Asil
Hi,
Please read [[Wiktionary:Quotations]] so you understand how to format quotations. In particular, do not add quotation marks to quotations; we only include quotation marks that are already in the original source (e.g. if we're quoting dialogue from a novel). Also, please pay attention to other editors' edits; we're not perfect, but by and large, we know what we're doing. Undoing our edits is almost guaranteed to be counterproductive.
Welcome! edit
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Wiktionary Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to start a page
- Our layout policy (nicknamed "ELE")
- Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
- Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
- What Wiktionary is not
- FAQ
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
I would value your opinions on the changes I have made to this page. Conrad.Irwin 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to explain my recent revert of you. First, I stand by my statement that a person who created an entry and clearly has something personally at stake in it should not be the one to remove the rfv, even if removing it appears to be the direction the rfc discussion is taking. Secondly, your edit of the etymology removed a great deal of information and clarity. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The citation you have added does not satisfy the requirements of WT:CFI. Specifcally, it (1) uses the word as the name of an organization, and (2) defines the term, which is mention of that term, not use. See w:Use–mention distinction. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There were major problems with your edit — it removed information that was appropriate (citations of the word in question), and added information that was not appropriate (things other than citations of the word in question). —RuakhTALK 02:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on obnosis edit
First things first, using multiple accounts in concert is generally frowned upon here on Wiktionary. If you could stick to one of them (I would imagine this one, as it seems to be the main one), that would be appreciated. Secondly, you must realize by now that you cannot push things through by force, as there are simply too many of us, and many of us have administrative buttons which make the cards rather stacked against you. Additionally, a blanket approach is not terribly effective either (e.g. adding obnosis to multiple request pages, pleading for assistance from a large number of random editors, etc.). Such an approach generally tends to confuse the issue and irritate editors. Now, clearly you have a vested interest in not having the word carry a Scientology tag (perhaps because that makes obnosis.com look like a Scientology group, even if it isn't). Therefore I suggest you take a long, hard look at WT:CFI and get a better feel for what kind of cites we accept (some of the users you've been dealing with can help you out there as well, as Ruakh, Visviva, DCDuring, and others spend more time than I on rfv, and might have personal thoughts on where to get valid cites). Finally, you may want to simply consider the fact that obnosis might, in fact, be a Scientology word, and the evidence will continue to demonstrate this. If this is the case, I suggest you leave it be. You've been given rather more patience than most, as you seem to be acting in good faith. However, if you continue to bang your head against the wall on this issue, you will almost certainly find yourself blocked. Any questions, feel free to ask. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)