lie about, but we have virtually no chance of evidencing now). Guess I was going to ask two things: (i) do you habitually create "citations" pages (good place to put legit word where you can't find three uses), (ii) do you have any bright ideas about improving CFI source eligibility without opening the floodgates to bullcrap that someone just invented overnight? Equinox 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Equinox I do generally stick things on Citations pages when I can't find sufficient cites. You do have a good point about the floodgates of protoneologisms, but there are often words that are clearly in use, just not in durably archived sources. We already have SOME safeguards in place against neologisms, such as requiring the citations to reflect independent usages (different authors and not referring to each other). Perhaps we could allow non-durably archived sources, but increase the number of citations required, with some sort of formula like 3 non-durably archived sources = 1 durably archived source. Kiwima (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine someone taking advantage of that. You know, get your three friends to post the same word on three forums... Still, hard to know what else. The best thing we seem to have (in the arts/sciences) is the "peer review", which Wiktionary already nods to insofar as (IIRC) one use in a PROPER journal is enough. 'Course, journals can screw up occasionally. We seem to need some kind of "good-faith" rule, where we could accept Web usage if it wasn't made up to trick us, or a typo, or... hmm... well thanks for your feedback. And for your citing work. Equinox 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought @Equinox: if it is not in a durably archived source, it must be over a year old. That makes it harder to abuse (requiring at least a year of advance planning), but still picks up a lot of the online magazines such as Huffington Post and Breitbart - that are currently not allowed. Kiwima (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the "hot word" thing insofar as there are some words that get lots of media coverage for a week and never get used again, and others where the media use actually heralds something new. I feel no sense of guilt creating an entry with "hot word" template :D Yeah, I feel as though stuff like HuffPo and Breitbart should probably be acceptable (they are "quasi-MSM" IYSWIM) and, as much as am nostalgic about Usenet newsgroups, nobody really uses Usenet any more, and as far as finding words, it's a relic (a good place to find Internet slang up until about 2005). Hey-ho. Just pondering. (P.S. If a properly cited word does fail RFV/D, I don't necessarily see that as a problem, because any cites can be shifted to the Citations page or Talk page, or in the absolute worst case can be salvaged from the deletion by an admin. But that's obviously not ideal.) Equinox 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding firststuff, and RFV in general[edit]

I'm sorry for my rather rude way of pestering you at RFV. I don't want to make people who do generally good work feel unwelcome. Sometimes a brief wikibreak can be beneficial for mental health, but I certainly don't want you to leave. You must feel pretty frustrated when you see me pinging you with complaints. I get somewhat frustrated as well, because I want to be able to trust that your cites attest to the sense in question. All in all, it's not a positive dynamic. I'll try to work on that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Metaknowledge for the apology. I was being somewhat oversensitive (sorry, an unfortunate side effect of my pain meds). I do not mind your questioning the work, what I minded was the tone. I believe that Wiktionary should be done in a spirit of collaboration, and what I was getting from you felt more like something adversarial and condescending. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right. If it happens again, feel free to remind me to assess how I'm behaving. I need to reserve that kind of tone for vandals. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Cradle[edit]

This entry is incorrect, because we already have Newton's cradle. Also, Executive Ball Clicker is an incorrect use of caps, even though more sources use it that way for some odd reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made Newton's Cradle an alt form of Newton's cradle. As for the capitalization on Executive Ball Clicker, I am following the usage that I find, Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that quite clearly, and I'm not condemning your efforts, but I don't think that nouns should be capitalized in the lemma unless there is an extremely extenuating good reason for it. "Executive Ball Clicker" just seems like a regular noun though that happens to be capitalized in a lot of sources. A lot of people seem to capitalize nouns in sources just because they are technical terms, but grammatically this is not correct. I know I've brought up the problem of improperly capitalized nouns before somewhere, but I can't remember where. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but when creating the entry, I felt somewhat constrained by our rules about durably archived sources (I only found two uses of executive ball clicker on durably archived sources, which means that if someone decides to challenge it, it probably would not pass RFV, in spite of many uses on non-durably archived sources.) That is why I made Executive Ball Clicker the main lemma. However, if you feel inclined to change it so that executive ball clicker is the main lemma and Executive Ball Clicker an alternative form, I, for one, would not object. Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

webside adjectival sense in webside manner[edit]

Fair enough; temper tantrum suppressed, per User_talk:Chuck_Entz#webside_adjectival_sense_in_webside_manner. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quercus solaris, I am sorry you consider it an insult. If you look on the talk page for webside, you will see that the meaning you put in FAILED RFV a while ago, because it only appears in the phrase webside manner, where it IS documented. I added a "see also" to the entry to make that use easier to find. The "error" for website is currently under RFD. If it fails that process, I would recommend changing webside to a redirect to webside manner. However, the rollback is because you cannot simply re-add a term that has failed RFV without valid citations. If you want webside as a stand-alone word added, I suggest you find some cites that use webside with that meaning in some form other than the phrase webside manner. Kiwima (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I didn't understand that an RFV process had happened and I thought it was just a deletion out of the blue. I should have looked at the talk page before assuming that. Sorry I threw a fit. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I want to tell you that it is not suppose to be a misspelling of cartridge. I intended it to be a new word for "cartridges." Sorry for my texting. Steven Justin (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steven Justin -- I was aware of that. That is why I added the misspelling entry as a separate entry rather than just changing your definition. Kiwima (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your edit on the sense, which makes it fit with the citations at least; however, it would be helpful to have at least one citation showing that the word has been used as a verb, in a form other than the past participle. Otherwise, I believe the entry should be "enridged" and "enridge", "enridges" and "enridging" should be deleted. (Aabull2016 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Aabull2016: If you look at the citations that I added, they ARE using enridge as a verb in a form other than the past participle. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry - I didn't scroll down! Thanks for digging these out. (Aabull2016 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

antispleen, antikidney[edit]

Hi. I think these might actually refer to types of serum reaction, like antideer, antirabbit. Whether that has to involve harm/damage I am not sure. Equinox 01:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Offglide in the first sense refers to any intermediary state of the articulators from one position to another. That includes a transition to the articulatory setting. So there may even be an "offglide" after an utterance-final sound, like the brief friction produced during the tongue tip moving from the roof of the mouth to the resting position in [t], as in cat, in which case there will be no "previous sound". Nardog (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I placed the citation I added back to BSL. Why would you delete it? IQ125 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IQ125: It was a mention, not a use. I replaced it with citations that help meet validation criteria. And I did not completely delete it, I moved it to the Citations page. It was redundant with the link in the references section anyway. Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a valid reference and should have been left in the Quotation section. IQ125 (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IQ125: Actually, not only was it a mention (defining the term, not using it), but it was also not on a durably archived source. Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Great! Now create route-marched. Torrent01 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Give an old lady some time. I was in the middle of doing just that! Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This doesn't seem to correspond to any of the current definitions in Khazar- what did you have in mind? DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for adding the meaning of the adjective. Do you think the word is pronounced as in the entry's IPA transcription or that it instead takes after shive? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: No idea. I have never actually heard it used -- only in books. Kiwima (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The double vv suggests it must be a short i: compare the sounds of biter and bitter. Equinox 10:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Unsure how to submit instances and examples in order to pass RFV.

Currently, Hypercube is most often associated perhaps incorrectly with such a class of objects, however Metacube has been coined and given the second description may well serve as suitable for such a class of objects.

" A block party metacube is an arrangement of all eight cubes into a 2 × 2 × 2 metacube so that each of the six sides of the metacube forms a party. For example, in Fig. 4, only the top side of the metacube forms a party." - Auto-tabling for subproblem presolving in MiniZinc; Dekker, Björdal, Carlsson, Flener, Monette; First Online: 06 June 2017

"metachromatism, metachronous, metachrosis, metacone, metaconid, metacontrast, metaconule" Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers:, If you can find two more uses (not definitions, but quotes that actually use the word with this meaning), I will be happy to add them to the entry and restore the definition, but it failed RFV because no one else could find such uses. Kiwima (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima:, Finding examples of the term being used may be difficult if metacube may be a neologism as a participant previously pointed out. Hypercube by comparison may be a questionable term and which may be currently attributed to a specific variation of the meta or hypercube concept, although We're not necessarily bringing the hypercube term into question, metacube may serve to enhance our understanding of the concept such as what it may suggest and how it may be applied. Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made up a meaning for the word. Wiktionary does not host things that you just make up one day; they have to follow our criteria for inclusion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima:, Read the document carefully, but unclear why the addition of a generalized description for an existing term fails to qualify for inclusion. Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers:, First of all, you are pinging me in response to a comment by @Metaknowledge. You might want to check who signed a comment before responding. Second, the part of the criteria for inclusion that is relevant in this case is under the Attestation heading: use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. A single use is not enough. A description or definition of the term is not a use conveying meaning, it is talking about the word, not using it. Kiwima (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima:, Sorry for the misdirected response and thanks for yours.

Attestation makes sense for a term that may exist which Wiktionary may not yet include, however in a case where a class of objects may be without a suitable collective term, providing examples of use may prove difficult if not impossible. To complicate the matter, an existing entry for what may be a preferred term for such an object class, has an existing entry and may be unnecessarily limited by description to one specific use (note: metacube qualified as a new term and appears only in Wiktionary), further complicated by the reference to hypercube which may serve as a specific example of the class of object but as a general term for the class of objects may be a misnomer, so although a suitable and preferred term exists, we're left without a Wiktionary reference for the class of objects simply due to lack of a generalized description for an existing term.

That's about the best we can do to provide an accurate description of the current condition and totally up to the contributors if or how they wish to address the matter; we refer to the platform often and although for our purposes a Wiktionary entry to reference metacube may be preferable, lack of such a reference ought not present a problem except perhaps the confusion that the existing definition may present.

Best of luck and continued success. Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFV for sense 2 of willer[edit]

Just wondering why you reverted my removal of the RFV. I thought the citations you added would constitute sufficient verification of the sense. Aabull2016 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC) @Asbull2016: RFV is a process, and by that process, the cites sit for one week before removing the RFV. Be patient. It will happen. Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reponse! My apologies for jumping the gun; I'm still learning how things work, and I appreciate the explanation. Aabull2016 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Terms ending in fie that do not have three valid cites are nonetheless evidence that -fie is a productive suffice. If you could retain any citations found on the Citations page, that might help in attesting -fie even we have entries for fewer than three terms ending in fie. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:-fie. DCDuring (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: I just cited pelfie, so we now have three fully-cited terms. Will that do? Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think so.
I read somewhere that nonce words that use an affix are often the best evidence that the affix is productive. In this case it's hard to miss the linguistic phenomenon. In other cases it might be easy for it to escape our notice. The instances I've noticed have all(?) started as blends, so maybe "someone" should just look at our blends to see whether there are any latent or emergent affixes. DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In pelfie, the "l" isn't part of pet and it differs from selfie only by the initial consonant, so it has to be a blend. The same applies (with slight variation) to drelfie, nelfie, belfie, welfie and velfie. Shelfie, killfie and smellfie are borderline. These all have a generally similar phonological shape, so it's hard to rule out any of them as blends. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, @Chuck Entz:. That is an argument in favor of a blend rather than a productive suffix. OTOH, I added a cite each for shoefie and sexfie to the -fie citations page, which is what I think @DCDuring is looking for. Kiwima (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At some point there will be something that can't be called a blend. Consider the process that led to -gate. Note that some of the words ending in fie no longer have anything to do with one's self. Just saying. DCDuring (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations for kite[edit]

Hi, if you feel up to a challenge, I've had difficulty finding quotations for noun sense 8 and verb senses 4, 7 and 8 of kite (etymology 1). The word is appearing as WOTD on 3 August 2019, but no problem if you can't find anything by then. Also, I'm not intending to RFV any of the senses, so it's not necessary to find three citations for each of the senses. One illustrative quotation for each would be great. Thanks! — SGconlaw (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgconlaw: I managed to find all your verb senses, but I struck out on the noun. I looked through enough mountain biking literature that I am beginning to doubt the validity of the noun, but it might be good to ask a mountain biker. Kiwima (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's from this list (which references this). DTLHS (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hmmm, maybe we should RFV the cycling sense after 3 August, then. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my post?[edit]

--Backinstadiums (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Backinstadiums: It made no sense. The link gave another definition ("at least"), which we already have, but no other spelling, and "nine tenths of us" is merely part of an example sentence, not a definition). Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwima: The point was to indicat we do not have the orthography of nine tenths --Backinstadiums (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Backinstadiums: What does that have to do with fully? You put your comment on Talk:fully. If you wish, you can make a comment on Talk:nine tenths, saying you think we should have an entry for it, or add a request to requested entries, or bring this up in the tea room. Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Report vandalism[edit]

Special:Contributions/ --Xiplus (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bases loaded revert?[edit]

Hey Kiwima, why did you revert my edits? - TheDaveRoss 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDaveRoss: I did not see the point of the edit, and the result was just a redlink which is unlikely to be filled because "bases juiced" is not idiomatic. If you can justify an entry for bases juiced, then go ahead and put it back. Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was already on the page, just as the bases are juiced which is a non-lemma form of the same term, and it was not the only change made. It is rather poor form to revert edits which are not vandalism, next time just put a note on my talk page or the entry talk page and I am happy to discuss. - TheDaveRoss 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDaveRoss: Point taken. I apologise.
Accepted, and thank you. I still appreciate you and all the work you do! - TheDaveRoss 18:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again! How do we find old Internet slang now that Google Groups has been cut off at the knees? I have got a slight suspicion about FYFI, which if it exists outside of netslang lists is surely to be found on old Usenet posts, but they aren't reliably searchable any more. If RFVing it just dumps more on your plate, how would you look for it anyway? Equinox 21:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: Sadly, I have no idea. I really think we need to change our rules about what is allowable, or give up on internet slang. It occurs to me that one possible rule we could introduce, if we want to allow internet slang but disallow the sort of post that is easily created to support a hoax word, would be to require non-durably archived sources that are older than a year (or two).... Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly aren't gonna give up Internet slang, since it exists and we already document it probably better than the (gold-standard) OED. Ah well. Thanks Google for creating a really cool tech and ripping it from under our feet once again. — To clarify, I'm not against citing crap like Twitter at this point (hey even the OED cites Twitter!), I think we probably need it (I didn't feel this way five years ago) but my question was about how to find real old Usenet posts, not about how to do without them. Anyway thanks for listening, and as always for your work on here. Equinox 22:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me some of the most interesting words are ones that have been killed or overshadowed by new mass-tech, like microdrive (who had one of those?) or teleshopping (not what we call an Amazon session today) or wiz (once the mighty ruler of the multi-user dungeon, today just a word for having a piss). rant rant. Equinox 22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried a regular search with ""? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


There is no need to keep all of that junk on that entry because it is only the alt form and the definitions will be properly maintained on the main entry. It is best to avoid forking. -Mike (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When deleting entries at RFV...[edit]

please remember to check for inflected forms and anagram links and remove those as well. For example, here are some that need to be dealt with because you deleted casuarid. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFVs and incoming links[edit]

When you delete an entry due to RFV/RFD, please check for incoming links, as advised on screen when you do it. I had to get rid of the plural basigynia but worse, podogynium and thecaphore now have definitions containing the red-linked word... Equinox 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rollback in error[edit] seems wrong, why remove coordinate terms? Olivia comet (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivia comet: Because they are not coordinate terms. The sense of denarian to mean people between 10 and 19 failed RFV and was removed, so denarian is not coordinate with the other terms for age decades. Kiwima (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, weird I thought I saw it there but it was definitely not there when I added to the page so I must've gotten mixed up.

Does this mean Robert Scher's citation would be removed from Citations:denarian ?

I notice uses it, authored by William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR, Chief Editor

Plus there is

Further life-course categorizations would include denarian (age 10–19); vicenarian (20–29); tricenarian (30–39); quadragenarian (40–49)

Perhaps not a strong enough argument was made for it's inclusion initially when it was removed? Olivia comet (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivia comet: Robert Scher's citation should remain on the citations page - if two more viable citations are found, the sense can be reinstated. Unfortunately, the Shiel quote and the Jelen quote that you give here do not count because they are considered mentions (only defining the term) rather than uses (text that makes use of the term in order to say something). What we need to find in order to reinstate the definition is something like "They usually prefer denarians who have had camp experience." (A quote I altered - it actually was about "teens"). And that is really the problem we are up against - most people, when discussing this age group, use the terms "teen" or "teenager", or even "adolescent" rather than "denarian". Yes, the meaning of "denarian" is slightly different, including ages 10, 11, and 12, which are pre-teens, but that distinction does not seem useful enough for us to find quotes to support the age range definition of denarian. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV tmplt no longer necessary?[edit]

Thanks for your additions on hostage. Are you happy to remove the RFV tmplt for def #2 as well? 08:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let it wait its week out, and then I will remove the tag. Kiwima (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thx. 05:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of an entry with citations[edit]

Entry in question: wehraboo

From the given reason for deletion, the entry had previously been deleted due to a RFV from a failure to attest valid citations. The previous deletion stated to "not re-enter without valid citations", though five citations had been provided spanning 7 years. Unless I'm missing something, this is in accordance with one of the criteria at WT:ATTEST:

use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year

The only thing I can think of that isn't in accordance with this is the "permanently recorded" statement. Archives of the relevant citations had been provided, so I'd assume that counts as permanently recorded. If I'm unaware of anything missing, then I'd be glad to rectify it, if possible.

Kind regards, Orcaguy (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orcaguy:. I removed it because those are not published on what are usually considered durably archived media. I will undelete it and you can see if one of our sticklers challenges it again. Kiwima (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have collected some citations. I am not so sure that they are durably archived ("DA"). The one from the Japanese book is a mention. The Scientific American probably is DA, the conference proceedings is DA, IMO. I don't know about Solomon Times and Reader's Digest. What do you think? There might be some CSIRO publication, but it is behind a paywall for me. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed the RfV. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
w:Uromys vika has a couple more references that might be durably archived: Nature and and Discover magazines. Of course, they might also be online-only, for all I know. It also has a link to the durably-archived original journal article, but that only uses the taxonomic name and suggests "Vangunu giant rat" for the common name. The only use of "vika" refers to the word in the indigenous language of the island, not as English. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Those quotations you have added have various issues, including, but not limited to, spaces after commas and full stops (in all but one of the quotations), before and after quotation marks (the spacing problems would cause wrapping issues), mismatched brackets (if they are so in the source, a {{sic}} is in order), and a sentence without a full stop (however, I did search it and found out that it does not end), or any indication of its incompletion. J3133 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have edited the quotations. The full stop you have added is not there in the book, as I have mentioned. Should I expect other quotations you have added and will add to not contain as many issues? J3133 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I just saw your statement that, "I enjoy the process of hunting down difficult-to-find citations." Over the past two years, I have been going against the grain and letting the English speaking world remember the words derived from Wade-Giles. I can't find a good citation for Mai-kai-t'i (outside of encyclopedias). Do you have any suggestions for me? Can I use encyclopedia entries? Thanks for any help or advice you can give me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC) @Geographyinitiative: By all means, you can use encyclopedias (as long as they are not wikis, which are by definition fluid rather than permanently archived.)[reply]

I usually avoid encyclopedias, but I added some new example sentences based on Encyclopedia Britannica. Let me know if I am messing up! Thanks for your advice. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative: Looks good to me! Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How soon can a "hot word" RfV be closed as failed?[edit]

To take an extreme case:

  1. We get three durably cites for a word on 1/1/2021, create an entry, and tag with {{hotword}}.
  2. On 1/2/2022, someone RfVs the term.
  3. No cite is found on any of our customary online sources over the ensuing 30 days.
  4. On 2/2/2022, someone closes out the RfV as RfV-failed.

This is formally correct under our rules, but seems unreasonable. Most (all?) of our less-frequently used definitions would not have any durably attested uses during a 30-day period. I doubt that you would close out such an RfV so quickly, but I am not so sure about troublemakers or newbies of somewhat deletionist inclinations, who may focus on hot words as an area in which they can make trouble or a contribution, respectively. Should we extend the minimum time for closing out a hot-word RfV as RfV-fail to 90 days, 180 days, or a year? DCDuring (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: I agree with you that it is unreasonable to delete a hotword the moment its time period expires -- and you probably know me well enough that I tend to let RFVs sit for a while if they have one or two valid citations, or a raft of citations on non-durably archived sources, or other evidence of validity that just doesn't meet our rules. Yeah, a grace period for rarer hotwords would probably be a good idea. There are other issues with our rules I would also like to see revisited. For example, I think online publications such as Huffington Post and Beitbart (I'm trying to be politically neutral in this example) are legitimate samples of language, even if they are not durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about rendering any web page durable by archiving it at Internet Archive. It's a bit more time-consuming but covers the whole web, possibly the whole searchable internet.
If you were the only one closing out RfVs for the rest of time, I wouldn't have the concern. DCDuring (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: How do I do that? And I'm not sure we want that. For example, we explicitly exclude wikipedia, which makes sense because it lends itself to abuse (I have seen people create quotes to back up their own protoneologisms). Kiwima (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could make specific exclusions. Using "Save Page Now" at this link it took nearly a minute to archive today's Wiktionary mainpage at Internet Archive Wayback Machine. DCDuring (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is a request from the owner of a domain, and everything disappears. Yes, it's an archive, but not a durable one. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But would using it be worse than excluding current, topical terms? If domains have that power we could limit ourselves to having at most one cite from a given domain to reduce the damage such removal could do to any definition. It we could get notification of archive takedowns, we could probably find replacement cites. This is an important issue for new terms. We don't miss much if an old, rare term is stripped of its third usage citation and is left with only its citation and talk page. For a new term it is quite likely that we could find a new citation if it has indeed become part of the language. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For timing my proposal is to allow a hot word to survive until one year after the most recent cited use, not one year from its creation. This is separate from the issue of what sources we consider. If only the New York Times keeps a word alive, then a year from the last cited NYT story. If Twitter keeps a word alive, a year from the last cited tweet. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

encover quotes[edit]

Hi K. Thanks for the quotes at encover. There seem to have been 2 half-completed quotes there. I wasn't sure exactly how you screwed up, but I removed both half-quotes. Feel free to check it again Candle-holding servant (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting corners[edit]

I was gonna send the remainder of Category:Requests for date by source to RFV, but seeing how it's normally you who ends up adding quotations anyway, can I ask for help in tracking down the remaining quotes in that category? Bearing in mind there were over 5000 therein when Wonderfool started their quote-dating project a couple of years ago, it would be awesome to eliminate them. La más guay (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@La más guay: I appreciate that you do not send these to RFV - that is NOT what that page is for, and would more likely just result in those definitions getting deleted. I will see what I can do. I have had no luck so far on the first ones I looked for. Kiwima (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The Holland and Udall quotes were especially tough - I had to get very creative with my searching, using a handful of potential archaic spellings, searching some online library databases etc. A couple were found using long s, and at least one exchanging the ſ for an f. Anyway, I set a goal for Christmas 2020 to have that category empty, and would be delighted to achieve it. La más guay (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining undated citations got moved to the Citations page, because they couldn't be found. I declare the dating project complete La más guay (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


What word fits the pattern? ... of flats / stumbling ... / ... party / this is a request for another Wonderfool ... because it's been a month already since the last one. La más guay (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@La más guay:, Sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking here. If it's just a riddle, the answer is block. Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your assiduous work in resolving and closing listings at RFV. Mihia (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opusculum RFV[edit]

Hi. How was this passed, when there are still zero English citations? Equinox 22:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox: There are links to the citations in the discussion of the RFV. Kiwima (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My general understanding is that they have to brought on-project, since Google might take down its pages and services at any time (and often does!). Equinox 00:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course desirable; nonetheless my understanding is that we just need to be able to assume such quotes exist. “Durably archived” does not mean durably accessible. It was not senseless of Geographyinitiative (talkcontribs) to state that the presumed presence in secret military documents suffices. Fay Freak (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fun, speculative comment The potential validity of a "secret documents" argument can be buffeted by several non-durable quotes I've done. In one of the quotations on Min-feng, a rare word, we see the CIA tell Nixon about missile tests in the area. This was a secret document for Nixon's eyes only. (Did Nixon even have half a chance to comprehend or retain the word he was looking at?) The Wade-Giles names for geography of China, as well as the Hanyu Pinyin names for minor geo like Dingsidang or Bofan, were/are definitely part of the English language, despite lack of use by the public at large. It would be absurd to believe that words like Huang-ch'i, a location directly adjacent to the Matsu islands (of 'Quemoy and Matsu' fame) and from whence the islands were shelled on various occasions, would not figure prominently in documents of the 1950's related to the Taiwan Strait Crises. It is a bald-faced lie to say Wiktionary "aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English." if those words are ignored just because they are out of view. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is fun but we can't be expected to deal with secret documents in the time of secrecy. What we can certainly do is copy the relevant portion of text from an online document that might disappear later. And God help us if we don't because when did you ever see a Web page that was still around 10 years later? Equinox 06:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of new section on Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification[edit]

Hi, I think this addition was reversed by mistake, so I rolled it back:

Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification#rfv templates now require a language parameter

It is just a request to update the documentation for the page which is out of date and locked.

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Thanks for your response. OK in theory, but in practice this is a rather rare and unusual word, and the three given citations are all transitive (even if passive). You are sure it exists in the intransitive? Equinox 05:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen examples. Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-standard Attestation[edit]

Hey Kiwima: I have been able to find Wiktionary-grade durably archived attestation (meeting the other requirements too) for many English language proper noun placenames and their alternative forms and synonyms. However, there are some words that I haven't gotten to first base with despite repeated searches, like Damiku or Pangudang. Another example is the partially-attested Darya Boyi, where the entry has only two durably archived cites (seemingly). I want to start putting seemingly unattestable entries into rfv, and any of their less than three attestations onto the relevant 'Citations' pages for future editors to use if these words ever become more common. That is to say, I want to move from a more inclusionist mindset to a more deletionist mindset, for the purpose of bringing everything I am looking at up to Wiktionary standards. Let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Geographyinitiative:, I am not really the person to ask. I don't really focus much on Proper nouns. They seem to me to be qualitatively different from other types of words. I am not even sure they should have the same attestation criteria as other types of words. This seems like more the sort of thing to bring up in the Beer Parlour. Kiwima (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I borrow...[edit]

...your time machine please? I'd like a copy of the book from the year 2165 Roger the Rodger (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey I was wondering if you can help me understand how you find "durable" citations and how to determine if a source is or isn't durable? For example, if a source is archived on does that make it durable? Thank you in advance for your help.

The word sextra is clearly in use in several senses. Sextras are usually uncredited actors and actresses in pornographic or adult films, often during orgy scenes. [5] [6] [7] "Behind the scenes" footage, blooper reels, and outtakes in pornographic films are also sometimes referred to as sextras.

==English== ===Etymology=== {{blend|en|sex|extra}} (acting) ===Pronunciation=== * {{a|UK|US}} {{IPA|en|/ˈsɛkstɹə/}} ===Noun=== {{en-noun}} # A [[supernumerary]] or [[walk-on]] in a [[pornographic]] film or play. ===Anagrams=== * {{anagrams|en|a=aerstx|extras|taxers}} 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:AE 01:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful I can be. It is mostly a matter of persistence. I check Google scholar, google books, and google news (but you have to be careful with news to make sure it is in print). Personally, I find the durably archived rule unreasonably restrictive, but that is the rule. Kiwima (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I rarely talk, but I need help with the Google Books verifications, please. What is the best format when there is more than one artist, you want to show the exact month and day possibily, as well as the year, and the others? I found three of the five words that needed verifications existed before this year. I just used Google Books today when simply searching the existing words outside is too difficult or impossible. 23:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sorry, I am not really clear what you are asking for. Perhaps a concrete example would help. Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prove I am not just saying it vaguely, I found the actual citation for superimplosive. However, there are two authors, not one. Should I stick with the primary author instead of having both? Also, I said three, as in superinstantaneously, superimplosion, and said word. I need a better formatting in Wiktionary to properly perform the citation, please. 23:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ok, I updated the citation under superimplosive to show how to list multiple authors. That should show you what you need to do. However, unless you have three citations, I would recommend that you put the citations on the citations page, where they will not be deleted if the word fails RFV. Kiwima (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to talk about that. There is one more instance of superinstantaneously. [[8]] However, I cannot find the rest of the sentence. Can you see or get the rest of the sentence, please? 00:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ That link is not to a legitimate instance of superinstataneously. The work is in two-column format, and "instantateously" is in the first column. "super-" is part of "supervise" in the second column. Kiwima (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thank you. 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue. You know I was trying to find a citation? I was trying to find the word superunbelievable without a hyphen. Beyond unfortunately, the other one has something. [9]. I am scared if I put this as a citation, I would be blocked, even though I am NOT trying to advertise. 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ The biggest problem with that link is that it is to a blog, which does not meet our current CFI. Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No blogs. Anyway, I found a third verfication of superinstantaneously, which is not a blog. 05:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My editing skills got much better. Can I ask you something, please? It is about the citations. I am not the most experienced at it. But have you been on Wiktionary for a long time? 14:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself: if you go to Special:Contributions you can look at the contributions of anyone on Wiktionary, or you can use the User contributions link on the side of the page when you're at their user or talk pages. There's a link on the Contributions page to view the oldest edits by the contributor. Kiwima has been here many years and is our go-to person for finding usage in rfvs. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely, Sir Chuck. I need to ask. Did you ever had to ask for permission for certain citiations? The reason why because I sleep a lot in the day, and the fact the pandemic is ongoing. Also, I take copyright seriously, and I seriously need help. No, this is not just me being lazy, refusing to do it myself and it is not just a one-time habitual thing as I sleep offline and dealing with the pandemic like many/most others; it is a daily and constant thing and it is far beyond my control. No jokes, no memes, and no sarcasm from me. I have been dealing with this year. Do you need specific citations to look? 19:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are busy right now, I understand. 00:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ I don't understand what you are asking me to do. Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If I show you a link, would it make more sense? A particular word? I am asking you if you can get permission from the publishers for a certain word, please? I am not going to abuse or repeat this daily. Like you know when you go to Google Books, there are things to read before you get to the story on some of the books on search results? Like copyright. And asking for permission. There is another reason why I am talking to you. If there are things in Googles Books even I cannot find, will you help me with certain words that needs verfications, please? Like at least three usages of a certain word. 01:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ I always look for verification before deleting anything on RFV. Kiwima (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you do usually? 02:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems irresponsible to delete something without checking first. While sometimes other people look for verification (and believe me, I REALLY appreciate that), not every challenged word has someone who cares enough to look for verification, so I will always check before deleting. That said, I do not always manage to find verifying quotes that other people can find. Kiwima (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oil driller[edit]

You deleted the talk page. J3133 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. I meant to delete the page. Kiwima (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the usage of Swedistan[edit]

Isn't Swedistan usually used by far-right groups? It should be considered as "politics" because it's used by nationalists and racist groups.

Why is it not considered "political"? Could it be because it's not used by politicians in the Swedish government.

I'm not upset, just seeking an explanation. Thank you.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC) @PulauKakatua19: I suppose it can be used within a political context, but I would consider it more a racist word than a political word. It tends not to be about political decisions or actions, but about immigrants. Kiwima (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for explaining. PulauKakatua19 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on hodo-[edit]

According to Beekes, the etymology is not 100% certain. Prahlad balaji (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was reverting the change in capitalization, not the insertion of the word "perhaps". Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The reason I changed the capitalization is because I have seen that many of the meanings in the pages here aren't capitalized like this. Is this nonstandard or... Prahlad balaji (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our style guide clearly specifies that definitions start with an upper case letter and end with a full stop. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Prahlad balaji (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! You cited Metro saying "...suffering a fall the most common causes...". I assume the word "are" is missing here, but I couldn't find the original. (Of course if the original has an error then we should use [sic] template.) I did want to ask: without criticising your excellent cite-digging skills, I have sometimes noticed typos (missing words, or spelling errors) that suggest you re-typed the content instead of copy-pasting it. Can that be true? Do you re-type word for word, for some reason? Equinox 07:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mistaken reversion notification[edit]

I'm afraid this edit of yours was mistaken. The senses are supplied in the "Translations" section in lowercase, see the examples given at Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Translations and especially Wiktionary:Translations. You can also check this section in any common lexical item, e.g. word#Translations. Best, Adam78 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @Adam78:[reply]

That is true. However, our style guide says that every definition begins with an uppercase letter and ends in a full stop. Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. This is the form which is then put to lowercase and stripped of the full stop (and any inline links) when it's transferred to the "Translations". Also, I noticed that topic labels are supplied at "Translations" without parentheses, but followed by a colon. I think these are all the changes that take place. Adam78 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now, @Adam78. You are right, I mistook the edit for being in the definition section. Kiwima (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfV flooding?[edit]

There seem to be a lot of RfVs lately. I would not be too concerned about our 30-day "deadline" for closing them out. I suppose that memorializing the RfD on the talk page makes it possible to find them again, eg, if we stumble upon some new source of citations. DCDuring (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have convenient access to the OED. IF not you could ask for help from someone who does to prevent needless deletions. DCDuring (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: No, I don't have a convenient OED, but frankly, it is rarely that I find it helpful in producing citations, and that is one place that other people seem happy to look. And yes, I have found the combination of MooreDoor and Notusbutthem (whom I suspect of both being sockpuppets of the same person) rather overwhelming. Since I was very recently widowed, my tolerance is down and I am thinking of just taking a long break. Kiwima (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am so sorry to hear that. My deepest condolences. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are WF. His project right now is clearing all the quote requests, to which he's applying his typical combination of high-volume hard work (good) and cutting corners (bad). A lot of the stuff he's been rfving is borderline if not completely out of scope for rfv. It's nice that you've been willing to help him, but if it's burning you out you need to ask (or tell) him to slow down. If it helps any, I think he genuinely respects you and is unlikely to give you a hard time about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My condolences as well. I could understand taking a wikibreak, but you might find Wiktionary useful as a distraction. It has worked (is working?) for me.
OED might be good as a last place to check for words that otherwise seem to be dictionary-only. The flood seems to include many such. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my condolences too. And as much as I hate to lose your valuable contributions, even for a while, your well-being is more important than anything here. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwima: My sincere condolences too. I'm also seconding what Chuck has said. Fytcha (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My condolences too. Appreciate your continued work in RFV. —Svārtava (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kipper = defeat or humiliate[edit]

Probably from done up like a kipper? Equinox 10:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bash and grab[edit]

This word was in so I removed the redundant part. Ffffrr (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems when I removed that part the verb conjugation got messed up yet it said that part was redundant, that’s odd. Ffffrr (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a proud Mexican and this a 100% wrong. There is no place in the Mexican states where we related chalupa with food, maybe in the area closer to the border with USA but in the Mexican country chalupa is a small boat that our ancestors used to get the merchandise out the garden(mostly veggies and flowers) to the nearest part of their towns to sell them, and that's has nothing to do with food. I hope you guys get this information right. With all my respect. Thank you! 08:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Are you sure you are not referring to the meaning of chalupa in Spanish rather than English? I have added some citations to the entry for the food. Kiwima (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Kiwima! I added some quotes to Citations:churnalize. Do you think it's enough to undelete churnalize and the alt form churnalise? I'm hoping this is music to the ears of the inclusionist spirit within you. This, that and the other (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding wiki/neumorphism[edit]

I see that you have removed my edit. would like to know the reason behind it. Thank you --Sridhar-sp (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sridhar: Your edit was not properly formatted, and was not a dictionary definition. It was just a random comment sitting at the top of an entry. Kiwima (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply Sridhar-sp (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hey. You familiar with the Kiwi term cuzzy? Br00pVain (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I think this is sufficient to create a verb sense (along the lines of nurture, pamper, spoil, etc.). 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation template generators[edit]

Hi Kiwima, as you do considerable amount of citing and adding quotations to entries, you might be interested in this. I personally use the books and scholar versions, which certainly prove very useful. —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]