Last modified on 30 March 2015, at 18:29

User talk:Equinox


Hi Equinox. I am just wondering what was wrong with the word I added, it seems you deleted it today. The word is alphanumbolic, I've been hearing it used for years and when I searched for it I couldn't find it anywhere on Wiki. Please let me know.


Sahutch88 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Sean

Zero results on Google. Won't meet WT:CFI. Equinox 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you're thinking of alphanumeric? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The definition, “data string containing letters, numbers, and symbols”, suggests it’s a blend of alphanumeric and symbolic. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

patrimonialism and neopatrimonialismEdit

I basically grabbed the defs from 'Pedia, but I don't think they necessarily cover the ground well. I might also be missing a second sense or at least a shade of meaning for the former, judging from a scan of BGC. Could you help revise these? Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


I’m curious, when you assume that somebody is attempting to attract attention, do you just automatically assume that everything in their lives is perfectly fine and they just seek attention for purely malicious reasons? --Romanophile (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, but I am generally not going to look more favourably on attention-seeking edits just because the editor has got problems. (I realise that's a bit hypocritical given my history.) If you think you need some particular kind of psych help then I suppose you need to see a pdoc rather than making oblique cries for help on Wiktionary. Not that a pdoc ever helped anyone. Equinox 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted citationsEdit

Hi Equinox,

Thanks for keeping things tidy around here. I have a concern with regard to citations, however. You seem to be under the impression that pages in the Citations: namespace require three vaild quotations. For instance, among the many contributions of mine that you deleted was one for Duck Hunt, with the comment in essence that only one of the citations on that page looked like it might be at all admissible. The reason this should not be removed is that citations have to be accumulated to justify an entry, so they could be incomplete by the very nature of our process. The criteria in general are more relaxed, so please err on the side of caution. Even if you don't think Duck Hunt could ever be a useful entry, allow us as much time as it takes to build up the evidence before it comes to debate. If we aren't able to build a case then entries that could be entirely valid will too easily be rejected prematurely. And no, terms like this, a brand name, and like Child Catcher, a fictional character, are not excluded by CFI, so unless there has been a shift in policy that I'm not aware of, they should not be deleted on those grounds either. Now, I have not restored all of the pages you deleted because I didn't find some quotations particularly enlightening, but as to that I feel that your criteria are more demanding than necessary, so please do not remove harmless quotations especially for failing to be generic use, which is not required by CFI. Thanks! DAVilla 16:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will try. I don't think I've deleted very many of those pages. Equinox 18:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Equinox".