Talk:taint

Latest comment: 18 days ago by 2601:14E:4180:6880:D485:D916:9484:E0D7 in topic What's the difference? Consolidation?

Request for verification edit

 

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


RfV-sense for taint#Etymology 3: “The perineum.” I hope this is real, but we need cites, methinks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Definitely real and with widespread use. I've heard it used on at least three different late-night TV shows in the US. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
One such example would satisfy me.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Three uses would satisfy CFI. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
That was merely a way for me to say “I take that on trust, but for protocol’s sake, please add at least one citation of use”. Since I requested the verification, that seems a reasonable thing for me to have done. (There’s a precedent for this: one citation was enough for foemina to pass.)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Languages other than English seem to have other rules, often for good reason. I didn't think our processes were personal ones. I think we need to act in a way consistent with having lots of contributors, all of whom play by the same rules, in hopes that we will actually get more contributors to help. Maybe with another 100 contributors each doing 1000 edits we can get this thing finished this year. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Indeed; English is probably the easiest language to attest. I don’t disagree with your principles. I was just saying that I trust EP on this.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not the kind of entry I normally like looking for cites for, so I'm not going to work any further on this than than I have in finding the numerous (and I think sufficient) citations at google groups:"her taint".​—msh210 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cited. *sigh* This is what I get for signing up for RFV dishwashing duty. (Usually dirty-word cites are kind of interesting, at least, but somehow this batch is really just vulgar and gross without redeeming qualities.) —RuakhTALK 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aphetic form of "attaint" edit

Webster 1913 has a sense for a transitive verb, defined as "aphetic form of attaint". Perhaps we are missing this, despite our existing sense derived from attaint that has slightly different meanings. Equinox 23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

RFV discussion: December 2020–January 2021 edit

 

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.


Rfv-sense: To hit or touch lightly, in tilting. La más guay (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

What's the difference? Consolidation? edit

Etymology 3 & 4 seem to be the same, one is just 'it's a contraction' the other, 'it's a contraction, that was used here....' 2601:14E:4180:6880:D485:D916:9484:E0D7 03:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Return to "taint" page.