Talk:fuckingmachine

Archival of cites from citations page

Some of these cites were removed from the Citations page.

Placing them here for archival purposes for reference:

English citations of fuckingmachine

a device utilized to bring individual(s) to orgasm.

---

Please leave them here as an archival reference.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived from RFV: December 2013

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

fuckingmachine

There is a site/brand fuckingmachines.com, but I don't believe that "fuckingmachine" thus written is an English word. The citations in the entry are mostly not for this particular form. Equinox ◑ 08:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, I've added additional citations from Usenet that are satisfactory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, even if this does pass, I think we should remove a lot of the irrelevant citations, which just use the brand or domain name fuckingmachines.com. That isn't an English word and it isn't what we are trying to cite. Equinox ◑ 08:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the irrelevant citations. I also added a third (3rd) citation to this exact form of usage. To a book from 1982. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I've added a fourth (4th) citation of this exact form of usage. There are now two (2) cites to Usenet and two (2) cites to published books from differing years of publication, all using this exact form. -- Cirt (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  The third and fourth cites do not use this exact form - they both differ in capitalization, suggesting that they are intended to refer to the brand name. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  And the second citation appears to be a reference to the URL. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  The first and second cites use the exact form, you neglected to admit this in your reply comment. We have two (2) cites that you tacitly admit, therefore, are of appropriate attestation citation requirements, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  The first cite looks good, I agree. The second cite looks like a reference to the URL, which, as Equinox says, is not what we are trying to cite. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  So we have one cite which is good per agreement with Mr. Granger (talk • contribs), and three (3) which may or may not be reference to a URL but which also use the term in the exact same way as the first cite. Between the three (3) of those, this should now be satisfactory to Keep, thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly you can't vote "keep" in a verification request. Secondly, only the 1982 citation unambiguously refers to the definition up for verification. The 2007 and 2012 ones clearly refer to the name of a set of videos (possibly the website in question) and the 2008 one is seemingly the title of a video. We don't include names of movies as citations, and pornos should not be any different. Therefore, we only have one valid citation as of now. --WikiTiki89 21:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Wrong, the 2008 cite refers to a noun, the type of machine itself, not a film or website. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  I did not say that, I said it was used as part of the title of a video. --WikiTiki89 21:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's used as a descriptive noun to refer to this exact form of use of the term itself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, but the citation itself is the title of a video. There's a movie called "Inglourious Basterds", that doesn't mean we can use it as a citation of the spellings "inglourious" and "basterds" for "inglorious" and "bastards". --WikiTiki89 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but in this case it is also an example of this exact form usage of the term. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  And how is it different from the "Inglourious Basterds" case? --WikiTiki89 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I've added the 2006 re-publication of the 1982 cite mentioned, above. So we have a different publisher that saw fit to republish the work, again. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Republishings don't count as separate citations. --WikiTiki89 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but they count towards showing that the entry has appeared in multiple republications over time. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  They count towards nothing. --WikiTiki89 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  That is a bit of an absolute and totalitarian statement. They indeed count towards showing examples of usage. -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  They do not, and I am sure that the vast majority of editors here will agree with me on this. --WikiTiki89 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) By my count, you have exactly one unequivocally-valid cite- the 1982/2006 one. The 2007 is a reference to the web site, not the referent for the definition (just try to substitute the definition into the phrase "doing the filming in fuckingmachines"), the 2008 is ambiguous, but the capitalization implies a reference to a proper noun, i.e., a specific model or brand, and the 2012 is again a reference to the web site or the brand associated with it. Since this is an alternative form entry, spelling is critical, so the difference in capitalization for the 2008 and the 2012 is a serious problem. Everything else you've been going on about is irrelevant, unless you were trying to prove that the 1982/2006 is a "well-known work" according to CFI- which would be laughable. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I remember from my youth :- There was a young man from Racine / who invented a fucking machine. / Concave and convex, / it would suit either sex / ... I forget how it ends. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, SemperBlotto, there is a similar example listed at s:The_Pearl/Volume_12#The_New_Patent_Fucking_Machine.. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • With attachments for those in between. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE: Please note that the usage in the 2012 book Screening the Dark Side of Love: From Euro-Horror to American Cinema is both in some cases referring to the site and in other cases referring to the noun and this exact usage form of the term. Therefore, it is another appropriate and satisfactory cite, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As cited it shows no uses that meet the definition, so it's neither appropriate nor satisfactory. Show a quote that contains those uses, and we'll talk. Your cites have to have usage that matches the definition and that's spelled the same at the same time and cites have to be independent to be counted separately. You keep talking up how the cites meet one or the other- but they have to meet 'all of it to be counted as valid and separate. So far, my count hasn't changed: one valid cite. Period. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  The quote that you listed from that book is a) not capitalized the same way as the entry, and b) clearly referring to the site/brand name. If you have another quotation that is unambiguously using the word to refer to sex machines in general, please do add it. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  There are many other examples of usage from that same book. Please be patient and I will add them as soon as I can get to it, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a usage from eighteen-eighty (1880) that obviously does not refer to the Internet site. And yet it uses capitalization. So therefore not all capitalized uses of this term refer to the Internet site. Please take this into account, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that cite is for fucking machine, not fuckingmachine. --WikiTiki89 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I am showing it here as an example of a different form of capitalization to refer to the same term. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is an alternative-form entry, so cites have to be the same spelling/capitalization as the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 1880 quote may not refer to the same product (and it seems to be a hypothetical product, at that), but it still is presented as a product name. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Added another cite, to Usenet. This is now satisfactory for attestation. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Update redux: 2013 cite added, also Usenet. Now there are multiple satisfactory cites to Usenet. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  The 2007 June 8 one is a mistake for "the fucking machine attachment", by which he was referring to an attachment for a hedge trimmer, not a sex machine. The 2013 one has several other spelling errors, but even if we count it, that makes a total of two valid cites. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  The 2013 cite should not be counted towards the three-cite minimum - the passage is riddled with mistakes, and there is every reason to think that the use of "fuckingmachines" instead of "fucking machines" is one of those mistakes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  When I finally have cites that definitely satisfy your above recommendations, and are from Usenet, you can't just pass them off as "mistakes". That is a subjective judgment and seems more like trying to censor something just because w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  w:WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. --WikiTiki89 18:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed all indesputably invalid citations. I left one that is valid, and two that are still desputable. If you think I wrongly removed any, please discuss here before adding them back. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. I am making a good faith effort to respond to recommendations, above.
2. I have added additional citations.
3. I've done research and added cites from Usenet.
4. I've added cites from print books.
5. I've added cites from prior to when the website was established, from the 1980s.
6. I'm doing my best in a relatively short period of time to add more cites.
7. And yet when I have good cites, there are some users that say subjectively that they can telepathically read into the minds of those who wrote the Usenet posts and know that they were somehow "mistakes".
8. I'm sorry I'm trying to have good faith and respond quickly to above suggestions, but it is getting quite difficult and frustrating when my research is shot down as telepathically saying the writers made "mistakes".
9. I will continue to try to do more research into this.
10. Any help or recommendations or suggestions would be most appreciated.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not saying anything "telepathically". The only two cites we said had mistakes were:

1. *
2. *

The first one of those is clearly referring to a hedge trimmer attachment. It is in the middle of a discussion on hedge trimmers and the reply to that post links to an advertisement for a hedge trimmer attachment (the site it links to has been taken down, but it is archived here). The second one contains numerous other spelling mistakes, include some spacing mistakes, since we don't know whether there was meant to be a space in "fuckingmachines" or not, I have left it in as disputable, but we probably won't count it as one of the three cites necessary for attestation. So far we have been telling you why we think they are mistakes, but you have not been telling us why you think they are not mistakes. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The new 2009 cite is clearly a brand name, contrasted with the brand name Sybians and indicated by the capitalization "FuckingMachines". --WikiTiki89 18:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Added another cite. From 2013. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• There you go. Now we're up to two valid cites. --WikiTiki89 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  Scratch that. That does not look like Usenet, not mention it's on an FTP server. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's on ASSTR. ASSTR is alt.sex.stories. It is a durable archive. More info at ASSTR. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  Then why can't it be accessed from Google Groups? (I'm not criticizing you or anything, just that I myself don't know much about Usenet). --WikiTiki89 18:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but ASSTR has been around since 1992. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have SafeSearch turned off, and searched Google Groups for the title, and for author:funplaycam@gmail.com, but no dice. I notice that the URL on that cite is in a subdirectory of /pub/Authors/Fun_Play_Cam/drafts/ideas. Which sounds like this may be a draft Fun Play Cam never actually posted to Usenet. It would have been a good citation, had it been an actual Usenet post. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a single citation from a durably archived site that unambiguously supports this spelling. The 1982 book cite has a hyphen at a line break, so it is ambiguous about the spelling: it might be the RfVed form or it might be fucking-machine. The two citations that are presented as being from Usenet sites don't seem to actually be from Usenet sites. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  And the 2013 book (An Honest Woman) has a hyphen (and not even at a line break). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the book would be acceptable for the form "fucking-machine" ? -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Clarification: In my opinion, the 2013 book is an acceptable citation for "fucking-machine". I agree with DCDuring below that the 1982 book is not good enough for either spelling. But if you decide to create that entry, please do make sure you include at least 3 unambiguous, durably archived citations, or I'm sure it will be RFVed as well. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request: Still in process of further research. However, please in any case keep the Citations pages for further research purposes in the future, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We always keep citations pages. If this RFV fails, then the entry will be deleted and we will not allow it to be re-added until after the citations page contains 3 valid citations. --WikiTiki89 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

[after e/c] I'm saying it's ambiguous, not good enough for either spelling. But there seem likely to be enough cites from other sources for that spelling. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have commented out the citations in the entry that are ambiguous as to spelling or not from "durably archived" sites. That leaves one valid cite for the challenged spelling and one for the hyphenated spelling. There are no valid, unambiguous citations on the citations page, IMO.

There's no rush to delete this. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DCDuring, for saying there's no rush to delete. You are the first to say so, and I really appreciate it. Very much. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think anyone said that there was a rush to delete anyway. It will be deleted after the usual 2-4 weeks. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There certainly has felt like a rush to delete. Very much so indeed. It is most unfortunate to have that sort of working atmosphere during the course of good faith research ongoing. My thanks again to DCDuring for pointing out there is no rush to delete! -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cirt: The advantage of getting prompt feedback is that you have the opportunity to learn and to avoid wasted effort. But I could tell that you were getting a bit panicky. It brought back memories of my first dealings on Wiktionary  — not an unalloyed joy. I was in the wrong, mind you, though unintentionally. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT this fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)