User talk:Thisis0

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


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!
† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Please note that unlike Wikipedis, Wiktionary discourages the creation of redirects. Each valid word receieves its own full entry. --EncycloPetey 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 09:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I fully agree with your comments about Connel at WT:RFV#feminazi (see also my comments at WT:RFD#France), however I don't think that that page is the correct place to have a discussion regarding his behaviour towards others. If this was Wikipedia, I'd open an RfC on him, but I am not aware of such a place here (I'm still relatively new myself). I will comment to this effect on that thread, and see where others take it. Thryduulf 10:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

for all intensive purposes[edit]

I’ve replied to you on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And again. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to be so curt. I understand your frustrations, but following the feud takes too much time. Rod (A. Smith) 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations of usuress[edit]

I think that the original source whence all those others are quoting is likely to be Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. By the way, examples of works quoting from others ought still to be included — they just don’t count towards attestation; I advise you to sympathetically revert yourself in order to reïnclude them (you may want to note that they’re quoting from an earlier source by a similar method to the one employed by me for the citations of castratrix). Quotations which merely mention a term are also allowed as citations (especially if they’re earlier than the earliest quotation to use said term), though they, again, do not count towards attestation. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


We have an Appendix: namespace, this would be better as Appendix:Malapropisms. So I've moved it. (Very nice BTW ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for this correction.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)



Please use valid headings. ===Examples=== is not one. That's why I retained that link, in a real section. --Connel MacKenzie 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, if you turn on Conrad's language view, you get an idea of how such an entry is typically parsed by external (and internal) software components. Invalid headings dissapear. --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I was only trying to preserve some idea of what content one would find in the nondescript "appendix" link. Now I've added "For examples of malapropism, see appendix." Is this kosher? -- Thisis0 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely yes. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative spellings[edit]

Thanks for actually addressing the original question. Interesting that there was so much pent-up energy about the overall interface. Until there is some more radical advance on the user-interface front, we just have to do the best we can. I don't like to make unilateral changes, especially in something like first-screen appearance, especially if there is a more general issue involved. Are there other instances like OK that you know of? DCDuring TALK 11:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also noted that the heading in "OK" is "Alternative forms". There are certainly other instances, arguable even rock and roll, where the content under the header is not "spellings" {u.c./l.c., hyphens, -or/-our, -ise/-ize, and/'n') but other closely related variants. Those variants don't always have a good home on the page. Do you think that we should make that the universal header in that position or an allowed alternative, either documented or undocumented? DCDuring TALK 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in all cases in all entries, we should work to present entries that give the clearest information about a word in the format that is most effective and appropriate to the specifics of that entry, while obviously being subject to the limitations of the Mediawiki code and remaining loyal to our strict formatting precedents, but not obsessively so. The entries should cater first to the reality of that particular word, and second to some overly rigid arbitrary format. For example, if rock-and-roll and OK really don't have "alternate spellings", but more appropriately "alternate forms", well we should be able to make that minor distinction without much fuss. If the list of four or five alt. forms takes up too much vertical space, well then, golly gee, just put 'em side by side. Not too difficult. The formatting conventions are arbitrary, and many believe something is emphatically a necessary formatting convention when it's just some pedant with Asperger's whose brain fights for routine rather than effectiveness.

It's clear some formatting is important to the future of the project, to some preference skins and analysis tools, and to Wiktionary's ability to be understood by potential third party software. However, if a change is necessary, it should be simply made rather than fought. If "alternate forms" (or another useful heading) is currently not a valid heading in some skins, it should simply be made valid. If our software can't properly report to third parties a list of alt forms if they are horizontal with commas, well we should fix that. It's really people's personalities, not actual limitations that sometimes prevent success. -- Thisis0 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This place seems to have more justification for format rigidity than WP. I've been cautious because I'm new and because folks can be touchy about things I don't expect them to be touchy about. The alt spellings format "issue" connected with the homophones discussion a bit and with the general problem of the low useful-info content of the first screen users see for many entries. I also am disappointed by the lack of knowledge about design-relevant user behavior characteristics. We do this for love, but I personally would love to have happy end users. I am optimistic that perhaps we can allow customization of the user interface so that editors and members of the language community can have useful interfaces without jeopardizing the experience of our presumed client base. I would be willing to submit to format rigidity if it sped up the achievement of user-interface customization. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, simple solutions. Extra trivia like Homophones (and Anagrams, for f's sake) really just need to go after the definitions (like near Synonyms and See also). I'm assuming the Anagram/Homophone junkies fought so hard to be included, the momentum of their cause overshot itself and pushed right up to a prime real estate location, when they really belong down among the trivias and see-also's, if at all. -- Thisis0 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hompohones at least might be justified on the grounds of helping someone to pronounce something or at least to stop looking for non-existent/minimal pronunciation differences. My fear is that the phonetic alphabetic knowledge (or working software for the audio) required to benefit from most of the Pronunciation section isn't there among most (many) of our end users. Simple solutions are all that we are likely to achieve. Because WMF doesn't have vast technical resources, technical solutions at all but the most basic level will be few and far between. I hope that it isn't all duct tape at the server farm. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Having IPA here to encourage learning something new is cool, however, I wish we employed classic dictionary pronunciation, or better yet, simple pronunciation (pro-nunn'-see-ay'-shun). Wouldn't that be useful? I also wish we had a better way of showing syllabic hyphenation. As an arranger/editor of sheet music, that is my frequent utility of a dictionary, and sadly, Wiktionary is no help in that regard. I currently hafta take my business elsewhere. It would be a huge change, but I think it would be appropriate where the entry name repeats in bold just under the PoS headers. You know, where the en-noun templates and such are used. That's just a repeat of the entry name, why not make it use·ful? -- Thisis0 23:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything that increases the density of useful info on the first screen without setting back a user's ability to find things on other screens is good. In particular, both of your ideas seem good.
  1. Hyphenation at the inflection line would either give more info than is now in the entry or save a line in the pronunciation block for those entries that have it. Hyphenation skill is becoming less broadly useful as word-processing software absorbs that function so there may not be much energy for implementing it.
  2. A pronunciation scheme that an amateur could use without a reference would be good, even if it was not as useful for linguists and not as correct. Horizontalizing it seems like a good idea, but I don't know whether it interferes with someone's grand scheme for the section.
Today someone was removing the Shorthand section (well formatted and apparently correct) of some entries and could not understand what use that could be. That seems like another skill (like Morse code) that will soon disappear. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What entries? I'd like to see (shorthand sections). Regarding horizontal pronunciations, apparently it's already being done fairly effectively (and simply -- the key to greatness!). Look at attribute. I'd just like to add simple pronunciation to the beginning of those lists. Wouldn't that be a neat way to promote learning IPA anyway, to see the equivalents side by side? -- Thisis0 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are perhaps 40 entries with the Shorthand heading, appearing at the bottom of the page. They mostly begin "ab". abash should be one. I assume that the person entering them ran out of gas. You can search for "shorthand" and find them by the bottom of page 3 of the search results. There might be more to found by serching the same way for "Gregg" or even "Pitman". If you want to test on a user who knows no IPA, I'm your test subject for alpha testing. DCDuring TALK 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I can't help you with your specific questions, but in looking at the entry and at b.g.c. a thought came to me about the etymology of the well-cited sense of "gumption" or "guts". It didn't seem to fit with the etymology it now has. I think it connects to the reinforced silk thread sense. You must have noted all the angling usage of "gimp". Apparently the wire reinforcement was used to protect the silk thread from the bite of fish, especially pike, which seem to have especially sharp teeth. The notion of toughness seems to fit well in timing and sense to the "gumption" sense. I took the liberty of inserting the angling sense beneath the thread for clothing sense. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Your thoughts about the origin of the "gumption" sense make sense, however, I would doubt if it's little more than a theory... do you have any references? Obviously, the way English works, some coastal folks likely felt the influence of the fishing wire metaphor when they comprehended the "vigor" sense of gimp, while other non-anglers perceived no connection. In truth, I feel it probably has a stronger etymological connection with the word "gumption" itself, as a shortening thereof. But that's just a theory, like yours. Considering the fluid nature of language, especially colloquial English, making one conclusion about the origin of a word is often erroneous, because another explanation may have had equal influence on the word, which new word in turn influenced its source and on and on in all directions. It's truly "chicken bofore the egg", and I wish we had a better way of getting that across. -- Thisis0 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
They were fresh-water fish they were talking about, especially pike, which have sharp teeth and long snouts that generate lots of force when they thrash about. And it seems to be in The Complete Angler. I was surprised at how many scanned fishing books had a discussion of this usage, more books even than the clothing usage. Gimp was also being used, partially for its toughness, in making fairly durable, yet delicate looking decorations of clothing, drapery, and, possiblt, upholstery. "Gimp nails" (used by upholsterers) are a related usage. Since we can't rely on our own original research, we can only use such "research" to inform our assessment of secondary sources. I just had a hard time buying the placement of the "gumption" sense of "gimp" under the etymology where I found it. A separate ety would be better. On a more directly useful front, I found one citation of gimpy in the sense of lame, limping that puts it back before the Online Ety Dict date of 1925/7. Jacob Riis, the US muckraker published Children of the Streets in 1902? and referred therein to "Gimpy" as the appropriate nickname of a particular limping street urchin. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work on gimp. I'm still not sure that I understand what gimped leather or lead would look like. Too bad they didn't have more illustrations specific to that point. What do you think? When the cite says "gimped or serrated", are they intended to be synonyms or alternatives (near or distant)?
Also, don't you think that the gimp verb senses 2 and 3 are more closely related to Etymology 1. It seems so to me, but you now have the best informed judgment onf the subject. Do you have any thoughts about the sequence of etymologies? DCDuring TALK 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think at least those two verb senses do not correctly fall under the "US slang 1920's, limp" etymology. However, I couldn't tell you under which they fall. It seems they originated with a regional dialect and I am unsure that they aren't pronounced jimp, jimped!! At least it's certain that many of those senses were at one time, or in one place, indeed pronounced with a soft G. I do feel the sense of gimp "to wrap, wind, with wire" is that which likely influenced the "gumption" noun sense. And the rare dialectical "to notch, to dent" sense possibly may have more directly influenced the common "cripple" sense, via the adjective gimped meaning "jagged, dented, damaged". There are still more uses of this word that are elusive, and more research seems to uncover even more. And, pronunciation concerns remain, as well as interpreting the senses precisely. Anyway, here is a fairly good illustration of the gimped lead ribbon, kind of like corrugated cardboard, rolled up and inserted in the cylinders, for whatever exciting new electrical purpose it served in a plethora of 1906-1908 citations. -- Thisis0 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

bustle with[edit]

This entry was deleted. I have restored it because it is not customary to delete an item under active discussion. If you do not believe that the entry is truly a phrasal verb or in some other way meets WT:CFI, then it probably should be deleted, perhaps going through RfD. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who deleted it? I didn't. In that thread, I did recommend it's deletion once the ergative sense was properly added to bustle, but I also wouldn't have deleted it until active discussion had long ceased. -- Thisis0 22:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Paul G must have thought he should. It appears in the Cambridge dictionary of phrasal verbs, so I wouldn't recommend deletion until our phrasal verb advocate (whose name escapes me at the moment) takes a look.

when he's at home[edit]

Also consder the following citation:
  • 1998, Robert Jordan, The Path of Daggers, page 533
    “Who might you be when you're at home?” Rand said lazily. “Whoever you are, didn't anyone ever teach you to knock?”
Because almost any pronoun goes into that slot we would make the entry at "when one is at home", even though nobody would ever use that particular form of the phrase. If we have each pronoun in a usage example the search engine is sure to find it after the next indexing. Even if we don't the search engine will almost certainly find it. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where I would fight for actual value of an entry over some rigid format. The rules can't apply to everything everytime because of the nature of English, and this seems to be one case where the phrase is set pretty solid so that it has a certain cadence when spoken. It just feels wrong as "when one is at home" or "when one's at home" (Because the un-contracted form surely does not even exist!) I don't think there's an appropriate way to get this to toe the line on Wiktionary's central set of formatting rules. If we dare to define and include phrases like this, let's at least do them justice. -- Thisis0 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well worth an entry. See my user page for response. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The rules on this point aren't very settled. You should search for discussions of phrasal forms and idioms and their inflected forms to get a feel for the discussion I think it's in current WT:BP. I focus on whether someone searching for the term would find it. Others have standards of completeness. Others believe that the entries can't be readily maintained. Still others dislike the appearance of redlinks. User:Algrif has an interest in phrasal verbs. They seem to be hard for learners, witness the specialized dictionaries for idioms and phrasal verbs. (What PoS was "witness" just there?) I'm trying to take the stance that we need to make more of our entry decisions from the point of view of a mythical "normal" user, that is a non-contributor, possibly who will never be a contributor. I'm not sure whether that has much bearing on either "bustle with" or "when X Y at home" (where X is a pronoun and Y an appropriate form of "to be"). DCDuring TALK 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
witness was a verb in the imperative mood.

As far as "when X Y at home", I don't feel it comes in any more variations. Always "when he/she/it's at home." Always contracted, always present tense. -- Thisis0 02:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following counterexample:
  • 2001, Gale Zoe Garnett, Visible Amazement, page 105
    What, I wondered, was "a tongues meeting" when it was at home?
On my page is a quote in the "you" form. Do not underestimate the power of speakers and authors to inflect complex phrases. DCDuring TALK
Ah. Excuse me a moment, I gotta get this egg off my face. And there seems to be some sort of foot in my mouth. I will endeavor to nevermore underestimate the infinite variety of language users, especially regarding phrases I just learned. Ok, then. How do we make when he's at home all-inclusive without making it look totally retarded. -- Thisis0 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer my eggs scrambled with spinach and cheddar. I'm happy to find someone who is having the same kind of experiences I was having a couple of months ago with this kind of thing. Now I usually get my egg elsewhere. The "counterexamples" are certainly relatively rare forms, but I don't think that our entries should imply logical prohibitions where only empirical scarcity is what is occuring.
The checking for alternate forms thing can be fun, but it does lead to the problem that we can show that many expressions have 2 or 3 components that may inflect, which leads to an explosion of possible entries. Perhaps we should revisit the "one's" formulation and/or just put a variety of forms in quotes in the most common (probably "it's") or both or 3 including "he's". Usage notes can be a way of putting any apparent limits or common usage practices (contractions, for example, though maybe that just results from it often being used in colloquial and informal speech). This is a UK expression, it seems. Don't know about elsewhere in the former Empire.
As to linguistic creativity, it would be interesting to see whether anyone has tried to use the construction with a substitute for "house" ("in bed", "in his house", "with his kids", "with his wife") or for "when" ("while", "if"). Were it common, it would actually weaken the claim of the expression to be an idiom and, hence, includable under WT:CFI, though not likely to actually disqualify it. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
People are constantly massacring colloquial expressions. There are plenty of websites devoted entirely to that phenomenon. Surely, someone has and will massacre this one as well, but do those isolated and erroneous examples force us to put forth an indirect, confusing entry? I think in this case the entry should be titled with the most easily comprehendable title, i.e. the most common form. Why can't any and all variations be listed in Usage Notes at that entry rather than being forced to invent a never-spoken all-inclusive form? -- Thisis0 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the argument might be that we need some "lemma" form. The important things from my perspective for inflectable idiomatic phrases are that the entry:
  1. be locatable (once indexed), appearing on the first page of the search results, by any plausible correctly typed variant of the phrase;
  2. be recognizable once presented to the user as a version of the phrase entered; and
  3. indicate the range of utilization.
Using "one" in the lemma form meets these needs, though could challenge some of our users on recognizability. Including only one of the pronouns doesn't meet the third requirement very well, even with a usage note, because (IMHO) users often do not read usage notes. Some of the means that folks use include redirects that show the form typed while taking the user to the lemma form entry. Though users do not have much trouble typing in lemma forms for words (singular, a present form for a verb, non-comparative for adj.), phrases seem to give them more trouble. (They also don't seem to want to transform transform participles to verbs, possibly because they use them as nouns or adjectives.)
We are also a little sloppy about attestation of such phrases. One (!) could argue that each inflected form should meet our attestation standards. (Don't laugh.) There is some mention of easing that requirement, especially for idioms.
IOW, I wouldn't fight any of "one", "it", "he", or "she". Nor would I insist on recognition of the past tense, though it might merit a mention in the usage notes. The entries would need to be appear on each other's "related terms" lists if they were separate. There is also the possibility of an "alternate forms" section without entries for some of the forms. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

re: gimp and scat[edit]

About scat, yeah, I did make a mistake there and highlight more than intended, thanks for catching that.

As for gimp, there were only two cites, neither of which provided anything close to substantiation for the sense they were listed for. An wha will lace my middle gimp; gimp appears to be a noun in that usage, and in the other usage the context suggests much license was taken with the language, and it still doesn't support the sense well. Please also read the top of the RfV page, if insufficient evidence is found the RfVed content is to be removed. - [The]DaveRoss 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Go read the poem, it's a great cite. The context is clear. "lace my middle gimp" = "bind, squish my waist thin". More good cites needed for other Scot. senses, but they're all verifiable. Since I was the one who put this into RFV, i get to state my intention. I was looking for citation help, not expungement. There are several other entries today where you've made a judgment call as to "passed" or "failed" where it was ambiguous and unsettled at best. Just because there's no closure doesn't mean we need to destroy information. "Clearly failed" is one thing. Unilateral interpretation of a discussion you didn't participate in is another.
Listen, I definitely understand wanting to remove the ugly tags and finish the processes that were begun. I'm endlessly frustrated that nothing ever gets closure. However, when it's not really 'failed' you can't say 'failed'. -- Thisis0 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The context is most certainly not clear, and even if it were, one cite isn't sufficient, two cites isn't sufficient, three clear examples of usage is what we look for. The backlog is such that I can't re-investigate 6 month old RfVs, I simply look at the presented evidence, and if the RfV was not successfully defended the content is removed. If the example given was clearly an example of the sense from a well known work it is one thing, but it was an ambiguous example from a relatively unknown work, hence the content was and should have been removed. If you can find three quality citations which clearly show this usage I encourage you to do so, and then the content can be re-added. If not, please do not revert or re-add the content which was removed due to failed RfVs. This is a bad thing. If you think that is a bad policy please discuss the policy, it is the current policy, and so it is the one I will work by. - [The]DaveRoss 18:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, smartypants. I tagged and added this rfv, looking for citational support for rare dialectical definitions that indeed were in other dictionaries. My entry went COMPLETELY ignored for over six months, at which point a few thoughts were offered, and a contributor found a few cites for one of the dialectical senses. This was not a procedural case of wanting content removed. This was an attempt to add quality and depth to verifiable content. You cannot in good faith come along with a battle axe to a process you were not interested in. Things here are most often simply not black-and-white enough to say "well, gawrsh, at the top of the page it says I should delete this stuff, so I'm a-gonna." You have to use intelligence in wielding your guillotine. RFV has been variously used for questioning etymologies, combining senses, and all sorts of things that a person must look at with some degree of intelligence while applying "policy" several moths later. You do not get to tell me I cannot revert any detestably stubborn actions. You cannot make me afraid of seeking help at RFV in citing rare words, in the fear that a "policy prince" will come along at the end of an ambiguous discussion and thwack the whole entry. You are in error and telling me I'm "not allowed to challenge you" will incur an even more staunch opposition. -- Thisis0 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that gimp had clocked out, having been entered into RfV in October 2007, I believe. I don't think we have a policy of easier standards for dialect (as I think we do for Scots English or Scottish English, BTW). I would certainly want the citations to be in citation space under an appropriate header. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The possible alternative language name is Scots. Also see w:Scots. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why the name calling is necessary, nor the remarks about 'rare words' or the insinuations that I am a yokel. For future reference, use {rfq} if you are just looking for additional quotations, {rfv} is for cases where you are unsure if a sense or entire word is accurate or extant. If you list something, keep track of it, because the people cleaning up at the far end aren't supposed to do the investigation over, they are supposed to look if any conclusion was drawn and, if not, remove the questionable content. That is the way it goes, I again refer you to the top of the RfV page, which you know so much about and of which I am ignorant. It says
"If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be sent to be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)"
Which I think is abundantly clear. I didn't anywhere say you 'weren't allowed to challenge' me, I said that you shouldn't revert the changes made due to a closed RfV. You can certainly re-add RfVfailed material, if you can find citations for that material. If not, it should remain removed, as it has been found to not meet the CFI. I think that this is pretty straight forward, and you don't have to take my word for it, read the top of the RfV page. I am going to pass the re-removal of 'democracy' and 'gimp' material to a different admin, since at this point there is a conflict of interest. I will ask again, do not remove content removed due to RfV failure without the CFI quality evidence required by the RfV process, it will get you blocked as vandalism eventually (not a threat, just a warning). - [The]DaveRoss 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Remarks about 'rare words' were appropriate and in reference to the words YOU WANT TO ERASE. Why are you acting like you take offense at that phrase now? Does it make you feel like your case is stronger padding it with additional unrelated attacks?
2) Guess I learned my lesson about asking extra questions about a word in RFV or requesting citation support to make the entry better, 'cause someone will eventually come along and just axe them entirely from the project. I'll make sure to do nothing that requires any reading, interpretation, or discernment there, because there is a policy that allows unilateral, non-discerning thwacking. I say to you that these entries did not fail. I put gimp there myself and now I know at least part of my interest should have gone to RFQ. You have demonstrated to me today that you A) make poor judgments about "pass" or "fail" in ambiguous unclosed discussions. B) make careless errors including selecting too much text and not double checking. and adding a /nowiki block of deleted text on the top of a completely unrelated even older RFV archive with no explanation. C) Run and tattle and raise the vandalism flag. Please, look again at all of this. The answers are not in citing policy blindly. -- Thisis0 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Militant RFVing[edit]

Please take a step back for a moment, to consider the backlog of RFV. Items can be cleared and reviewed later. If you wish to call a small handful into question, please consider waiting a few days on them, so that some of the enormous discussions can shrink first. Then quietly (or otherwise) re-list the ones that overly concern you.

But do cease with the inane wheel-warring. --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know how tattle-taling helps anybody. Isn't anyone here a grown-up? It's also apparent that you chastise without having any clue of the infinitely minor scuffle that occurred today over the course of like 3 edits, at which point the dude apparently ran and tattled. You talk about "enormous discussions" shrinking in the next few days, when my concerns were only over six-month old discussions I was a part of and the other contributor was not. The other contributor made several unintelligent judgment calls about "passing" or "failing" when discussions were ambiguous and without closure at best (as many are). He then made a few retardedly careless errors -- selecting too much text and adding a retarded /nowiki block of deleted text on the top of a completely unrelated RFV with no explanation. Before getting out the schoolmarm ruler and calling me up to the blackboard, at least know what's going on and who the dunce is. -- Thisis0 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What the hell? Thisis0, you are flat-out wrong in your actions and reinterpretations. I gave you a calm message above - please do remind me why? So you can stomp your feet and have a tantrum, saying "that's not fair!" or something? The "enormous discussions" == WT:RFV rendering at over 1 MB of html. Yes, the archiving of that crap/clearing the backlog, is more important than your misplaced hostility and childish behavior. If you'd like cooperation from that very long-standing sysop, don't start your grousing off, laced with insults. (Especially when you are wrong!) --Connel MacKenzie 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Please look again at the discussion you made vanish: [1]

Yes, please look. It's not my name there, fool.
See below for apology. Consider this an official warning that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wiktionary. Cynewulf 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

House, Hekaheka and I are not "one person", nor is one person listing, one person saying it's not good enough and another agreeing "unsupported disagreement". You're the one who is making unsupported assertions. If you want a definition to stay on Wiktionary, you need citations that support it. Revert warring over it is not acceptable. Cynewulf 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Slyly making it sound like these people shared your singular assertions is not quite tricky enough. They didn't. Try harder.
One edit is a revert war?
Stay out of my comments. Cynewulf 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude, seriously. YOU look again. I was miles away from the text you just accused me of making "vanish". I don't know what the balls you are talking about. I did make an edit to a retarded block of text added to the democracy talk page [2] -- I made nothing else vanish. And one edit is a revert war? When you come in swinging with such a blatant ignorance of the actual reality of edits, it makes it hard to address you seriously. Regarding the edit I did make to the talk page, it was correcting a careless contributor who appended the text he had just expunged from the entry on the top of an unrelated previous RFV archive. A) The /nowiki format he used was retarded. B) it was appended to an unrelated RFV. C) The more recent RFV that concerns this text was certainly inconclusive at best. In that light, I did restore the appropriate sense the contributor deleted from the entry. In your own words, "talking about democracy as a state of the human spirit makes me think there is some other sense here..." demonstrate a need for a sense of this nature AS WELL AS ITS PRESENCE IN NEARLY EVERY OTHER DICTIONARY. If you want it rewritten, or want better cites (than the current ones, which DO demonstrate the sense), then just do it. -- Thisis0 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to have forgotten what you did, let me explain.
In this edit summary [3] you wrote:
  • one contributor posed unsupported disagreement. does not equal 'failed'.
Neither does one contributor adding citations that don't support a sense equal "passed".
The sum of these 3 edits [4] that an unverified sense had its rfv-sense tag removed, which basically looks like you're marking this rfvpassed.
Please contribute constructively to the RFV process rather than reverting ([5], [6]), yelling (caps above) and otherwise being disruptive. If you want me to "do" something to the entry at democracy I will remove the rfvfailed sense, however it appears the RFV process has been restarted and I am loath to take unilateral action.
Now that I look beyond the revert, I see that theDaveRoss did not move the RFV discussion to the Talk page but only the page content. For that misunderstanding I apologize.
For future reference, personal attacks ("fool", "retarded") are also not acceptable. Cynewulf 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What was this about?[edit]

It appears to be blanking a wiktionarian's contributions on a talk page. While I'm not an expert on this project, that does not on the face of it appear to be appropriate etiquette. - Amgine/talk 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has that appearance. It was a mistake the editor made appending text from a different Verification process onto the archive of an unrelated discussion. Anything the editor himself wrote I would have never blanked. -- Thisis0 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, actually, that still constitutes blanking. You may believe it is a mistake, but having read a bit about the issue I do not believe the answer is so clear. Perhaps you could discuss it before blanking? Better yet might be to restore it, take a pause, and come back to the discussion fresh. - Amgine/talk 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Democracy rfv stuff[edit]

The third sense of democracy has been retagged and listed on WT:RFV. Please take your conversation there. And for the record, TheDaveRoss is trying to clean up a page which was getting too big to handle, a task which did not allow for a slow reflective process. His work is appreciated by most of us in the community, and so it would be appreciated if you would stop badgering and insulting him. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to the best of us from time to time. Thanks for the apology though, that was very thoughtful of you. - [The]DaveRoss 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I realize it's an insignificant entry, but if you took a closer look at the RFD discussion you archived to Talk:Jacko, you'd see the sense in question (Michael Jackson) had already been resolved/deleted and the content of the article you deleted today was not under scrutiny. -- Thisis0 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, when I see six bold deletes and no keep looking statements I don't bother to read closely, I am going to make a request to people who frequent the RFD and RFV page about comment structure and clarity to make archiving a bit easier, I will restore. - [The]DaveRoss 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, man. I should point out that Connel (last 2 lines of that discussion) wanted the whole thing to disappear because he felt it was a magnet for spammy stuff about Michael Jackson, which I will admit even I attempted to place tactfully in a Usage Notes section (he reverted). Anyway, the mere presence an entry for Jacko is no different than having Billy or Penny. -- Thisis0 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"We can't see your unlinked dictionary"[edit]

Hm. This was not appreciated. I don't think it's helpful to arbitrarily remove references, or demand that another editor duplicate Oxford's research.

Here's part of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary's definition of skid mark, for your review: "2 slang something resembling such a mark, esp. a stain left on underwear by feces."

Now please restore the citation and the sense you removed, or I'll do so. —Michael Z. 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Now please restore the citation and the sense you removed, or I'll do so. —Michael Z. 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say I do not mean at all to be uncivil. Let's pursue the answers knowing that neither of us means no ill. As far as that sense goes, you have just shown me exactly what I had thought -- that it was Canadian Oxford's attempt to soften the blow of that particular reference, or arbitrarily enlarge or generalize the definition to be more inclusive. However, I don't think there's any evidence for the use of "skid mark" to refer to a general stain that wasn't caused by a skid. Any skid marks on the walls, on clothing, skin, are called such because they are caused by skidding. The separate reference to poop is a direct and specific euphemism to tire tracks. Additionally, you have parsed and separated one sense from Can.Oxford into two senses. It's really them trying to fully explain and make sense out of the poop euphemism. All we are really talking about for the sense you want is someone using "skid mark" to refer to a stain not caused by something sliding across something else. Hence the request for a cite -- It wasn't meant to be uncivil; I just don't believe "skid mark" refers to a non-skidding stain except the poop euphemism. -- Thisis0 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had thought your edit summary implied that I was being dishonest, so I'm glad to hear that you didn't intend any offence.
Your interpretation of the story behind the Canadian Oxford's definition may be correct, or it may not. All we have to go on is what it says in the dictionary. I believe that they place a lot of emphasis on researching usage, then boil it down to a very terse definition, so lacking additional evidence we should take them at their word. And regardless of how we choose to interpret it, I don't believe that paper references are considered to be problematic around here, so the entry's only reference should be restored. Michael Z. 2008-04-16 21:05 Z
I'll point out again that you separated one of their senses into two. A sense they wholly tagged as slang. The first part of their definition was an attempt to define, or put into general terms, the observed slang sense of "poop stain". They were approaching it from the front end, attempting to describe the sense, while you are looking at their definition from the back end, assuming they must have observed citations for something other than poop. It's one sense for them, don't try and make it two. On the other hand, if you can possibly find a couple examples where people refer to a not-cause-by-a-skid stain as a "skid mark", then obviously we can cite that. As for now, I believe all bases are covered by the three senses present at skid mark and skidmark: 1) Tires. 2) All-inclusive marks caused by skidding and sliding. 3) the well-traveled poop stain euphemism. -- Thisis0 00:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RFV, RFD[edit]

All I do is read discussions which are older than one month, and if they have concluded I make sure the target page matches the conclusion from the discussion, remove the tag from the target page, and then move the discussion (if it has anything of substance in it) to the talk page of the target page. That is all that happens basically. There is of course a judgment call on most discussions because often there is no conclusion stated explicitly, but the idea is do what you think will best serve Wiktionary. RFD is a bit different, because sometimes a page has to be deleted, but other than that it is just reading the discussion and cleaning up. - [The]DaveRoss 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I was also asking specifically what steps are taken to remove the section from those pages. Just excise the stricken section? Or is there a more appropriate archiving process? -- Thisis0 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just hit the section edit on RFV, ctrl-A to select all and then post it on the talk page within {{rfvpassed}}, {{rfvfailed}} or {{rfv-prej}} as applicable. - [The]DaveRoss 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
But then do we remove (delete) the section from the RFV/RFD page? Does it need to go into a monthly archive? -- Thisis0 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two schools of thought on this, some people like to archive on the archive page, others on the talk page. When there is significant discussion I like to archive the discussion on the talk page regardless of the outcome, so that if the same issue arises in the future the discussion is readily available. - [The]DaveRoss 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


We have a lot to learn from them, both good things and not so good. I think that Wiktionary should not become a specialist professional edition of the OED. Simple might become as good as Longman's DCE or something, if lucky. I consider all of our labels to be shadows on the wall of the Cave, not metaphysically real. They may be shadows of other shadows, not shadows of "true" reality. I'm some kind of nominalist, perhaps of the conceptualist sect. Words like Noun and Adjective have stood the test of time and have a big installed base. Words like "Noun Adjunct", "Determiner", and "plurale tantum" do not meet both conditions and may not meet either. I would find it extremely implausible that we have lately and suddenly discovered that things "are" Determiners or Noun Adjuncts. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

infinitely minor italian question[edit]

In translating the phrase "is the", do they write it as a contraction, è'il, or two separate words è il. Any guidelines? -- Thisis0 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not know modern Italian. Latin had no articles, so I can't even make a guess. SemperBlotto is our Italian expert; you might ask him. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

dog days[edit]

It's beautiful and it all fits on the first screen. It like WOTD material to me. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


You have edited away changes I had made. I had tried to remove the debatable cases and leave the undebatable cases. I'm sure that there are many more undebatable cases. I was trying to make the entry true. You have made it brief, but untrue and misleading. The truth is now reflected in the policy of pushing uncountability to the sense level. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to find a better example than 'information' for the uncountable glossary entry, you could do that instead of trying to cover rare exceptions. It's not likely you'll find one that doesn't have some rare countable sense or possibility of such a sense, though. The point is to make it simple and illustrate the premise. Currently, it does that. No glossary purports to give an exhaustive definition covering every rare case, let alone give air-time to the specific rare case of an unrelated word ('information'). I had thought you were mostly concerned with communicating well to the lay user rather than rare pedantics or being thorough for the sake of being thorough.
As for "annual, first, satin", what's debatable about their uncomparability? I guess the one thing I can think of is that 'satin' is actually a noun and might be more of a noun adjunct than an adjective. -- Thisis0 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Everything should be as simple as possible and no simpler." I liked the fact that we had the opportunity to correct the erroneous assertion that it is words that are uncountable rather than specific senses. "Information" provided the perfect opportunity, allowing the counter-example and the admitted special context of its countability, a common feature of some of the words purportedly uncountable.
If you'd like to find a better example than 'information' for the uncountable glossary entry, you could do that instead of trying to cover rare exceptions. It's not likely you'll find one that doesn't have some rare countable sense or possibility of such a sense, though. The point is to make it simple and illustrate the premise. Currently, it does that. No glossary purports to give an exhaustive definition covering every rare case, let alone give air-time to the specific rare case of an unrelated word ('information'). I had thought you were mostly concerned with communicating well to the lay user rather than rare pedantics or being thorough for the sake of being thorough.
I took the trouble to investigate their purported uncountability. I specifically search for "more-X-than" and confirm that it really is not separated by hyphens, not a typo or scanno, etc. "First" is the most debatable of these because the superlative form, firstmost, though attested, is shaky. "Annual" is used in agriculture and horticulture comparatively. The best evidence that "satin" is a true adjective is probably that it has a comparative form, because its use as a predicate adjective is hard to distinguish from its use as a noun predicate.


Please see WT:BP#CheckUser votes., you may be able to help. --EncycloPetey 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"blindly" reverting[edit]

I gave a LOT of thought before I reverted the first time, and sought opinion from more experienced editors first. I failed to see any argumentations that the two meanings ("pillaging", From medieval Old French, and "bag" from Proto-Germanic stock borrowed from Latin) should be re-combined, in fact, I don't see any reason to treat these as identical whatsoever. In this case, combining the meanings just because they eventually trace back all the way to a latinate form is disregarding exceedingly different semantic and geographical evolutions, and makes the etymology section downright ridiculously complicated. Circeus 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While you may have given the concept a lot of thought, your method is still unhelpful. It's still a fact that the wholesale revert shows little regard for other improvements made, or others' work in general. I took the time to make various improvements line by line, including fixing your typos, and you clicked a button. The opinions you "gathered" before making this move were in opposition to you (DCDuring), tepid (EP), and indefinite (Wid).
You are wrong about the etymology of sack. All current Etym 1 senses are from the same geographical root, and have the same semantic root as well, "bag". The "plunder" senses evolved long ago in all of Europe from a figurative use of sack. Will future etymologists separate all senses that we now use figuratively, e.g. punch, spin, meat? I disagree that as-written it "makes the etymology section downright ridiculously complicated." On the contrary, separate sections out of view make it unneccessarily complicated. Now all the related information is together and can be digested. Also, at this point in the history of the word, you cannot separate the stories of these senses because they have come back 'round and influenced one another. The current impact of "sacking" someone from a job or "sacking out" to sleep are both influenced semantically by the brute force of the "plunder, conquer, tackle" meaning. These are definitely the subject of etymology -- the history of a word -- but in this type of case, they are all important side notes tracing the story of specific senses. A perfect example of when to separate a homograph by etymology is the "wine" sense of sack. The roots are completely different. -- Thisis0 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps Related terms would be suitable for the ones that aren't English word + suffix. Almost anything is better than See also! Equinox 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)