This is a discussion archive created in March 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Kept edit

Template:oed1923 edit

UK law applies. All the original OED went into the public domain at the end of 1998. The first supplement went into the public domain at the end of 2003. Eclecticology 00:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the template nominated for deletion? We attribute Webster's 1913 in the same manner, don't we? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without attribution, you are violating the GFDL! --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there should be no attribution. A simple reference in the reference section of the article should be enough. The same could be said about the Webster template. Generally, I don't go looking to change those, but if I'm editing for some other reason, I do replace that ugly box with a normal reference. Eclecticology 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary here says only "pointless template" (edit at 07:40 UTC - note that MediaWiki will display your timezone when following this link.) Five minutes later, I warned about the GFDL above. Seven minutes later, you added a link to a non-existant template: R:OED then created that shortly after. This is bizarre. Why didn't you just correct this template and rename it to R:OED? Why create in effect, a gap in edit hostory by deleting this template instead of just correcting it?

Furthermore, why the unannounced policy change for attribution? We've always tagged Webster entries that way, with no objection. Is there a conversation on the topic hidden somewhere not obvious to me? I concur that the references may be more intuitive and look better. But shouldn't something like that be discussed? Moreso, since you've reverted this twice now, it is obvious there is some contention or confusion on the matter: why isn't this a community vote? How are people to know that you've decided it should now look otherwise?

I suppose you'll make an excuse, or say you didn't see the warning. If recent events hadn't transpired, I'd be inclined to make that assumption for your benefit.

It would be acceptable to me in this situation, if you temporarily delete template: R:OED and move template:oed1923 there, then restore it to the state you feel is appropriate. (Presumably that would be moving back over-redirect and restoring earlier version, retaining redirect so that viewing history is more consistent.) And announce the policy change somewhere.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTBC, RFV, rv, and all other Wiktionary jargon in main namespace edit

Wiktionary internal terminology. Do not belong into the main dictionary corpus. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:wjargon for more. Ncik 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying they aren't labeled properly? What is your problem? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or RFV~~. Davilla 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're actually quite helpful for new users who can't find their way yet or who don't know what "rv" means in entry summaries. Besides, "OED" and "OUP" are entries in the OED, even in the Shorter. — Vildricianus 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? "OED" is a common abbreviation for one of the most important and comprehensive dictionaries there exist. Hence it is not very surprising that the OED has an entry "OED". Obviously, the situation is completely different for Wiktionary jargon. Ncik 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davilla, no, jargon specifically labelled as such is not supposed to be rfv'd. We are in this context, describing the terms we use here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barring the former options, move to Wiktionary: appendix of internal jargon. This issue is pretty clear, it's just a matter of opinion where your vote lands. I'm a purist, and I agree with Ncik's statement.

By the way, RFV, if failure doesn't necessitate trashing, could be beneficial. The first sense of protologism is pretty close to legitimate in its own right. Davilla 18:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff shouldn't go into the appendix either. It should go onto some help/how-to/glossary page (possibly in the Wiktionary namespace). Ncik 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but our current software doesn't work for that type of lookup. Until it does, these need to stay. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or weak keep since redirects are an ugly work-around. Davilla 12:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nigger baby edit

I can't find these definitions anywhere else. Jonathan Webley 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't look very far because I provided three quotations for each sense right in the entry.--81.169.154.44 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 1 at least can go, it is simply the sum of the parts. The others do have quotes, if you don't believe they are legit you should RFV them, and if you think it may be copyvio you should look into that too. - TheDaveRoss 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you think it's possible to RFV a quote . . . Do you need quotes for the quotes? I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to put in a few minutes of your time to look them up. I hope you're not too lazy to do it.--81.169.154.44 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first definition, that's there to show the historical evolution of the phrase. The entry is ordered historically, so the first sense shows that the other senses are derived from it.--81.169.154.44 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing Jonathan. As for RFV I meant research it, and ask around if he didn't have the means. Strictly speaking sense 1 doesn't meet the CFI, and information about the origins of a phrase usually goes in an "etymology" section. - TheDaveRoss 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But assuming this merits inclusion, the literal is also the most common meaning. See blue moon. Davilla 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. Delete all. These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at nigger. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also all contributions from 80.123.209.146, apparently the same contributor as 81.169.154.44. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It’s racist claptrap with no redeeming value whatsoever and not worthy of preserving. —Stephen 07:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously an issue of intolerance for both of you. You think that you can eliminate racism by pretending it doesn't exist. I understand it's very easy for you to delete someone else's work, but I would have appreciated it if you had actually read the definitions first. McKinzie is obviously lying because their meanings are not intuitive (especially for "nigger baby" and "nigger heaven". Since you did not discuss this sufficiently before deleting them, I am restoring the entries.--81.169.154.44 08:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it seems you are mistaken on many levels. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Blue-eyed grass (genus Sisyrinchium), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" the sum of the phrase "nigger baby"? (See McKinzie's first comment, lines 1 and 2.) That's one reason why I don't think you read the entries. Some of the terms are racist, but how is preventing other people from learning about them going to help anything? That only hides the problem (racism). That's why I said you're trying to pretend the issue doesn't exist. Have you ever heard the phrase "Don't shoot the messenger"? I suppose if anyone wants to know what an unpopular word means, they'll just have to go and read a real dictionary. As for my motives, you don't even know who I am!--81.169.154.44 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know who I am! Everyone here saw your bizarre racist entries. The venerable OED has several multi-word terms including nigger but none of the crazy ones you entered. The single redeeming definition you list above was embedded amongst several other racist ramblings. Yes, I did see it. In the context, it too was mere tripe. But that one does nothing to redeem the sixteen others.

All that aside, when someone else deleted the entries, your actions made crystal clear we were dealing with some kind of maniac. I do not want hazard a guess what your motives are, but your actions were and are disruptive here. I don't know what sort of hobby I could suggest for you. Your interest in software, misplaced personal attacks and goatse seems to be an odd combination, that I don't think is in very high demand. Your activities are not welcome here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted that that sense shouldn't have been deleted! What about "the top gallery in a theater" as the meaning for "nigger heaven"? That isn't the some of it's parts, either. You also just called me a racist, so you obviously know a lot about me, huh? So, where do I live (be specific)? What color skin do I have? What religion am I?--81.169.154.44 13:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't read? I said it was tripe. Stop hacking people's computers just to post here. Go find something productive to do. Elsewhere. --Connel MacKenzie T C 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wise to question motive? For the book Nigger Heaven, Wikipedia has an article which has claimed for over a year that "One pejorative term for the balcony, therefore, was nigger heaven." What else had been contributed? Davilla 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created six entries, all with three carefully-collected quotes from printed sources. Besides "nigger heaven", I created "nigger baby", with four senses, paraphrased like so: (1) a black baby, (2) a type of plant, (3) a type of cannonball, and (4) a type of candy. I also created "nigger hunt" a term used by slave trackers and the KKK when attacking a black person (a phrase with historical value, in my opinion, as people when asked will give many different answers as to what the KKK would call a lynching [e.g., "nigger roundup?"]). Other entries I created were "nigger jockey", a name for slave traders in the U.S. in the 1800s; "nigger shooter" a slingshot; and "niggerish" an adjective describing a nigger-like state (nigger often means something miserable, pathetic, etc.).

I tried really hard to keep within Wiktionary's rules by collecting three quotes from primary printed sources for each sense and when they deleted them really quickly, I knew immediately why. They thought that I was a racist, so they tried to offend me by deleting my meticulously-crafted entries. I find that unbelievably offensive. I am so outraged right now, I can barely type on this keyboard. It's OK to have a needlessly-repetitive entry like "goodness", but when the subject matter offends anyone who is an adminstrator (viz. Stephen or Connel MacKenzie), like "nigger baby", MacKenzie says "These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up", and Stephen says, "It’s racist claptrap with no redeeming value whatsoever". The impression I get of the beliefs of people like Stephen is: "It's wrong to be intolerant of black people, but when you suspect that someone is a racist, it's OK to be intolerant of them. It's right to spread intolerance of suspected-racists because that solves the problem (intolerance). How idiotic!--81.169.154.44 07:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, both sides have been blowing a bit of steam. Try to cool down a bit. First of all you have to consider what the admin has to put up with all the time, and there really is a lot of undebatable trash. Besides all the urban stuff that's made up and propogates the internet and isn't actually used anywhere, and besides the semi-legitimate sexual slang and sexual connotations for just about every word ever uttered that always seem to be the first entered, and besides the advertising and spamming and newly minted definitions from people who don't know any better, and besides the over-enthusiastic copyright violations from people who sometimes try to pretend otherwise, there are actually a few who really and deliberately try to deface, destroy, and tear down the place and do everything else they can to get under everyone's skin here. These literal vandals don't get very far because they're sniffed out immediately, which is the only way to deal with them effectively. If you were as committed to this project as to gain the level of authority that allows you to implement community decisions, witnessing the incredible growth through this collaboration and envisioning what could yet be, and you saw the complete disregard that some have for years upon years of others' diligent and laborious work, then you would turn pretty hard as well. It's like cops on the street, the good guys who are charged with protecting the public, who only ever get to see the bad side of people. Those in charge here are human and imperfect and volunteers just like the rest of us, so grant at least as much leniency as you would wish to receive.

Second, you have to understand how these issues are resolved. It's a consensus of the community that decides on anything from standards like attestation to what stays or goes as in the case of your entries. You can't push your way through, and if it seems some authority has done the same, remember that your entries and the work you put in is still salvagable. Balance persistence with patience and the merit of your work will win out in the end. Honestly I can't say if all of the entries should stay; nigger hunt seems to have the weakest claim in terms of the criteria, and because of the nature of the entries the definitions and quotations are going to be scrutinized at every level. In comparison to the good-faith assumptions of validity for most definitions, that's a lot of effort that has to go in. Instead of flooding with controversial entries, focus on your strongest for now as a way to break in.

This vote is to restore nigger heaven with any additional commentation as appropriate, as it has been defined on Wikipedia:Nigger Heaven for over a year and was apparently attested at time of creation. Davilla 17:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in agreement?? Davilla 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic Drawing Series edit

I combined the two Beer Parlour entries--Richardb 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend keep this entry (which I wrote) or transfer it to Wikipedia.

As a newbie, I read the FAQs and intro materials, but perhaps the request to delete shows I haven't done the entry right, rather than a problem with the content. Anne9853 20:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, this should be transfered on Wikipedia (you can transfer it yourself, unless you need (my) help to do so). In a dictionary (here), entries must be concise; what you wrote looks more encyclopedic. As for formatting, '''{{Diagnostic Drawing Series}}''' should be changed to '''Diagnostic Drawing Series''', and it would be better if your text is not html-commented (between <! -- and -- >) so that it actually appears ;-). Kipmaster 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kipmaster. I edited it per your suggestions--made it shorter, visible (!) and changed the contact information (no website on it exists yet). Then couldn't found the entry. Wondered if it had been deleted without anyone taking responsibility for doing so? Put up a completely new version; will see how the community greets it. If successful, will attempt a encyclopaedaic entry on WP. cheers, Anne9853 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep! We should have entries (approximately this brief) for every entry in the DSM-IV. An encyclopedic article would go on at very great length on this topic. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic. (This was previously speedy deleted without discussion. Eclecticology 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised User:Pill (the deleter) of this discussion.--Richardb 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely encyclopedic. Probably wrong capitalization. Wikipedia-style format. SemperBlotto 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't realize that this was already listed further up, but it was put there only yesterday. I see this as a "Don't bite the newbie" situation. Waiting a week to delete this sort of thing doesn't hurt anything. Explaining things in a friendly and collaborative way, finding an acceptable solution, and giving the person enough time to make repairs can be very helpful in cultivating new and productive editors. Eclecticology 20:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep! We should have entries (approximately this brief) for every entry in the DSM-IV. An encyclopedic article would go on at very great length on this topic. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it with {{wikify}}. Don't support having an entry with all these names etc. Just a very brief definition, and a link to the Wikipedia article.--Richardb 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Encyclopaedic. Ncik 15:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this needs to be rewritten so that somebody who doesn’t know what it is can understand it. As it is now, the definition only makes sense if you already know what it’s all about. —Stephen 22:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article itself may have been encyclopedic before, but the technical nature of the topic is not objectionable. Davilla 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Keep after checking it and giving me feedback. I re-wrote it to make it clearer (I hope), shortened it so it is less encyclopaedic. The capitalization is correct--it is the proper name of a tool. Couldn't remember how to do direct (red) external link for term "art therapy". Will someday do the Wikipedia entry for DDS and link the two. Appreciate Eclecticology's supportive attitude. Anne9853 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the person(s) who improved the entry. More questions from me, the newbie who posted this item: When will the Request for Deletion status disappear? And, why can't my friend (not an AOL user) see this entry displayed, when correctly spelled as a Wiktionary search? Again, I have attempted to answer these questions for myself using the usual how-to documents here. thanks, Anne9853 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should go to heaven with Pink Floyd. It is merely encyclopaedic. --Dangherous 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your mom edit

Maybe it *could* be a real entry someday, but current contents are all nonsense. It would be better off restarted fresh. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, nonsense seems appropriate. I don't think that there's any need to deny a little silly pleasure to anyone who'd actually look for this entry; it made my day simply to see that it exists. Maybe improvement is an alternative to deletion. -- A Wiki user & admirer

Please sign your comments. It has been waiting for someone to clean it up since January. Please give it a go. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure it then. This is a pretty common phrase, Napolean dynamite isn't exactly on the forefront on this one. It's so common, often the rest of the phrase isn't needed. Saying just "Your mom." as a response implies the rest of the witty response without even saying it. Just move all the current examples into an example section and create a more official definition. - Taxman 15:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the benefit of anthropologists a thousand years in the future trying to figure out why the civilization before them collapsed, and took a thousand years to rebuild. bd2412 T 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worth keeping, and I would find it easier to start with what's already there. Davilla 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep, but it needs to be trimmed down vastly. – Andyluciano 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there should be a page on wikipedia just for your mom jokes and how they were first came by. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.251.5.132 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-13 16:17:59.

take a shit edit

Is this really an idiom, or just the sum of its parts? Compare take a walk. Jonathan Webley 14:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which non-idiomatic meaning of take are we looking at? Kappa 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
take a...look/gander/whiff/minute/trip/dive/turn...it goes on and on and on. This is certainly a form of the word "take" - TheDaveRoss 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note the date of the above post.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is idiomatic. The fact that many verbs V have equivalents of the form "take a V" is irrelevant - these idioms exist, so they need to be included. "Take a shit/piss/look/gander/minute/trip/dive/turn" et al deserve entries as much as the verbs from which they derive, in particular because some languages have the same construction and others don't, which makes the translation sections of the pages for these expressions very useful. — Paul G 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why? Because:

Moe: Take a seat.

Curly (rips the seat off the chair): Ok, where do I take it?

--bd2412 T 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While many words have equivalents of the form "take a V", it's definitely idiomatic as not all words have a "take a V" equivalent:

"take a look"
"take a walk"
"take a swim"
"take a seat"
*"take a door"
*"take a fish"
*"take a dance"

The one's with the "*" are not possible.

64.193.70.223 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'm edit

As the entry states, this appendage is only used in the contractions I'm, yes'm and no'm. As such it does not deserve an entry in its own right. Ncik 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sorry, but I think this nomination is bizarre. Prefixes, suffixes and infixes are valid entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suffix. It's just a two symbol sequence curiously found in three contractions. Ncik 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That explains why you nominated it, nicely, then. My vote is unchanged though. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason for the nomination is that this is merely a two symbol sequence which does not constitue anything worth having its own entry. Ncik 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation cleared up why you nominated it, yes. But I disagree with your conclusion; this clearly should not be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a suffix either, halves of contractions are not particularly useful as in different contractions they are from different words. I'm (I am) and yes'm (yes ma'am -> yes madam) are good examples of this. delete - TheDaveRoss 19:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all forms of the word "am". Kappa 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep English clitic. Just as valid as 're and 's (though 's admittedly has other reasons to recommend it). —Muke Tever 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons given by Muke. — Paul G 11:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I agree with Ncik. Who on earth will ever look this up anyway? Widsith 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "whether people want to look it up" is one of our criteria for inclusion. At any rate, how can you guess? —Muke Tever 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful construction. bd2412 T 00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm with Ncik. The story can be told in the Etymology sections of the three words that use it; there's little gained by "centralizing" the discussion in a separate page. —Scs 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dictio edit

Not only is this article in another language, but it has 2 words and is most likely not Wiktionary layout.--IAMTHEEGGMAN 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Latin for speaking. I’ve thought about cleaning dictio up but I don’t usually bother with Latin since we have some good Latin scholars around. —Stephen 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup Muke! --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kurī edit

All it says is dog. Waste of space and has been earmarked since February. Yorktown1776 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maori. Fixed. —Stephen 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

виклад edit

Is absolutley blank. The previous two line entry was blanked by the creator. Could someone either write this entry or delete it? Yorktown1776 01:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Ukrainian. Fixed. —Stephen 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[--error: link target missing--]] edit

This title makes no sense and no one would look for this. Yorktown1776 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is supposed to look for it. It’s an error message that we use for blocking certain types of vandalism. —Stephen 02:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the MediaWiki software's default redirect for when an internal error occurs, and doubles as our vandalism tar pit. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordance:Foucault's Pendulum edit

got to ask. Do we need this??? Especially an incomplete one.--Richardb 11:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have a better selection than the meager few we currently have, I'd say keep it. If we later have the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Melville, and Dickens, then we could safely dump it. --EncycloPetey 12:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have future plans on adding many more concordances, and I might as well improve this one. — Vildricianus 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in light of EncyloPetey's comment, I wouldn't recommend bothering to improve it. Kappa 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: 1) You want to replace it was an improved version, go ahead. 2) It serves as a flexible model of how to approach the task. 3) Its existence encourages other attempts, by aknowledgeing the validity of concordances here on Wiktionary. 4) It skews Requestedartices in a good way, towards language rather than towards Wiki-jargon. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like this and I've been watching it for ages. — Hippietrail 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A worthwhile resource. The issue of its "incompleteness" is irrelevant. All concordances are limited.--203.108.164.237 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shit, User:Connal MacKenzie edit

Also check User:R. Koot and his contributions. Ncik 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek letters edit

Only content is "ashley lockart" --EncycloPetey 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E100 to E107 edit

These are all encyclopedic. Eclecticology 09:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are synonyms for other words that needs translations. --Patrik Stridvall 09:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're to be kept, then they need a LOT more contextual information. For example, E100 is not a universal synonym of turmeric. No one outside of the EU would use E100, and certainly a cookbook wouldn't. --EncycloPetey 10:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a word is only used in certain context doesn't make it less synonym, the Latin binomials for example are mostly used by certain professional. As for context well it says "E number" but perhaps a link is in order as well. --Patrik Stridvall 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the area in which the synonym is applicable must still be noted (that is, E100 is the E number for "turmeric", not a universal synonym for that spice). See, for example, tendo Achillis, which is synonym for Achilles' tendon, but only in medical contexts. — Paul G 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but they are marked exactly like the in your example. Or are you suggesting that on the page for turmeric it should be marked on the synonyms there? Perhaps like

====Synonyms====

[[E100]] (''[[E number]]'')

Your example doesn't do that but if that want you want, fine by me. --Patrik Stridvall 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The definitions are not even one sentence long so are not encyclopedic. Jonathan Webley 10:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not abbreviations. These are nothing more that codes dreamed up by the EU bureaucracy. They have no linguistic rationale. That's enough for them to be encyclopedic. If people want to insist on keeping them, then each and every one of these should be subject to the RfV process where a sentence using the number is quoted. Eclecticology 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps abbreviation is the wrong term for them, code might be better. As for "dreamed up". Well, I suppose you could say that the Latin binomials are only something "dreamed up" by Linnaeus. As for quotations, well, like with the Latin binomials that they are usually only used in normal sentences in very specific contexts so finding quotations is much harder than for normal words. It not really something you are likely to find openly on the Internet. Still, they have scientific definitions that can usually be verified without too much effort. You don't expect us to dig up quotations for every Latin binomial do you? --Patrik Stridvall 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree that these should be verified, but as a theoretical exercise in this case. Maybe picking just one, your guess of the least used ingredient, would suffice. You do agree that use on a food label counts as a citation, don't you? Davilla 10:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about these before he started entering them. The only complaints here seem to indicate that these are not listed in enough different ways. An abbreviation is any shortening - including an E-code. It is potentially useful information. But I don't see the utility of a partial or an incomplete listing of them. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. In my translating and typesetting work, I’ve had to use these codes all the time. I’ve done foreign-language packaging for many companies, including Dr Pepper and TCBY (The Country’s Best Yogurt), and whenever cosmetics or food products are exported to Europe or the Middle East, we have to convert our FD&C codes to E-numbers in the ingredients labels. When importing, they have to be translated back into regular English. In many countries, they like to put the chemical name as well as the code, but in some countries they often make the ingredients labels with nothing but the E codes.

The E codes that I have regularly used in my work include: E100 = curcumin (turmeric); E102 = FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine); E110 = FD&C Yellow No. 6 (sunset yellow); E120 = cochineal (red); E127 = FD&C Red No. 3 (erythrosine); E129 = FD&C Red No. 40 (allura red); E133 = FD&C Blue Dye No. 1 (brilliant blue); E150 = caramel color; E160(b) = annato (red); E162 = beetroot (purple); E171 = titanium dioxide (white). If needed for cites, I still have many of the food label texts that use these numbers on my old computer. —Stephen 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive linkifying the above, especially FD&C. Davilla 10:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added (including RFD) FD&C Yellow No. 5 if it helps frame the question. Davilla 10:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that FD&C Yellow No. 5 at page E102 was placed as a synonym like its done on page FD&C Yellow No. 5. The qualification "when used as a food colouring" should go after the synonym. Like

====Synonyms====

(''tartrazine''): [[FD&C Yellow No. 5]] (''US: as a food colouring'')

Something similar should probably be done for for E102. Futhermore on page FD&C Yellow No. 5 it probably should say "Only used in the US when tartrazine is used as a food colouring." in the usage notes. Or something like that. --Patrik Stridvall 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are Lexemes which convey information in wide use. MGSpiller 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped adding these for a while, but will continue tomorrow. The general consensus seems to be that they are OK. SemperBlotto 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

food chain edit

content is "sup wiki rules" -- Tawker 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dangherous has resolved this. — Paul G 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he did. Damn edit conflicts. --Dangherous 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a figurative sense missing, or is that business use considered too specific? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sut edit

Sut is a redirect to sut. Please delete Sut. --Thv 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the entry at sut should be split into SUT and sut, it would be quite wrong to delete the redirect Sut. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

buttery bar edit

Could somebofy confirm. Jonathan Webley 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation: It's used in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night (Act I, Scene 3). There's a note with a definition at this website:

http://www.twelfth-night.info/TN_1_3.html

pish edit

Seems to have been deleted from Wikipedia rather quickly. That doesn't mean it isn't a word in Scots, it merely implies that it is not a word. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - Widely used in Scotland, and in any number of English dictionaries. Jonathan Webley 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strongly kept - Northern Englanders say this word "all the time" too. --Dangherous 16:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strongly keep - and the Irish TheSimpleFool 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loaded words edit

No idea what's going on here. User:Hippietrail created this page a year ago. What does loaded mean in this context? --Dangherous 15:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To understand what was going on at the time, you need to read a fair bit. Get a pair of comfortable slippers, don your snugest lounging attire, make a large pot of your favorite warm beverage and read Category talk:English words affected by prescriptivism. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I own enough of my favourite warm beverage, let alone a pot large enough, nor lounging attire snug enough, nor slippers comfortable enough, to read and comprehend all that page! I think that can safely stay in the "things that happened before I came to Wiktionary which I can leave to the cleverer people to worry about" part of the wiki! --Dangherous 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What time is it? edit

~~Sum of parts.~~ Davilla 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a set phrase to me, if you were coming from a foreign language you might guess something like "What time is now?". Kappa 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That or "What's the time now?" with a bit of luck. Davilla 21:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of an account I once heard about a Russian immigrant’s arrival in NY. He had studied English at school in Moscow and was eager to try it out. Walking down the street he stops the first passer-by, who, unbeknownst to him, was also just off the boat from Russia. The first asks, "Which watch?" The second replies, "Three clocks." The first inquires, "Such much?" The second answers, "Whom how!" Then the two new citizens go on their merry ways with broad smiles and a warm glow, each pleased with his first English conversation. —Stephen 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Phrasebook entry. Davilla 09:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at the best of times edit

~~Sum of parts.~~ Davilla 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is idiomatic. "He's half-asleep at the best of times" means "the most wakeful he ever is is half-asleep", not "He is half-asleep at the best times (but not when times are not so good)". Keep, but revise the definition accordingly. — Paul G 10:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Davilla 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

syntopical edit

Protologism perhaps? Jonathan Webley 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a typo for synoptic, synoptical, perhaps? --EncycloPetey 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, the article implies it is a new word, but the meaning could well be synoptical. Jonathan Webley 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found the word in the linked on-line copy of the text. It is a distinct word, and its etymology has been added to the article. --EncycloPetey 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:etym and Template:Etym edit

Template:etym just translates to "Etymology". Seems to be very little used - only used in 2 words. T:Etym only redirects to T:etym.--Richardb 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've subst'd this a couple of times due to laziness. Keep --Dangherous 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timen edit

This is not a word in any language. 194.66.226.95 14:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s probably just a misspelling of timin' (timing). —Stephen 16:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Norwegian sense. \Mike 09:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.66.226.95 seems to know the entire vocabulary of all languages. I'm impressed. ;) — Paul G 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wango tango edit

Surely not? Jonathan Webley 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not hardly sounds like a thought out argument. I managed to find some citations, wikified it, and am now taking the rfd tag off it. Don't be so hasty and judgemental.--Richardb 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edit

2003 Invasion of Iraq edit

OK, so this has translations. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's dictionary material. Discuss --Expurgator t (c) 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Richardb 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Stephen 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on grounds of providing brief entries and translations for Wikipedia entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would only be inclined to keep it on Connel's ground if 1. Wikipedia didn't have an article and only needed a dictionary definition of a term not worthy of an encyclopedia (this is), or 2. this was the official name of the war. - TheDaveRoss 07:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move translations to Wikipedia and then delete. This is encyclopedic. All encyclopedic terms have translations but that's not sufficient to allow them a Wiktionary entry. — Paul G 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the concept to have at least a stub entry for every Wikipedia entry? What kind of lexical equivalent are we, if that is not the case? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more appropriate goal would be that anytime someone came across a term on Wikipedia that they didn't understand lexically they should be able to find it here. - TheDaveRoss 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ncik 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is little more than the sum of its parts. --EncycloPetey 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have transwikied (the lazy man's way) the translations over to the Wikipedia version. - TheDaveRoss 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted — Paul G 13:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:EC edit

A redirect to User talk:Eclecticology created in the style of other Wiktionary shortcuts, but isn't actually used on any pages. Apparently User:Connel MacKenzie created it because he had trouble spelling Eclecticology's username. But this sets a bad precendent, IMO. I've left warnings on both user's talk pages about this, so they can give their opinions. - dcljr 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely use shortcuts myself, but I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about whether this one should be kept. The matter of precedent is a concern, but so too is it important to be able to link to a particular user when circumstances require. Looking for Connell McKenzie doesn't work either. What alternative solution do you suggest to the problem that Connel raises? Eclecticology 19:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three possible solutions:

Place a link to your user (/talk) page on his user page. (This would work for any user.)
Use the link to your user name on any of your past comments you've left on his talk page; in fact, Connel already has a link to you as a "topic" on his talk page. (This approach would work for anyone who has had past discussions with the user they want to find.)
Use Special:Allpages and search in the User or User talk namespace for Ec. (This is clearly the most generally useful solution. If you know the first 2 letters, you can find anyone very easily.)

Any of these would be preferrable to creating a redirect in the main namespace. - dcljr 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you find it annoying to wait for Special:Allpages to come up, the same functionality is provided by Special:Prefixindex (this one doesn't try to list an index to "all pages" when you first bring it up). - dcljr 16:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't link just anyone that I was interested in reaching, but rather this site's bureaucrat, arguably the most important talk page here. If people feel it is a bad precedent, I think I might have to agree. A couple notes about the shortcut though; using WT:EC will arrive at the desired page in one page load, while all the other methods described are two or more page loads, which is especially helpful on slow connections or during slow system times. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be rude, but that's what your browser's bookmarks are for. - dcljr 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is rude. I assure you my bookmarks are overloaded as it is. :-) I still agree that this could be considered a bad precedent. On that basis alone, I do not object to its deletion. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WS:CMK should certainly go though. :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some silly things discussed in IRC: WT:U:EC, WT:UT:EC. Or since the colon is already overused: WT:U-EC, or WT:UT-EC. Now that would be a bad precedent. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Selectness. Where is WT:PG? He's a bureaucrat, too. — Vildricianus 14:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually deleted using common sense. —Vildricianus 21:26, 22 May 2006 (U T C)

War in Iraq edit

...hot on the heels of 2003 Invasion of Iraq. This one might be OK though, if we consider it to be the official name. — Paul G 13:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The translations look very suspicious to me. Here are a few that I understand, translated back into English. They are very inconsistent:

French: "war opposing Iraq in the United States"
German: "third Gulf War"
Low Saxon: "situation in Iraq" [this one's a guess on my part]
Spanish: "Invasion of Iraq of 2003" (with a capital "I")

— Paul G 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not more than the sum of its parts. Ncik 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a potentially temporary "stub". This is a specific conflict, just as was the Vietnam War. Granted, if it ever has an "official" name, no one will care that we called it the War in Iraq when it was happening, applying the sum of parts argument. But for lack of a better home, that's what it's called now. Davilla 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Ncik (non-idiomatic). Wikipedia territory. - dcljr 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good evidence is provided that this is the official name. — Hippietrail 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official in what sense? Would newspaper articles including a capital W suffice, or does it have to come from the mouth of W himself? Davilla 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a useful definition growing out of it: leave it for Wikipedia. --Piet Delport 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard enough to come up with unique, canonical names for events in Wikipedia. We definitely shouldn't try to; events are rarely if ever dictionary material. —Scs 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per consensus here. —Vildricianus 14:14, 24 May 2006 (U T C)

Category:Old English (not sure how to link to this) edit

I don't see the point of this category when there is already a Category:Old English language. The only difference seems to be that this one is virtually empty and the terms it does contain are not, in fact, Old English. Widsith 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to a category by prefixing it with a colon such as [[:Category:Old English]]. Mike 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

y0d4 edit

For a "popular" term this gets no Google hits other than people's monikers on various sites. - TheDaveRoss 03:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scientific morality edit

Not suitable right? It's already been deleted twice. Jonathan Webley 10:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted once because it was too long. Now it is only one sentence.

 Sorry about the last statement, I just realized that perhaps someone other than I had

posted a different definition, if that was so then perhaps it has been deleted more than once, yet that would be an indication of interest.I also thought that perhaps a duplicate had been posted by two taps on an enter key. Either way I would be interested in what did happen.

                  User:Mysterystevenson 12:03, 4 March 2006 {AZ}

It has come to my mind that perhaps you feel there is no such thing as "scientific morality", that would be sad. Edit all you want, I'm not concerned with my words being recorded, all I am concerned with is the truth.

Category:Elementary Particles edit

Contents moved to the decapped Category:Elementary particles

Deleted as requested. Jonathan Webley 11:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pornographic actor edit

No more than the sum of its two words.--Richardb 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's obvious that what they do is referred to as "acting". Kappa 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What else would you call fake orgasms? :-) Eclecticology 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this clears up where this series of unusual terms has been coming from: Pornographic actor/Pornographic movie...two of Wikipedia's most poorly formatted entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does porn star redirect? Move to create an entry there at the very least. Davilla 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a proper entry for porn star. But I've deleted porn star as just a redirect to pornographic actor--Richardb 12:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff it, I'll delete pornographic actor too. --Richardb 12:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:WikiSaurus edit

Was on list for RFC, but had no content anyway, no history.So deleted it. --Richardb 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

เย็ด (yed) edit

Bad entry title. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There is already a proper entry at เย็ด. —Stephen 01:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sims edit

Wiktionary isn't for bios..... -- Tawker 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Wytukaze 03:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White label edit

Wiktionary isn't for cd ads or POV issues -- Tawker 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provalone cheese edit

This is metaphysical babble. The cheese, by the way, should be spelled Provolone. --EncycloPetey 10:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also spotted a new bogus (duplicate) entry as Provalone. --EncycloPetey 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a third copy at Provalone chesse. This user is spouting nonsense. --EncycloPetey 10:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different entry by the same user titled Afterwards.... Sounds Like Afterworlds (Charades) that should also be deleted. --EncycloPetey 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted sometime last night. Clever "esse" instead of "eese". --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

enantioner edit

Misspelling of enantiomer. Davilla 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mlitoris edit

Presumably a conflation of male and clitoris, but I am fairly sure there is no such word. Jonathan Webley 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (I couldn't find it) SemperBlotto 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-sv- edit

Obsolete. — Vildricianus 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted, but I found several references day before yesterday. These slowly creep back from a variety of sources. This would be a good template to have {{dontlinkhere}} (or equivalent) included. Oh wait,... --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary Appendix:Spanish irregular verbs edit

Appears to be a newbie trying out Wiktionary for the first time. Contains only the word "hay". Yorktown1776 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of named Apollo asteroids edit

Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia..... -- Tawker 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Index: pseudo-namespace? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No content to move, deleted Restored, moved, apparently someone is going to do something with it, we shall see. - TheDaveRoss 05:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A vote for deletion. Unless these space objects have different names in different languages, needing translation. Which I strongly doubt, since they are not visible. Anyway, the list is empty, so the entry is garbage. Deleted.--Richardb 12:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mathology, mathicine edit

Self-confessed protologisms. Probably vanity too. Wow, Dvortygirl zapped 'em before I even finished typing this. Keffy 06:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quarterly quartered edit

This entry (created by Primetime) is not only badly formatted, but it is not an heraldic term I can find. It does not seem to be a real word. --EncycloPetey 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Look here and here. It appears in too many dictionaries too count.--Primetime 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I couldn't tell fro the definition that this was a lesser synonym of gyronny. I recommend addding the synonym, and perhaps redefining the word as "divided radially into eight equal regions of alternating tincture." --EncycloPetey 07:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

grenality edit

I can't find this word. Jonathan Webley 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - rubbish SemperBlotto 11:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fuction extraction edit

Presumably a misspelling of function extraction, but is even this suitable? Jonathan Webley 07:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - seemed to be spamvertising for a software company. SemperBlotto 11:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwind edit

WT is not WP... -- Tawker 08:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - it is already deleted (and not to be readmitted) on -pedia. SemperBlotto 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolucion neutra edit

Presumably does not meet CFI? Jonathan Webley 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urine stream edit

Content is "urine stream" doesn't seem fit for inclusion -- Tawker 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jonathan Webley 21:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paser utara edit

This is what it says:
"Paser Utama adalah kota kabupaten diwilayah balikpapan seberang meliputi Babulu Darat Gn. Intan dan Blok B khususnya Bpk. Tukim & Tartono" Kappa 04:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian vanity page deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

phoon edit

Failed RFV. Davilla 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted - TheDaveRoss 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

diddling thing edit

Is this a real entry? If so please clean up, otherwise delete it. Yorktown1776 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"diddlin' thing" failed RFV, this pointed at that. deleted - TheDaveRoss 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scientific morality edit

Possibly a dictionary term, not in it's present POV state. - TheDaveRoss 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term is already listed, after which it was deleted again, and has now been re-entered. Jonathan Webley 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I was hoping to guide a newcomer through, but the bite seems to have scared him/her away. Bad timing, for this newcomer to arrive during a flurry of vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proton pack edit

This is legit if you've ever watch a Ghostbusters movie. check google before you delete. Eddie 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't merit inclusion, nor does batmobile, or flux capacitor. - TheDaveRoss

The batmobile doesn't merit inclusion!? Are you using any criteria at all? Davilla 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that fictional items (attested) do merit inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ghostbuster needs some work as well. SemperBlotto 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neuroecclesiology edit

I don't think there is such a word. Jonathan Webley 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Connel MacKenzie deletes too much. edit

User:EddieSegoura, the exicornt vandal, is back and up to his old tricks. —Stephen 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not half, and creating lots of sockpuppets. Watch out. Jonathan Webley 09:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlango edit

A new conlang is popping up, Atlango. For example, in go (Special:Contributions/83.250.159.68). —Stephen 14:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks like exi*nt vandal. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joreilla edit

Word invensions of known vandal in Finnish Wiktionary. --Aulis Eskola 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Stephen 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

get off my phone edit

Delete get off my phone since it is not idiomatic. I have alread copied content to GOMP, which needs verification. Davilla 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with Davilla - deleted — Paul G 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

celebrerprofanusism edit

Surely not a word? Jonathan Webley 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cutebangla edit

WT != WP (though this prob woudln't meet WP:BIO anyways) -- Tawker 09:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

figgity fag, butt ninja edit

personal libel by an anon Keffy 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

racisty edit

Not a variant of racist that I've heard of. Jonathan Webley 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity Gestation edit

Already "protected deleted" on Wikipedia. Jonathan Webley 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

monopoco edit

content is "monopoco" -- Tawker 00:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A web search for this returned only 11 hits. I highly doubt this term is worth adding. Maybe this is a mispelling of another word. Yorktown1776 02:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

h2eghw-, h1eghw- and *h1êgh w edit

It's a triple redirect. *h2eghw- redirects to *h1eghw-. *h1eghw- redirects to *h1êgh w. *h1êgh w redirects to Wiktionary Appendix:Proto-Indo-European root *H₁ē̆gʷh-. Please delete or edit the links. Yorktown1776 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thye're gone. Jonathan Webley 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

give some skin edit

Huh? Looks like somebody didn't realize they weren't playing in the sandbox anymore. Keffy 06:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thinghood edit

I can't find in dictionaries, but there are lots of Google hits. Jonathan Webley 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to list of protologisms. Will probably return, and might even deserve a definition. SemperBlotto 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity edit

immunity already exists, and I don't think this new article contains a valid definition. Jonathan Webley 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term "immunity" (as I defined it) is a term used on the reality TV show Survivor. I orginially put the second definition on the word immunity but it was taken off. Wiki Kong 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately I don't care about different states of being on reality TV. deleted - TheDaveRoss 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking edit

As my first bit of vandal blocking (See my block log), was this a reasonable way of acting? --Dangherous 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, but it doesn't deter so keep your eyes open. Jonathan Webley 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Those were a couple of User:EddieSegoura’s sockpuppets. Yesterday he impersonated me on es.wiktionary.org, creating a user page that linked to me here, then went on a vandalism rampage. And he’s vandalized this RfD page a bunch of times over the last couple of days. —Stephen 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two words in the category
No additions since last July
Virtually any food can be a breakfast food. (I've had the hottest of hot curries - Sambal for breakfast in Sri Lanka, and fried jelly fish in Hong Kong !) Will it just end up being similar to the whole category Foods ? --Richardb 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I agree. Jonathan Webley 16:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this had the whole "eggs" series of entries, at one time. Category vandalism is much harder to track down than regular vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be Category:English breakfast foods? Otherwise, we'll get the whole gamut of cultural breakfasts worldwide. --EncycloPetey 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]