Important Wiktionary Information


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — Vildricianus 18:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply



I have left the following note on the anon's user page, and am going to ask you to respect it as well: Please leave abortion alone for the time being, join in on the discussion found on the talk page until we have come to a conclusion. It is at present an edit war and measures will be taken to prevent any more of that if need be. Thanks - TheDaveRoss 12:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • In the pro-life entry you added the definition: favoring religious views of medical issues. I would like some clarification, I know that there are many different religions, and within these religions there are many different views of medical matters...are pro-life people the ones who don't beleive in medicine? Are they the ones who think that placing stones on the body can alleviate ailments?
    - TheDaveRoss 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • In some cases, yes. It would be more precise to say "christian" instead. They are by far the main pro-life religious group.

Personal Attacks, Confessions, Rants, etc.


It seems your preferred edit type is provocative (and not in the good way.) I read up on your wikipedia actions and cannot say that you will find life any easier over here for someone whose only concern is spreading their own POV message without concern for the rules and community of the project. Take your unholy crusade elsewhere, it isn't welcome here. If you wish to contribute in a productive, helpful way, you should start by understanding that NPOV does not mean seperation of church and wiki, it doesn't mean that everyone else's point of view is excluded but yours is ok, it means (in the context of this project) that we should define all words in all languages covering all of the standard ways they are used as best as we can. Please do NOT remove definitions you do not like simply because you don't like them. Please do NOT add new definitions if they are simply an attempt to be inflamatory, we are looking for a group effort, not a debate over right-to-life/right-to-choose. It isn't the place of a dictionary to perpetuate political ideals. - TheDaveRoss 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another attack or slander or whatever you want to call it...

  • Not liking a sense is not cause to delete it, if you do not think a sense belongs prepend {{rfv-sense}} to it and add it to the page RFV. - TheDaveRoss 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the tip. I used that tag. I've never heard that sense used before, or anything close to it. There is a pejorative variation of #4 on gay. In fact, that gets used lots ways, sometimes as a less offensive substitute for fag or faggy, neither of which ever are used to mean boring in any sense.
    Yeah, I think this is used pejoratively in more than one sense, you would probably be more likely to hear the "boring...etc" sense (basically something which requires a negative adjective in my experience) in a high school hallway, but I have certainly heard it used that way a lot. The other often pejorative sense is the one you mentioned, which relies more on context I think. - TheDaveRoss 01:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Please reserve the "revert" label for vandalism, clearly Ec's edit was not this. If you have a problem with the way another user defines a word discuss it with them, and if applicable the community. Also, I am not sure the "doublespeak" note on consensus is particularly applicable, if it was meant as a joke that is all well and good, but that isn't a definition of the word. - TheDaveRoss 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Point of View


Like many words with sexual meanings, gay often gets abused by teenagers. They might use it as follows: "One thing is for sure, discussing how to use gay on Wiki is way gay." Whether a word is being "abused" and who it is allegedly being "abused" by are highly point of view (read: opinionated) statements, rather than definitions or usage notes. We are not a standards body, nor a language police, nor the arbiters of the English language, so if a group as large as "teenagers" use a word in a certain way there is a good chance we want to define it in that way. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are plenty of non-teenagers out there who use 'gay' and other sexual words in ways that they weren't being used even 10 years ago, but whether this is right or wrong isn't within the scope of what we do here. check out POV to see more about what POV editing is, and CFI to see what our goals are when it comes to prescriptivism vs descriptivism. Personally, I agree with you that this word is used in harmful and derogatory ways, but words don't have to be nice, they just have to be used. Thanks, - TheDaveRoss 15:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, TDR. I guess my 1st response is chose a term that you feel more accurately captures teen misuses of words. The entry for abuse agrees with my usage. 2nd is to change teen to new, recent, or popular. As you noted above in our discussion regarding the unsourced "boring", etc. sense, why not simply ask for a citation? I'm being very patient waiting for the citation I requested. As for my usage, all you need to do is watch an episode of South Park, and I can certainly reference specific episodes and probably find deconstructions by fans on the Web. Fact, don't delete, yes? Or no? Also consider this entry on Wikipedia for Emo (slang). As a final note, if we are not the language police, why not be open about who uses it? Certainly such terms as archaic in standard dictionaries indicate its OK to say that a type of usage is used by the old, or, as in this case, young.--Halliburton Shill 20:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Noting the time period that a word or meaning emerges or becomes popular is certainly a good thing, I think you would find that for gay the word has been used as a generally negative term for quite some time. We can be honest about who uses it, but I don't think saying that "teens" are the ones who use this term that way is at all accurate. Using your South Park reference, none of the writers of South Park are teens, and the main characters are third graders. How is the usage there proof that a teen would use it that way? I understand that the main audience is probably in the 16-25 bracket, but people from all age groups use gay in this way in my experience. - TheDaveRoss 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll believe it when I see a reputable citation or about 5 citations over an extended period (not the last 2 weeks) in blogs and the like. As to South Park, none of the writers have used gay in the boring sense, so the point remains that only a small group of teens based on your original research use it, assuming you understood them properly. I'll agree that it is used more and more as a vague and essentially meaningless insult, but the roots of the insult remain in being unmanly.--Halliburton Shill 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply



Please don't add definition that way. The second definition you added is no different from the first, and rather than destroying the translation table (leaving all entries ambiguous - in this case, the single entry,) you should just append your clarifying comments to the first definition after a semicolon.

That is, if it truly is necessary. I don't think what you added helps the reader.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll let you decide whether to add it back or not. I'll grant that not honest pretty much captures everything. Here's my explanation of the add: Interfering with honesty doesn't necessarily involve being non-honest. But I won't argue that's a sense that may be best left for other words like deceitful.--Halliburton Shill 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply



Prefix entry for in goes in in-. Please move and merge the contents. Thanks Kipmaster 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know that's how paper dictionaries work, but it seems extremely non-intuitive. Is this an absolute that's already been agreed upon?--Halliburton Shill 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's how everybody does.
Maybe we should add a {{See|in-}} at the beginning of in too. Kipmaster 16:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. See also Category:English prefixes. — Vildricianus 16:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's what I'll do. Reasonable solution and keeps both fairly clean.--Halliburton Shill 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sperm burper


I added two quotes and a reference from a printed slang dictionary to the definition. So, I undid your change of the definition as it appears to be incorrect. I will check another slang dictionary at the library tomorrow and will be receiving a third in the mail around Thursday. Also, you seem to be going through each of the vulgar definitions and saying they're not true. All of them are found in The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, but some editors here prefer quotes instead. I agree that dictionaries are more-reliable sources, but quotations are perfectly-acceptable on Wiktionary--Squealer 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I prefer quotes too, provided they are from relatively reliable sources that can be verified, not just a blog or something someone can make up by themselves. I have no problem with vulgar definitions. That should have been obvious by the way I redefined it.--Halliburton Shill 21:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for questioning my use of "sadity." I had added it, but I should have noticed that "saditty" is the more preferred word. I have corrected it and put the necessary information under "saditty" instead. But could you tell me how I can now delete my original "sadity" entry? --BrasilianRain 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Use the speedy delete template which looks like this:
{{db|I spelled it wrong and added an entry for it with the correct spelling. See [[saditty]]}}
the "{{" followed by the "db" tells it that this is the speedy delete template. The "|" is a seperator that tells it that the text that follows is the reason.
I've added it to the page already so, if it isn't already deleted, you can see what it looks like. Putting that on your own talk page is also a good way to attract help from an admin who can delete it. I think {{help}} will get admin attention too.--Halliburton Shill 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply



Hi, thanks for the message. Well, I didn't really do anything to macaca other than formatting changes, and add a Spanish sense that was really just moved from macaco... As for the RFV I believe I will mostly stay out of it. –Andyluciano 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It has been shuffled, thank you for the research you have put in, a little more is needed to keep even the epithet sense (3 uses over a year, and echoes of G. Allen's use are not independent, per the fanfiction exceptions.) Keep it up. - TheDaveRoss 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply



Well said! Thanks for the reminder. --Enginear 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply



Hello, {{en-noun-reg-y}} and all other specialized templates are obsolete; all common nouns use {{en-noun}}. Cynewulf 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noted. Added obselete section to top of reg-y.--Halliburton Shill 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

more equal


Hi, the Austen citation is not a citation of this idiom. It's a different sense of equal = ‘having adequate capability for’, which has always been comparable. Widsith 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If sense 4 of equal is in fact a sense (never experienced such use), OK. I won't object to you removing it for now.--Halliburton Shill 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Category:Internet laughter slang


Are you intending to do away with this category? It was a useful subcategory of Category:Laughter. --EncycloPetey 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somebody tagged Category:Internet laughter slang (see the note on the top) as if it were an abuse/vandal/renegade category. It also seemed too small to be useful. Category:Internet slang is small enough. I didn't realize it was being used as a subcategory of laughter. I'm nuetral on it. It can stay or go. How about a larger category like emoticons or internet emotions so that smileys like :)) :) :D get included?--Halliburton Shill 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't know whether emoticoons qualify under CFI. If they do, then an Emoticon category could fit under both Internet sland and Emotions. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is Category:Emoticons, though not used a lot. Also Category:Text messaging There is so much on usenet that CFI wouldn't be a problem. Aconyms and smileys have always been the same sort of Internt/texting short-hand. I don't know. Should we move this discussion to tea or beer for more input? May have already been discussed to death and settled.--Halliburton Shill 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Slippery slope


Please note that the slippery slope/thin edge of the wedge argument is not considered valid as a reason for deletion (as you put forward requests for deletion for Greater Manchester). See this section of Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. — Paul G 10:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'm aware of that. If my argument had been of the slippery slope/thin edge type, I would understand. The point, however, is not that we are about to slide down the icy side of a hill. Rather, that there is already a mountain and there's no need to build hills around the bottom of it for people to see it. See the updated definition of greater, sense 2. With regard to criteria, it's also worth noting WT:CFI#Names of actual people, places, and things. I've yet to see an attributive/idiomatic use of Greater Manchester. And I would I apply the same sharp, reinforced edge to US states, though I'm not yet aware of any Greater Illinois or even Greater New York or Greater California entry.--Halliburton Shill 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

POV pushing


Be advised that your recent edits to Islamo- and Islamofascism look like POV pushing. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

replies can be found here: User_talk:Ruakh#POV_pushing

Recent edits


I have reverted a number of your recent edits. To QFT because a quick search clearly demonstrates "quoted for truth" to be in far more common usage than "quoted for truthiness," which is an obvious neologism with little usage. To truthiness, because the previously mentioned revert rendered the new link void. And to heart, because the definition was nearly nonsensical and the quote did not support the assertion. If you think that you can truly support these edits (i.e. pass an rfv), I would be happy to simply rfv them. However, I think both situations stand little chance of passing. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

With regard to QFT, "quoted for truth" never passed an rfv. Please post further information regarding your exhaustive quick searches here Talk:QFT. What amounts to my full reply is there and any specific sources/research you have to share should be there for easy context review and response by QFT experts. As to heart, I provided a book source, which you haven't. I'll "be happy to simply rfv them".--Halliburton Shill 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Supp dawg


Hi @Halliburton Shill. I found your user page coincidentally while looking at the history of the sand nigger entry. You have an interesting user page, and I'm just saying hi. The last edit here is from 2008 so I'm probably wasting my time. Amin wordie (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply