Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Equinox


you look great
on Beta tape
but you look best
on VHS Equinox 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Burma-Shave. (I apologise for the very dated, very US-centric reference.)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't believe I wasted half my musical life on braindance/IDM and gothic rock. Enjoy! [1] Just don't try to listen to the lyrics. Equinox 06:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

this kind of thing is intensely obscure and doesn't help English learnersEdit

It was never intended to help English learners. But this is what some guy in a track suit in a pub somewhere in the Hebrides is quite likely to say after he's had one too many drinks... Mountebank1 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And just so you know, in places where this verb is used in the first sense it is pronounced as "ʃeɪd" not "ʃɛd" and it is never used in any other senses (but the first). For example, people in those places would say instead of "a snake is shedding its skin"ː "A snake is casting its skin off". It is used instead of the verb "to divide" in some northern regions of Scotland. Mountebank1 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be a goddamn crybaby. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 10:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to attack your dialect, but I maintain that it's obscure and confusing for the VAST majority of users. I wish we could document every little bit of dialect, but usexes on everyday words on Wiktionary are not really the right place. Equinox 03:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Banned Wikipedia user editing hereEdit

Is there anything that can be done in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between being banned by WMF and by Wikipedia. There's probably a meta page you can report this to somewhere. DTLHS (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
He is banned by both Wikipedia and the WMF. On Wikipedia, he is blocked on sight and whatever new account he creates is globally blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating, you should probably take it up with them and not us. DTLHS (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, why are you so interested in this case? Why are you snippy about it? I asked Equinox a question, not you. Equinox has experience with the PaulBustion88 sock that Leucostictes is claiming to be. So do I. I am very familiar with both sockmasters. Given Equinox's experience with problematic socks such as these, his politeness, and the fact that he is far more familiar with Wiktionary than I am, I asked him about this case. Do let him answer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is such a thing as a global (cross-project) block that stops users from editing on any project. I don't know the procedure for applying those, though. In general we wouldn't block someone here just because they are blocked somewhere else (but it can be a red flag!). Equinox 19:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the point of this conversation. One of his en.wikt accounts is permablocked for actions he did here, so the rest of his socks should be permablocked as well (which I have now done for the two I am aware of). His actions on other wikis are irrelevant unless they institute a WMF-wide ban, which we have nothing to do with. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Μετάknowledge, thanks for the block. I know that Leucostictes claimed to be PaulBustion88 (who is also known as FDR and RJR3333), but I was wary of going on that claim. I have dealt with a sockmaster pretending to be another sockmaster. That stated, the Leucostictes account claimed on his user page that he was "not Leucosticte" and was "using his screen name as a joke," and it is the case that PaulBustion88 has impersonated me for kicks. Given the editor's style of editing, he probably is PaulBustion88 (who you blocked him as) instead of the banned Leucosticte editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Leucostictes is definitely PaulBustion88. He has that characteristic tendency to split hairs based on imaginary distinctions and to make major changes without thinking things through. I haven't dealt with Leucosticte, but they seem much more devious and better at flying under the radar. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Chuck Entz. Yeah, Leucosticte is better at socking than PaulBustion88 and I haven't known him to edit Wiktionary, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is editing it or has edited it before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, Leucostictes said he was going to stop editing here, and actually did so, so it's all academic. I think DTLHS was reacting to the apparent implication that the barn door being still open 2 1/2 months after the horse ran away was some kind of emergency and evidence that Wiktionary admins have been asleep on the job. I don't see any clear evidence of socks in Leucostictes' IP ranges (the picture is a little fuzzy regarding their IPv.6 range, because there's some overlap with unrelated users there), so it looks like a nonissue.
By the way, I wasn't a CheckUser when PaulBustion88 was active, so I have nothing to compare with, but there's absolutely no overlap with the data on Leuctosticte that's posted at the CheckUser Wiki- so the two accounts are definitely not related. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Chuck Entz, on Wikipedia, some problematic accounts will go away for a few months and return later. From what I've seen, some problematic accounts do the same here, and PaulBustion88 would go away for sometime and return. He's also stated that he would never edit Wikipedia again, but he did so anyway. I've never known him to keep his word (well, typically speaking). I am sure that he will sock again at this site under a different account, if he's not already doing so. As for the real Leucosticte, I have caught him just as easily as I've caught PaulBustion88; so I'm not sure about stating which of the two is better at socking. I would rather not inflate their egos anyway. As for DTLHS's latter response, our interpretations of it are certainly different. But I again thank you for taking the time to address this. If you or anyone else think you have spotted PaulBustion88 and want another opinion because the WP:CheckUser data is not identifying him, feel free to leave me a message about it on my Wiktionary talk page; I will get an email alerting me to the matter. I'm not sure if I will get an email if pinged here at this site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I was repeatedly blocked as an IP in my early days (because I added British slang and wrote silly edit summaries - like Wonderfool, whom I hadn't encountered at the time). Luckily I'm a stubborn mule or else you might have lost ten solid years of the single most prolific Wikt editor ever. Did you ever think of that? Ha! (So in theory I favour leniency. But when it's someone like PaM you can genuinely identify them in the first three edits.) Equinox 03:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Editors have tried to give PaulBustion88 a second chance. And a third one too. Didn't work. And he's far too problematic for it to work. Leucosticte is also far too problematic to be editing Wikipedia, or any wiki, really; that is why he's banned by Wikipedia and the WMF. The reasons are not for simple vandalism, that's for sure. A number of editors started out as vandals. That's not the issue. And as for Pass a Method (PaM), he was given multiple chances to get it together. All three are too problematic to even consider giving another chance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
They are banned and we ban their new accounts as soon as we can reasonably tell that it's them. So I don't know what else you're asking for. (Oh, by the way the "did you ever...?" wasn't aimed at you. Just decided to have a little rant on my talk page. I'm annoying, you'll get used to it.) Equinox 03:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking for anything else, Equinox. I was simply responding to your latest post about starting out as a problematic editor and then turning into a productive editor. I was letting you know that these three did get chances to be productive editors. I've already noted that I'm thankful for the help that you, Metaknowledge and Chuck Entz have provided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just saw this add-in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 :D Future historians will note that the point when Wiktionary became Wikipedia was when talk pages started getting six levels deep. OH! it's seven now. Equinox 03:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For future reference, this is how to tell us apart: (i) Eq can probably hesitantly manage to order dinner in France, whereas WF can glibly purchase all kinds of meals in any Romance language, and then run off without paying; (ii) Eq can vaguely explain programmer stuff like why you'd use a mutex and what's wrong with format strings, and WF can't; (iii) WF knows a lot of stupid football/sport crap and Eq doesn't; (iv) if you repeatedly taunt them, Eq will eventually burst into flames and spit swear-words, whereas WF will get bored and just leave, and make a new name. HTH HAND. Equinox 03:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fever SwampEdit

Considering the term "fever swamp" is pejorative (and even marked as as such), the unjustified assignment of it to one side or the other is very much POV. You say that I pretended the differences aren't there. I believe you are pretending they ARE there. Would I be justified in changing all the right-wing references to left-wing? And, of course, I wouldn't change the definition of "black" include white people. However, you wouldn't suggest that the definition of "people" didn't include whites, would you? Izuko (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:fever swamp, and try leaving the house sometimes. (I know it sucks.) Equinox 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So you've had your little abuse of power. I'll ask again - where is the evidence that the term is specifically right-wing. Also, I'd like to know exactly how my correcting your well-guarded entry is vandalism.Izuko (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


I think that it is actually a six-sided dipyramid. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. M-W says "a form of crystal having 12 faces (such as a double 6-sided pyramid)", suggesting it's broader. Equinox 09:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Equinox , regarding this, I was about to partly strike my "move it comment" and state the following: "But it still seems that this should be deleted. I'm not really asking who defines it this way. It was more of an argument because I don't see that this is a real term." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If a phrase is used by somebody to mean something (and if we can prove that from books, or Usenet newsgroups, or whatever, per WT:CFI) then it is a "real term". A lot of people come here and say things like "gay means happy, not homosexual!!" or "irregardless isn't a word because it's just wrong!". But at the end of the day, if it's really used by human beings to communicate, we will probably include it. If your opposition to a term is just "I don't like it" then you might not get lucky. I'm not sure what to say. Equinox 03:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The "gay means happy, not homosexual" arguments are ridiculous. We've gotten those at Wikipedia as well. And "irregardless" is notable enough to be mentioned. Lots of solid dictionaries (like this one) and scholarly sources take the time to address it. I don't see any solid dictionary sources using "self-rape," and it's certainly not in widespread use or typically used seriously. So I questioned its existence here. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there's also the "it's not a word because it's 'not in the dictionary'" myth. Which dictionary, whose? We have huge numbers of words that no mainstream dictionary covers, e.g. my pet Category:en:Demoscene. Anyway good luck at RFV. Equinox 03:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Who defines words if not grammar scholars and dictionaries? There are a lot of so-called words that are not accepted as words by academics. Many people state "ain't," but "ain't" still is not a standard word. It's non-standard. There are all kinds of so-called words that have been made up on Tumblr. Anyway, per your explanation, I'm no longer looking to delete "self-rape," no matter its ridiculousness and that the page was created by a sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"Who defines words if not grammar scholars and dictionaries?" We are a dictionary. Please leave me alone now. Equinox 04:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I was bothering you. Now I know how the newbies at Wikipedia feel. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be unaware of prescriptivism vs descriptivism. Wiktionary is descriptive. We describe words as they are used by human beings, regardless of what dusty old books say they ought to mean. Wiktionary is not here to declare what is proper or improper, though we will often note that certain terms (like ain't) will often be seen as improper.
Probably no one on wiktionary is interested in having this fight about specific words, like you've done here with...self-rape. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Newbies here usually get blocked on sight lol. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Dick Laurent and AryamanA, think back to when you were newbies on this site. Now think about how you would like to be treated. Like I stated above, "Now I know how the newbies at Wikipedia feel." I will certainly aim to be more understanding of newbies' mistakes over there. As for here, if "newbies here usually get blocked on sight," then I am not surprised that this place is not booming. On a side note: I am well aware of prescriptivism vs descriptivism. My "the self-rape page should be deleted" arguments are clearly a newbie mistake. But I am willing to learn, which is why I asked a different experienced editor about getting familiar with this site. Nothing else to see here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: It was just a joke :) We have far fewer admins and no anti-vandal bots so blocks are handed out quite quickly. Most admins are welcoming and helpful to newbies nevertheless; you can see my talk page archives for proof. As for How this place is doing, Wiktionary's active editor count is steadily increasing while Wikipedia's peaked in 2007 and has been declining since then; WP is far worse to newbies. Why, since I've been here we've gone from just 2 to 6-7 Indian-language editors, and the Hindi article count itself has quadrupled. I've helped out some newbies myself. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 12:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
AryamanA, I'm aware of Wikipedia's editor decline, but it's not yet significant enough. Still far too many people for a lot of people's liking. As for Wikipedia being far worse to newbies, I'm not sure about that, given the dismissive and "oh, you poor idiot" treatment I've received from a few of you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't really talk to people when I first started here. I looked at how entries were formatted and thus did things mostly correctly. So I didn't have the problems you're having. It only seems logical to me that a reasonably intelligent new person would be inclined to look at some of our simpler entries to learn how they're supposed to be formatted, and not leap into debates about what entries we should have and how we should do things after being here for ten minutes. But if that's what you're into, then, you know, you do you. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 12:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent: How would you lemmatise "you do you"? "do one"? "do oneself" (edit: no, that doesn't work)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't do yourself — it might be construed as self-rape. Anyway, outside of jocular edge cases, the second-person you do you is the only form it ever takes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
DI you do you! PseudoSkull (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Dick Laurent, newbies act differently. People act differently in general. I've learned that from life experience, my study of psychology, and years editing Wikipedia and interacting with newbies day in and day out. Some look around to see how things are done. Others jump right in. Some do both. In my case (and, yes, many refer to me as intelligent, not just reasonably intelligent), I did both, but looking at entries obviously did not tell me that Wiktionary will accept any ole word from Urban Dictionary or Tumblr. Furthermore, one can look around and learn from a poor entry and get the wrong idea of how things are done (as so often happens at Wikipedia). If us newbies automatically knew everything, WT:Wiktionary for Wikipedians would not exist. I obviously have not edited this site much. I saw a nonsense, would-be word (and it is a nonsense, would-be word, regardless of Wiktionary covering it) that was created by a problematic account (that is now blocked) and I was concerned. But, hey, if you want to continue to berate instead of accept this as "the newbie mistake case" that it is, then you do you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Have you even looked at WT:CFI? Every word ought to have at least 3 durable citations. You can't except everything to be especially explained to you if you want to contribute (especially if you are as you say "intelligent") We have few active and experienced editors, not enough to take care of every newbie. If you have such a negative attitude towards Wiktionary from the start, I don't possibly see how I can help. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
AryamanA, there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in my comments that suggest that I expect everything to be especially explained to me. Nor do I have such a negative attitude. I am not here demanding that Wiktionary change. Nor am I still trying to get the aforementioned article deleted. Instead, I have stated that I recognize my mistake and am willing to learn. And now I am here defending myself in the presence of significantly more experienced Wiktionary editors who should simply accept the matter for what it is and move on. Berating me does not help in any way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I'm not berating you, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. It's just when you say things like "I saw a nonsense, would-be word (and it is a nonsense, would-be word, regardless of Wiktionary covering it) that was created by a problematic account (that is now blocked) and I was concerned. But, hey, if you want to continue to berate instead of accept this as "the newbie mistake case" that it is, then you do you." I think that you haven't read our policies thoroughly. Now, yes, "self-rape" would not be accepted in any "respectable" dictionary, but we aren't prescriptivist, we're descriptivist. If a word is used at least 3 times durably over a span longer than a year, we (should) have a definition for it. And who the heck even decides what a word is? You wouldn't, for example, find most of the words in, say, CAT:Hindi slang documented in any dictionary, but I can assure you all of those are words. So while I see where you are coming from as a newbie, saying something like that is not really going to get people eager to help you. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to your "14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)" post, we disagree on the "not berating me" aspect. As for calling self-rape a nonsensical "term," I stand by that. Per Barytonesis's comment below and what I've seen other Wiktionary editors state, not every Wiktionary editor believes that a term is valid simply because it exists on Wiktionary. In fact, I'm sure that there are a lot of terms here that many Wiktionary editors don't consider valid. Whether to include such terms on this site is not about editors' personal opinions, however. I understand that. Including terms on Wikipedia is not about editors' personal opinions either. Because people (including editors here) have different opinions on what are legit words, and because I know that whether or not a word is included here is not about my personal opinion, I obviously disagree with your reasoning for why editors wouldn't want to help me. Either way, I see no need to keep discussing this, especially on Equinox's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I'm fairly experienced, but even I got a little trigger-happy with this uninteresting word. I hope you won't let this incident stop you from contributing completely! If you have any question don't hesitate to ask. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Barytonesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Scientific instrumentsEdit

Potentially promising redlinks here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


How do I fix my zip code postsl code? COACH ZARLINO (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Move house? Equinox 20:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


If you look at the citations, one of them talks about "abundant crotovine" - hence it really is its own plural, not an uncountable noun. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We posted at the same time! Let's continue this on your talk page. Equinox 23:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A few red linksEdit

Don't know what it's worth, but I've found quite a few funny-looking missing words in this document. Cf. especially "Clumps of insults for the dregs of society"

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


I moved Xavierian to Xaverian because this is the spelling Wikipedia uses, and although difficult to search for, I think it is the only correct one. Please let me know if this is a mistake. Also, I was curious about the pronunciation ... I briefly went to a school that was part of the Xaverian Brothers, but I dont remember ever hearing or saying the word "Xaverian" out loud. Soap (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

you're a bad human being Equinox 05:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello Equinox! Just for future terms, when you say "inappropriate w/o explanatory gloss," does that "gloss" mean using the template like { {l|en|<term>|gloss=rare, nonstandard, etc...} }? Anglish4699 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure that it is the same as Scandinavianism. Anyway I found a Wikipedia article. DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why deleted "VAPTCHA"Edit

-- 08:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can see that I deleted it then you can see the reason in the same place. Equinox 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I would add that a brief description of where the initialism came from would barely work as an etymology, and is pretty much useless as a dictionary entry. See WT:EL. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

come fromEdit

Usually used in the present participle. Is it possible that you can define the third sense for me? I can't think of the wording. Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Equinox".