User talk:Equinox

⿻

See Category:Ideographic description characters. What about these? Should they be deleted? -- Liliana • 16:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, I've restored it. But the APL symbols got deleted, so I'd say yes, for consistency. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with APL symbols? We even have a Zhuang entry that uses one of these in the title, although it's badly formatted and that could very well be a mistake. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

They're not ever written with a pen, are they? They're just layout/formatting symbols used by computer. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Blasted if I know. They might be, given the entry above, but we'd need a Zhuang literate person or somebody with a great reference library on hand to be sure. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That character doesn't exist in Unicode, so we don't have any real way of displaying it. -- Liliana • 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks, Liliana. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

why

haven't you reapplied for adminship? -- Liliana • 19:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone else e-mailed me about this just now. Have you been conferring? Anyway, I haven't reapplied because (i) unnominated self-application seems pushy; (ii) I have an inkling that my strong opinions on certain things (deletionism, fake archaic spellings, etc.) have made me unpopular with much of the voting user base; (iii) deleting the main page has probably made at least a few other people decide I cannot be trusted. (That was mainly motivated by alcohol, combined with frustration that nobody else was calling out Luciferwildcat for his repeated creation of rubbish. Still, the root cause of my annoyance was the harm being done to Wiktionary.) And of course (iv) most of what I do, i.e. entries for missing words, does not require admin rights. I was probably second to Blotto in zapping spammers, however, and would be perfectly willing to do that again. Executive summary: it is probably too soon! Equinox ◑ 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I can kind of understand the frustration. Please keep in mind that if you ever decide to try a nomination, you have my support. -- Liliana • 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right not to re-apply. You may be drafted at some time, which is a better scenario. In the meantime, it is even more valuable to create good entries, correct erroneous ones, and improve mediocre ones than to revert vandals. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, (i) is null if I nominate you, and (iv) is confusing cause and effect. As for (ii) and (iii), I can't say if that would cause a nomination to fail, but I think that there's no way to tell without trying. All your arguments aside, what it really comes down to is that if you want adminship, say so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be an admin, I will support you, unless I forget to monitor votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I’ll also support you if you run for admin. It’s not too soon. Within hours of the incident LWC messed up bad, causing everyone to realise you were right all along. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. Tell ya what, I'll try running for admin six months from now (that is, Sep 2013) unless anything devastating happens, like alienating the entire community, or getting an offline life. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support your adminship. Pass a Method (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

clawback

Should the sense you added be under a different etymology than the others? Yours is from back#Noun; the others are from back#Adverb. I think it should, but I'm not 100% sure. Both the noun and the adverb are themselves ultimately from a common source. The new sense, because it harkens back to an earlier way of forming compounds (like pickpocket), may seem different from the others. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If the spellings of the components are the same (e.g. limpest = limp + -est, whether it's "most limp" or "thou limpest"), I personally don't bother with separate etys. In theory I suppose we should. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I usually show separate etymologies for inflected forms only if there is something lemma-like to one of the PoS sections. This seems more worth it. I suppose that if I add it no one is likely to remove it even if they don't think it worthwhile. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

two

Would the entry two-tier system be a sum of parts? Pass a Method (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Judging by Wikipedia's Two-tier system, it might make a good entry. It's not just any old system of two tiers, but a specific financial thing. I can see two-tier used on its own as well, though: "funds tend to have a two-tier accounting structure", "companies are subject to the two-tier regime". Equinox ◑ 17:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I object:

1. That could be a "tiered system" or an "n-tiered system". (NYC Board of Education has, I think, four tiers for teachers, depending on when they were hired, with declining pension benefits for the more recently hired.)
2. It is simply anaphoric or context-determined. A web search shows the following among the first 30 hits: two-tier systems of: health care, wages, accident and emergency units, higher ed, tuition, board of directors, supervision, child-benefit payments, property rights, marriage, local government, migration, justice, quality assurance, road tax, counties and boroughs, international justice. DCDuring TALK 21:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, we already had an entry for two-tier, with the purely SoP definition "Having or consisting of two tiers". I've added a financial sense (linking to Wikipedia), but I don't know how useful the entry is. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also recall that two-wheeled passed an RFD! (I voted against.) Equinox ◑ 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Creepy

Yes, I know, I am addressing the way we word both creepy and creeper. The definitions are built around the illusion that "creeping" is an active thing done by the person labelled as creepy, when we are actually describing people based on the nature of how others react to them. This should be specified, otherwise it promotes the misconception that creepy/creeper is an inherent thing, and not a subjective label applied by those hostile to other individuals. Etym (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the place of a dictionary; we just define the words, whether people are scientifically or philosophically correct to use words in way they do is off-topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This was merely about context of how we present a word. There should be some way (hopefully concise) of explaining when some terms are used often to reverse causality. Like someone may say "the darkness creeps me out" but darkness itself is not an agent, so it cannot creep. I do not know the technical term for this but it is like flipping "I feel scared by darkness" by empowering "darkness" as the "creeping" subject and the "creeped out person" as the object of the sentence. Those who are 'creeped out' will always be the subject, but are presented as objects, even when it is an object (like darkness, or water) that is clearly being presented as the subject in a sentence.

On a somewhat related note, I recall on some word articles (though am having trouble remembering which) that there are cases when we will have 2 separate "noun" sections under the same language, and 2 distinct etymology sections, when 2 distinct meanings of a noun come with separate etymological paths. I believe this to be the case with one meaning of "creeper" (and also "creep") being derived from the "creep out" phrase rather than the "creep" verb, so I am wondering if that would mandate separate noun and etymology sections. Can either of you two remember other words like this? I will try to find an example. Etym (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this is sociologically interesting, but I still feel it's beyond the scope of a dictionary (do you know any mainstream dictionary that words its definitions your way?) and liable to abuse based on the opinions of the easily offended. Equinox ◑ 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine

I added your links to List of diseases and List of viruses to the "to do" list for Wiktionary:WikiProject Medicine, which I thought you might be interested in joining (although we have no real procedure for "joining" wikiprojects or listing their members). What I would really like to do is induce some Wikipedians in Wikipedia's corresponding wikiproject to come over and work on medical terms here for a bit. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I don't know when I'll take a serious look at it. I expect to be finished with Webster 1913 in one or two months. Equinox ◑ 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

sleep

Isn't one of the verb usages of this word "sexual intercourse"? Pass a Method (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We have it as sleep with, presumably because the 'with' isn't optional. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is always sleep with or sleep together — not just sleep. Equinox ◑ 10:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

solarize

Not sure about that latest addition. See onelook for the photographic process. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The page that you linked to does include this: Quick definitions from WordNet (solarize): verb: overexpose to sunlight ("Be careful not to solarize the photographic film"). Equinox ◑ 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

are too

Isn't the above and is too synonymous with "yes it is". I've seen it in some American movies "no its not", "is too". Pass a Method (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[Be] too is archtypically used in an argument to reassert some attributive predicate, especially about another person, as in a schoolyard argument.

A: "You are the slowest guy on the team!"

B: "(I) Am not!"

A: "(You) Are too!"

A: "You ran the 50 yard dash in 15 seconds!"

B: "Did not!"

A: "Did too!"

A: "You were the the third slowest guy in the whole class!"

B: "Was not!"

A: "Were too!"

A: "You'll be the slowest guy next week, too."

B: "Will not!"

A: "Will too!"

A: "Say. You've been stuffing you face again."

B: "Have not!"

A: "Have too!"

Obviously the expression inflects, though defectively (no participles or infinitive, I think).

It parallels the use of do/have, also can, would, and may(???), + not/too.

Too means something like "indeed". So can be used similarly with the auxiliaries, though not with the copula.

Clearly, for a native speaker, this is a matter of grammar: ellipsis. I don't know whether this construction is used outside the US nor how widely in the US. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

antiHegelian‎

Is antiHegelian‎ attested? If so, is this rare and should it be marked as such? When I search for google books:"antiHegelian", the hits that come up first turn out to be occurrences of "anti-Hegelian". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 Deleted. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)