Last modified on 10 May 2015, at 19:00

User talk:Cloudcuckoolander

I formerly went by Astral on Wiktionary, but changed my username to Cloudcuckoolander in May 2013.



When I checked your contributions I immediately noticed you had created entries for many citation pages. However some of those citation pages contain news references. Are news references such as the BBC considered acceptable as a source on wiktionary?

It would depend on whether the news source in question was considered to meet the "durably archived" requirement of WT:CFI. In general, "durably archived" is interpreted to include things published in physical formats (books, magazines, newspapers, films, etc.), and to exclude things published in digital formats (excepting Usenet posts for some reason). So, basically, a segment from a BBC News television broadcast would be considered acceptable under the presumption that a copy of it is stored on tape in the BBC's archives, but an article published on the BBC News website generally wouldn't. Same would go for CNN. It's also accepted practice to cite articles on the websites of newspapers and magazines that exist in a physical print format, e.g. The New York Times, The Guardian, etc. I hope this helps answer your question. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

lesploitation, lezploitationEdit

These terms apparently exist, but I can’t define them and don’t feel like doing so. Maybe you can, if you desire. Ass. --Romanophile (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
They could be gynophilic women in general, not just female homosexuals. To me, your definition could be more accurate. --Romanophile (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The tough thing with writing definitions is trying to balance accuracy with simplicity and understandability. Hope the revised definition is an improvement. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


--Romanophile (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I can't really figure out what definition(s) is/are citable and how to define them, so I'm pulling a Æ&Œ and leaving ithis one on the doorstep of the superior lexicographer, if you deign to handle it. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a look through the Google Books hits. Looks like there a probably multiple senses in use. Will have a go when I have more time. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Added cites to the sense included when SemperBlotto created the entry. Also added a second sense. I think there may be other senses out there, possibly related to technic, but I can't parse anything from the first 25 pages of Google Books hits. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I a poor editor?Edit

I noticed that in many of the English entries that I generated, you had to improve the definitions. It’s probably annoying to clean up after me all the time. Should I do something else? --Romanophile (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall having to fix anything you created recently. So I don't think you have any cause for concern. :) Although, if you want some advice, looking through your recent edit history, I see you created saviorhood with the definition "status of being a saviour." This should ideally be "the status of being a savior." It's a very minor thing, and you're not the only editor I've seen define an abstract noun without a definite article. But adding a "the" would make for a more polished entry. Also capitalizing the first word in the definition and including a period at the end. Not everyone adheres to this formatting, but, again, if you want to make your entries more polished, it helps to go that extra mile.
Defining words can be tough. It's really difficult trying to find the right balance of accuracy and understandability. So if you ever feel at a loss, don't be hard on yourself. Sometimes it takes me an hour or more to work out a good way to define something. And don't hesitate to ask for input if you don't quite know how to proceed in terms of defining something. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Lazily guilty of creating any number of "-nesses" that are "Quality of X" and not "The quality". Heh. Equinox 23:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I left out the articles because I tend to idealize definitions as translations. So if I decoded ‘The saviourhood of your mother,’ it would read ‘the the status of being a saviour of your mother.’ I also recall a discussion that using proper punctuation in definitions is now an archaic practice. After rereading the discussion, it’s not a universal rule. It’s just that definitions for the language that I’m writing in right now should be punctuated, but translations should not, unless a comprehensive definition is necessary, I suppose. Apparently, I confused this practice. I should quit thinking of English definitions as translations.
That’s frequently why I simply make requests rather than do the entries myself. Still, most of the regulars here don’t like an inflated request section, so now I am attempting to avoid it. I’m also fond of technical terms, but I understand that here it’s preferable to use more common and plain terms, so I just deal with it. --Romanophile (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that SemperBlotto is one of the few editors who has a problem with me, which is a shame because I generally like his work. There’s also another one (whom I actually dislike), but I’d prefer not to say his name. On the other hand, maybe I’m superoptimistic and lots of editors secretly despise me. --Romanophile (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

mental image of youEdit

I have imaginary ideas of what some editors look like. Although I’m not a furry, I still imagine you as a smiley anthropomorphic she‐wolf (possibly because you touched a few furry terms on the project). --Romanophile (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Cloudcuckoolander".