93.196.225.85

Do not revert Englishman again until you find proof, meeting WT:CFI (e.g. three print citations), that an "Englishman" can be female. I've lived in England all my life, read very widely, and never encountered this. I searched for "female Englishman" on Google Books - no relevant results. Equinox ◑ 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:Englishman. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should I proof that and not you that Englishman only refers to male? And then you unpolite diction - it almost seems like you're a troll. -93.196.225.85 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

93.196.225.85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

unjustified and unreasoned blockage.

1. My correction was justified and sources were given (2 dictionary entries and a quote, also some possible quotes (matter of opinion, further information needed for correct interpretation))
2. Equinox couldn't even give a sources to support his opinion (I gave a dictionary entry that shared his opinion). Thus: He abuses wiktionary to prescribe his opinion.
3. To rephrase some parts of these two points: I want an equal treatement. If I have to give three book quotes, so should he. I didn't, but so didn't he. Thus it's unfair to prescribe his opinion. And my opinion instead was't just mine based on logics ("Englishman = English man", and "man = human, esp. a male one"), but also on dictionary entries, and of course that's technically better than just the opinion of just some guy.
4. Equinox' comment above was unpolite (e.g. "Don't" instead of "Please don't"), and it's unjustified that I should have to give quotes, while he doesn't. And as he didn't give quotes, it should at least be put in neutral way (like: the term can mean this or that).
5. Futhermore regarding Equinox's "arguments":
   1. "I've [...] never encountered this." That might be true, but that doesn't proof anything. If one would remove any entry where another one says "I've never encountered this.", then there would be no need for this dictionary. (As then only words, which everybody knows, would be present.)
   2. "I searched for "female Englishman" on Google Books - no relevant results." As staated: That's no wonder. Instead of "female Englishman" the word "Englishwoman" is shorter and may sound better. Nevertheless especially the plural Englishmen could and does refer to both kinds of Englishman, male and female.
   3. "Disruptive edits". That's not true. It might be true (see the point below), but looking at some other entries there should be no limit for the number of quotes or it should at least be 5 quotes.
6. Also 'cause of his [en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Englishman&diff=32235255&oldid=32235071 revert]: Is there a limit for the number of quotes for an entry? If not, then his revert was obviously a disimprovement as he removed a correct quote.
7. His later comment at Talk:Englishman isn't a good reply as a) what he tries to say is known and no help and b) it doesn't answer any of the questions (e.g.: If 43 Englishman die of plague and at the same time and same place and of the same cause 43 people die, how many women died? It's very likely that the answer is "some" and that Englishman refers to both male and female man.).
8. Also please fix proverbium. The alternative form is "prouerbium" not "aduerbium" (adverbium).