Talk:asswipe
RFV-passed edit
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
"(British-informal-vulgar) toilet paper, especially in the plural." Hard to imagine a British-only word with ass (not arse) in it. Citations? Equinox ◑ 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's in the OED, and so is arsewipe ("especially in the plural" is wrong though). — This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) at 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC).
- Cited, though "British" was also wrong: two of the cites I found are by American Vietnam vets, and the third is by more-or-less an American Vietnam vet. Maybe (military) or (chiefly military)?
That said, I cheated slightly: toilet paper is uncountable, so I looked for (and found, and added) uncountable cites, which accords neither with our example sentence nor with the originally RFV'd def.
Incidentally, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has a cite that's earlier than any of ours — also uncountable — which I didn't add. If someone else wants to add it, feel free; it's from the book The New Centurions, which b.g.c. has indexed; see google books:"asswipe stashed".
—RuakhTALK 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
RFV passed. —RuakhTALK 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense
- (informal, Canada, US, vulgar, figurative, derogatory) A periodical which has the habit of publishing questionable statements.
- This was added by a French editor with marginal English skills. I suspect the real meaning is something along the lines of "A poor-quality, worthless publication", the idea being that it's so bad that the paper it's printed on would be better used as toilet paper. Now, a newspaper or similar publication that prints questionable things (the original wording was "questionable truths") is certainly not good, but that doesn't mean that the term refers to that specifically. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)