User:Gtroy/archive1(18:40-08-September-2011)(21:30-20-September-2011)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

I think its really fucked up you blocked me with no warning. I was copying and pasting similar words and trying to figure out the formatting and going back and making improvements. You kept deleting very much notable words just because I did not enter them perfectly. And when I asked you for help you didn't even reply.

I'm responding because you e-mailed me complaining about SB's having blocked you and asking to have it removed. Now I'll be watching this page, so you can respond to me here; please don't e-mail me again (unless, as I don't expect, you have something to say that can't be said in public). It's a three-hour block. The stated purpose was to let you read the pages linked to from your "welcome" message. If you've already done so, or when you've done so, please indicate as much here; perhaps SB will unblock you. If he doesn't, the block will expire after three hours anyway. Administrators don't typically undo each other's blocks except in cases of serious error, which this clearly was not.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what msh210 said. --Bequw → τ 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I certainly will not e-mail you again if that is your wish. I thought it was a 24 hour block. To tell you the truth I was hoping to have an appendix together today so my EMT students could look it over and work on them on here as well. I had already read the welcome page SB placed on my talk page and I have definitely reread it and the corresponding links as well. So if that is all, please remove the block.Gtroy 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What purpose will an appendix serve that won't be met by the emergency-medicine-category page?​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So when does this expire?Gtroy 23:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a pretty random question if not outright confrontational. All the appendices on here have categories too. It would be useful. It would also allow for the sorting of EMT, Paramedic, ER, Fire Science, Criminal Justice, Survival, First Responder, Military, and Nursing terminology within Emergency Medicine. Do you have a problem with an appendix? Is there something I should know or am missing? I figured I could spell out all the terms I would like to have created that way I can take my time making them right. — This unsigned comment was added by Gtroy (talk • contribs) at 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

I asked what purpose it would serve because my knowing that might lead to some follow-up advice. Indeed it has, since you've stated that the purpose is to serve as a staging ground for entries. It's probably wiser to use subpages of your userpage for that; e.g., ]. That page can then even be moved to the correct title (using the "Move" link atop each page. You do have to wait a few days from your first edit until you move pages, I think, but if you find yourself unable, just ask another user (me, if you like), who will likely be glad to). An appendix is not the best spot for a staging ground or other temporary pages.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It expires in 25 minutes. —Rod (A. Smith) 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

This entry doesn't give enough context. DCAP-BTLS does not exactly mean "deformities, contusions, "; it's more like "the things that an EMT looks for in a focused physical examination of a trauma patient, namely: deformities, contusions, ". When you're writing your definitions, keep in mind your target audience, which is anyone who's come across the term and wants to know what is meant by it.

Also — are you sure about "bleeding"? In my EMT class only "burns" was mentioned; both of my EMT textbooks also mention only "burns"; and Google chiefly finds expansions with "burns", not with "bleeding". "Punctures/penetrations" share a letter because they're roughly synonymous, but "bleeding/burns" would be strange, because those are completely separate things.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We definitely include bleeding in San Francisco and we don't include it because of its relation to burns but rather for the fact it also starts with a b. And it does mean deformities etcs and only that as an initialism as for other parts of speech you are free to add some other definition, but it is an initialism.Gtroy 06:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Just the plural of modified chest thrust, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's not that simple, the act is plural in this case, one compression would be singular, plural of the singular can mean two things, more than one compression OR the actual procedure itself, make sense?Gtroy 23:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Thanks for your entries. What does DCAPBLSTIC mean? In what situation do you need to remember it? --Robert Hunt 23:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a mnemonic used to remember what to check for on a patient to identify trauma but is used in assessment of every patient regardless of injury or illness. It can be used as a noun or adjective I suppose but really its just an initialism that goes two steps beyond DCAP-BTLS and means: deformities, contusions, abrasions, punctures and penetrations, burns and bleeding, lacerations, swelling, tenderness, instability, and crepitus.Gtroy 23:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I learned something sueful, and also I now know what a mnemonic is. --Robert Hunt 08:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Hi there. Your articles are now much better, with just the odd lapse in formatting. But I still have a couple of general issues. One is the creation of plural articles for things that perhaps ought to be defined in the singular. Another is your assumption that a word used in emergency medicine is not used outside of that field. For instance, I have totally rewritten fight-or-flight - this response is seen in animals as well as people, and not just in the emergency room. As noted elsewhere, the specialised initialisms should specify what they actually mean, the expansion of the letters into words could even be thought of as an etymology (I'm not sure if we have etymology sections for this type of entry, so we better not start a precedent). Keep up the good work. SemperBlotto 07:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear, thanks. So's your attitude. :P To best explain that the "idea" itself which is a noun is only used in the plural for some terms i.e. modified chest thrusts, if it where just an adjective the singular would have the definition and the plural a simple "plural-of" definition, make sense? But please specify which entries and I will go over them. It's in incorrect assumption on your end that I "think is not used outside the emergency medicine field". But my only interest here is really to fill in the missing emergency medicine terms and specific definitions in this field. Many words have multiple definitions and some of those have a very specific use in emergency medicine and that is what I aim to add. For instance ABC has dozens of definitions and I don't claim that it does not also mean American Broadcasting Chanel but it does mean airway-breathing-circulation. In the case of fight-or-flight the entry did not exist so all that I added was the EM definition of the term but was not compelled to add in the military or psychological definition as well, the latter of which probably belongs in an entry for "fight or flight response" instead. See in emergency medicine the animal part and the psychological mechanism are quite irrelevant, we just need it for patient assessment. They are just acronyms, that is all they mean. This isn't wikipedia. But if you have a good example of an initialism or abbreviation that goes beyond stating what the letters stand for please direct me there. As for etymologies I think they really belong in every article but with initialisms they would probably get unnecessarily convoluted and people could just look up the etymology of each individual word, perhaps I could simply mention it is emergency medicine jargon? But doesn't the category itself do that?Gtroy 18:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Your 'definitions' aren't one. Take for example onset. You're saying that onset is the first stage of OPQRST, that's not a definition though. For example the first stage of influenza may be a sore throat, but that doesn't mean we need a definition of sore throat saying "the first stage of influenza". We have "Any inflammation of the pharynx that causes soreness." That's what sore throat. It doesn't mean "a symptom of X, Y or Z", but it may be a symptom. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A more extreme example, which I think may help would be defining London as "the city that will host the 2012 Olympic Games" or England as "the country invaded by the Normans in 1066". Is this making any sense to you? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And also my comment at WT:RFV#shitbum. For an even more extreme example of the above, why not define television as "what I, Martin Gardner, am watching right now". Do you see what I mean? While this may be a fact, it doesn't mean it's a definition of television. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am really unmoved by your bombastic examples. In medicine onset does have a particular definition. It is different from the standard lay term. If a student wished to learn about medicine they could use wiktionary this way, but under your exclusive interpretations anything that would be in a medical dictionary is just a sentence. Do you see what I mean?Gtroy 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, and I'm not convinced you do either. You just seem totally unable to justify your arguments other than 'I believe it because I believe it' and that's not gonna get us anywhere. I think if you don't understand your arguments, and I believe that you don't, other Wiktionary users won't understand them either. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Now see here, you will not pretend to know what I am thinking, that is overstepping your physical abilities. I challenge you to respond accordingly and based on the topic at hand and not your opinion of my intelligence.Gtroy 21:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded, just read the replies again until you're happy. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW I'm not intending to sound confrontational, but we have standards and norms here. Nothing personal. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mglovesfun does not realize that you don’t know all the terms we use here. When you say, "is just a sentence", I think you are referring to what we call SoP (sum of the parts). If a term is SoP, you can look up each word separately to find the meaning of the whole term. I realize that this is not a reasonable way to find the meaning of a compound term, and often or usually you cannot find out the meaning this way unless you already know it, but it is our SOP (standard operating procedure). I’m afraid there is no way to change this practice until we get enough lexicographers on board with more experience in the art.—Stephen ^(Talk) 10:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends really. I tend to take the view that our readers are pretty intelligent and can understand two consecutive words when they're using standard meanings of the words (like my example of ladder safety). Others feel the need explain more and more multi-word terms, from the mildly difficult to the downright simple. Another 'technical term' I like to bring up is the blind catch in juggling. It's any catch that's blind. Similarly a blind throw is any throw that's blind. But AFAICT any most readers won't need us to explain the term, they'll understand it from blind + catch. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

See also our "fried egg test". SemperBlotto 10:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've always disliked the idea that so-called "technical terms" should get a free pass from even when obvious from the sum of their parts. I think a good test is if someone not associated with that field can work it out from the individual words, it's not worth including. For instance, I'd have no idea what a modified chest thrust is, so that's in. On your user page there's as a red link initial patient assessment, which I would guess is the initial assessment of a patient. So that's out. It also depends what standard you apply; some say to include terms that non-native speakers might find difficult. I have trouble with that as it depends how weak their English is. What if they don't understand I casually walked across the room, should that be included as very weak English speakers won't understand it?

FWIW I think that some Wiktionary editors feel that I overestimate the intelligence of our readers. I also think they don't want to say that out loud, as it could be seen as an insult. But if that's how they feel, I'd rather they say it out loud. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We should add idioms and compound words that foreigners would have a hard time understanding, full on sentences are not words and that is obvious, but any string or 1 or 2 words or anything that would be hyphenated and is used as a word in print (magazine, newspaper, copiously online, in marketing) should be included because the researching non native speaker would be unlikely to figure it out word by word.Gtroy 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that generally even a smart person is having a "stupid" moment when they have to use a dictionary, when anyone uses a dictionary it's because they don't know something. And huge proportions of Americans are functionally illiterate and compound words could fit here. This is not lexicographer's dictionary, it's wiktionary and it's not limited to paper, and there is no useful reason to exclude real words because the editor is an amateur. Almost everyone here is.Gtroy 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but what about words that you would not understand their meaning if you looked up A+B and guessed? And what about a word like "sexual contact" which is in merriam websters and the english oxford dictionary, that would seem to merrit inclusion and if not then we should be forced to delete "sexual intercourse" as well, if not then the inclusion process is arbitrary and there are no standards besides "i am a long term editor/admin and i say so". There is no way for anyone to figure the process out.`Gtroy 20:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that one in particular seems to merit a full deletion debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

I'd suggest that a category would be best, as anyone clicking on it would then get a list of all words and terms that are tagged that way.

Note I have just listed 1-2-can-do for verification. If you have any reliable references, please add them to the entry.--Dmol 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

You still seem to be struggling with formatting on wiki, especially with the use of templates. Maybe you should read WT:ELE again, because some of mistakes you've made are covered in there. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes missing headings, templates, wrong parts of speech, missing formatting marks for ranked lists. I have a feeling that these are more a result of carelessness. A careful editor compares his work with similar other entries to make sure they at least resemble each other. My suggestion, after you create something, stop and look at what you have done. you don't want to waste time reading the document, then why should you expect me to waste 30 minutes of my life trying to explain what is already written down? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't do everything perfect, that is why this is a wiki. But I try my best and I almost always just copy and paste an existing entry. I keep getting better and if you looked at my edit history you would see I keep going back to anything I have created to improve it. I don't care for you to waste any of your precious time on me. If you are going to bother me with your opinion then at least do your homework and give me an actual example. And if you care enough to write on my page wasting your time you should care enough to not do it sloppily and actually write something with a bit more substance to it instead of a childish I don't like that you are not perfect.Gtroy 21:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

The second sense here is not actually a sense. No one uses the term body substance isolation to mean, “the successor to universal precautions”. —Ruakh_TALK 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is a definition of the term is it not?Gtroy 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. —Ruakh_TALK 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it can be rephrased then, maybe in the notes of etymology. I find it relevant to state that it was a term used to replace universal precautions and that later it too was usurped by another term: standard procedures. How can we do that?Gtroy 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in etymology; maybe in usage notes; or maybe just on Wikipedia. —Ruakh_TALK 13:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I put it in usage notes.Gtroy 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Regarding inocubate, it appears that the part of speech header is wrong and the definition doesn't make any sense. Clearly you're not taking the advice of people telling you to slow down and format correctly, so that ban I said might be coming? Don't be surprised if when it comes, it comes from me. — — 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So its policy to just block people because of a minor error?Gtroy 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A minor error? No. Repeated minor errors with an unwillingness to take the time to not make those errors in the first place? Fuck yeas. Happy editing. — — 22:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You're incorrect, I keep making fewer and fewer errors.Gtroy 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fewer, maybe. I didn't watch your editing before so I can't verify that. But what I've seen from watching you since I failed to convince you to not be a jerk is still pretty pathetic. You're still mangling some of the most basic of formatting. — — 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Where you the fat kid growing up? Or a bully? Are you just resentful about everyone that isn't perfect like you? Get off your high horse dude. No one is impressed. It's not rocket science. Being a disrespectful pos isn't ever going to lead you into being in a good mood. Has this pathetic confrontational dialogue ever gotten you the compliance or cooperation that you are looking for? I didn't think so. If I am making sooo many mistakes surely you can point some out. Since you seem to have nothing better to do but call me "shitty" and an "ass" why not waste some of your abundant time actually seeing that I have improved. It's all in the edit history. And your the only jerk bro, I haven't gone around insulting you at all but clearly no one ever taught you manners.Gtroy 08:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I've always looked like a skeleton with a bit of meat thrown on it. You want to talk about rocket science? Identifying the correct part of speech isn't rocket science. You want to say you weren't being disrespectful? Anybody no here who knows me will tell you that my first few messages to you above were waaaaaaaaay low-key for me. You didn't waste much time telling me to get off my high horse, then saying no one ever taught me manners, you contradict yourself within a single statement.

You want more examples of your poor attention to detail, besides getting the POS and wording of the definition on inocubate wrong? How about the forms of C-spine that you botched? C-spineing and C-spineed, really? (Allow me to attempt to emulate your method of insult and ask, can you not read? I noticed that you used "your" where you meant "you're", is that something you do often or just a typo?)

You continue to add terms that I'm sure you know will be nominated for deletion, one of which has been deleted before. In arguing for them to be kept, you use reasoning which is entirely irrelevant to our Criteria for inclusion, which I have a feeling you've made absolutely no effort to even look at. In my opinion there's plenty of reason to give you a short term block now, but something tells me you have no serious interest in modifying your editing behaviour, so basically I'm just waiting for you to continue to add reasons to extend that.

I remember earlier you saying things like that's not how wikis work or whatever. As I recall, a wiki requires working together, but any time someone comes to you with a complaint you whine at them or you ignore our standards/practices. I question your ability to work in a team. You say a wiki shouldn't have seniority, I say you want to be treated with respect here where you have earned none. — — 11:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where have I gotten that wrong? The only person to state I got the POS wrong was on c-spine and they were in fact wrong. Your messages were "low key for me" that doesn't equal polite, you seem to imply you are not polite in fact. You are on a high horse, insulting me reaks of lack of manners, or do mannered people do that where you are from? I made the effort to fix inocubate "How you not read" is not grammatically correct. I know the difference between you are and your (possessive), but its common to ignore it in shorthand. I don't add any term I don't think seriously merritts inclusion. I have looked at the CFI carefully and it links to a list of compound words as examples of what words are included. Your personal dislike of the entries I add is not reason to block me and you know it. I continue to improve and I participate in deletion and verification discussions. I am not being disruptive. Please point out an example of me ignoring a complaint, the last one was by SemperBlotto regarding inocubate and I don't see any whining done by me. Get real. Like I said get off your high horse. Respect is not earned, anyone with an iota of class hands it out like candy, trust and admiration those are earned. And I continue not to be as disrespectful as thou, all I ever did was match your tone and rhetoric, if you don't like it, write to me more respectfully and I will continue matching your tone.Gtroy 11:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think inocubate merits an entry. All of the potential cites are either spelling mistakes or scannos as far as I am able to ascertain. Just because someone suggested the word on the Merriam Webster website and made up a definition doesn't mean that the word will ever appear in that dictionary. Please don't glean "new words" from that site -- it is just a suggestion site, like our Appendix:List of protologisms. Perhaps you could slow down a little in your rush to add entries. This will give more time for thought and discussion. Dbfirs 17:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On google books, did you only search for inocubate, or inocubates, inocubating, inocubated, inocubation...? If you search for those you get quite a few more entries. That's a very specific typo, considering the distance between the n, o and c keys. — — 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I searched for all, and I was surprised how common it was, though many of the "books" are typed reports, and many are by authors for whom English might not be their first language. I suspect that in some cases it was simply an error. Dbfirs 20:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Hi there. There are three hits for this term in Google books. They all seem to imply that the material is changed, rather than preserved in the process. Is your experience different? SemperBlotto 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am basing it on what I saw on merriam webster's list of new words. I will fine the link give me a second. Please direct me at your source as well. Maybe I am wrong or maybe there are two unique meanings.Gtroy 08:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Google book search - SemperBlotto 08:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC) p.s. Your Merriam Webster link doesn't work for me. Is it only available in the US I wonder. SemperBlotto 08:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I have but looks like you're right and my memory failed me =(

Try try again, it fails loading for me 2/3 tries over here too. Where are you if you don't mind me asking, UK? I can take a screenshot for you if you like. Here is a cut and paste: "inocubate (verb) : to inoculate (as medical specimens) in an incubator

The lab eceived 30 specimens which were processed and inocubated. —Brent Barrett, ASM Div C list serve, Jan 4, 2010 "Gtroy 08:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see it has inoculate rather than preserve. (I'm in the UK, and it doesn't help that my broadband connection keeps falling over this morning!). SemperBlotto 09:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake. and I am sorry to hear that, you can try downloading AVG 2011 (its free at CNET a quick and easy download and install, if you have any shit on your computer it kills it quick, and that kind of thing can make it hard to connect.) just a thought.Gtroy 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's my ISP that crap - my PC is fine (but old, like me). SemperBlotto 09:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • They all are dude, broadband and dsl always comes and goes, wifi is even worse. I really don't get it, they find a way to make it faster but the connectivity is inconsistent. only fiber optic seems to work but its too expensive to implement in most areas. and you can't be too old if you work a computer as easily as you do. but who knows maybe in a few years you can block me for badly formatting some geriatric related terms!Gtroy 09:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And since you are in the know when it comes to removing content, deleting pages etc. Is it okay for me to remove Ric Laurent's insulting comments since they are just generalized accusations and not related to any content issue-similar to how you may remove personal attacks on wikipedia?Gtroy 09:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Don't act on a discussion at WT:RFD, WT:RFV, or the like, while that discussion has not been concluded. Thanks.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not, I was just giving in.Gtroy 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you weren't. Giving in would have been removing the sense you had added. Instead, you merged it into the other sense. In any event, once a sense you've added is under discussion, don't delete it until that discussion is concluded, as it may be that the community will agree it should be kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was because there wasn't treally two defs.Gtroy 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

I just wanted to say thanks for the help. The edits you're making are interesting and worthwhile. Perhaps some are debatable whether they should or shouldn't be included, but IMHO borderline is a good thing. It may look like there's lots of animosity here, and I sincerely hope you don't get driven away - we don't get many new users these days, most just experiment and then get messages saying they did things wrong or get blocks without warning, which puts them off - for some reason the community doesn't make them feel as welcome as Wikipedians might, and I think this is a shame. Anyway, keep on trucking, sir. --Rockpilot 21:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There sure seems to be but that's life, I'd never let that get me down. The challenge in itself actually encourages me really. And once he suggested I do drugs I just felt sorry for him. The when called retarded me retarded I just started feeling sorry for his apparent lack of eruditeness. It's too bad you don't get a whole lot of new users. Perhaps a friendly welcome committee is in order and a stern warning that this is a very different place that every other mediawiki project with a list of actions and consequences boldly put. In any case thank you for your words.Gtroy 08:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm glad you're adding all these interesting words (those that are worth having in a dictionary, I mean); thanks. You just have to get used to the standard operating procedure around here, is all. I hope you stick around.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweet I'm glad you are. I do apologize if I come off as a bit abrasive but I guarantee I only match other people's tones but don't get caustic unless provoked. I plan on it and the SOPs here seem like they are atrophied and enforcement draconian due to lack of manpower, sad times for a wiki IMHO.Gtroy 08:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you should listen a bit more. Editors who offer you advice are 'out to get you'. As long as you're ok when the majority gets its way on deletion debates, even when you disagree with that majority, you should be fine. Also 'arguing' in RFV debates is a bit pointless, as they're evidence based. The best possible argument is evidence. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is out to get me. I do understand as demonstrated by the "retarded" language some have used toward me to be incredibly rude and fruitless. I don't mean to "argue" just express my view of the facts as best I can.Gtroy 08:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say argue as much as you like, as long as you stop when the deletion debate stops. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well duh, I'm not one to sing on a sunken ship. The only thing I would do would be userize an entry I was just orgasming over until I could provide really good sourcing proving it worthy.Gtroy 09:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha it makes a lot of sense that if I make sure to : and every time it prevents ugly formatting and makes it easier. I'll do my best to make sure I remember and fix if it I don't.Gtroy 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

... but removing people's comments for no reason tends to be frowned upon here. — — 10:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I got tired of looking at your combative and offensive remarks. If it is not relevant it doesn't belong here, not matter how superior you think you are.Gtroy 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might think that you're above the rules, but removing people's comments for no reason tends to be frowned upon here.

My question was neither combative or offensive, I was asking what you meant by "giving in".

The bottom line is that people get banned for fucking with other people's comments, so instead of fighting with me about yet another stupid think, just don't fucking do it. Do you understand that? — — 19:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say you get to call me retarded and an ass and tell me to get on drugs and I have to leave it up?Gtroy 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rick, back the fuck off this guy. How should he know about talk page protocol? He's new here. You're making his life hell. Remember, some of the best users (OK, only this guy) remove old message all the time, without even archiving. --Rockpilot 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with Rockpilot. Distorting an editor's words and telling his straw man that he's "probably retarded" is really not O.K., and I totally don't blame him for wanting to disappear your comments. (I mean, I still won't let him do so, but I don't blame him for wanting to.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be in complete agreement with you both if my first message in this topic had been vicious or combative, and if he weren't STILL removing messages at his will. Of course he doesn't know about talk page protocol, that's why I told him what he was doing was out of line. I'm pretty sure telling him what he was doing "tends to be frowned upon here" was totally reasonable. — — 20:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that comment was reasonable; but having (inappropriately) more-or-less called him retarded, I think you should have backed off a bit even on reasonable criticisms. And after those reasonable criticisms got his back up, I certainly don't think you should have escalated the issue with invective. Honestly, I tend to think that an administrator should never swear at another user, but even if there are times when it's called for, in this case it obviously was not. —Ruakh_TALK 05:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Hi Gtroy,

When replying to another editor's comment, please indent your reply by adding an extra leading :. For example, if another editor's comment is indented by ::, please indent your reply by :::. (There are a few other approaches that work as well — some people like to use bullets sometimes, some people like to de-indent every so often — but this is the simplest.)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed you'd gotten better about this, but see <http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification?diff=13882206&diffonly=1>. That one was particularly bad, because you also didn't include a blank line before your comment — which is fine, lots of users don't, but together with the lack of a leading :, it meant that your comment actually followed Equinox (talk • contribs)'s on the same line, as though they were a single paragraph. —Ruakh_TALK 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Hah, it's hard to be serious with a page section heading like this. Anyway, I undid your edit at shitbum because you removed the RFV tag without closing the RFV discussion. This is not bureaucracy for the sake of it. The discussion needs to be closed according to policy, and taking into account what was said, or else there's no point having discussions. Please familiarise yourself with that stuff and do it properly, or not at all. Equinox ◑ 20:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

isn't it though? yeah sorry was trying to helpGtroy 22:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Why do you persist in removing comments from this page, after you have been informed repeatedly (both explicitly, through comments from administrators, and implicitly, by my repeated reversions of these removals, which I am certain that you have noticed) that you should not? The English Wiktionary is a community, and an ability and willingness to abide by community norms, once you are made aware of them — even if you disagree with them — is an absolute requirement for participation. —Ruakh_TALK 06:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

As you may be aware, there are some non-CFI meeting terms on your user page. I was gonna strike them myself but you might object to that, so I haven't. Stuff like initial assessment and secondary assessment - I'm sure that IA and SA would be ok, if they are used, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well IMHO the assessment terms are truly idiomatic, because it's not just any assessment, it is a very specific procedure. But since they may be borderline I plan on citing this very well. By strike do you mean remove entirely? If I have added a term and have not striken it, that I don't mind at all. And FYI I only mind word vomit and ad hominem attacks and bloated personalities none of which you have demonstrated.Gtroy 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In your emergency room is may be very specific, I don't deny it, but in the UK or Australia or India it may be a very different procedure, so we need to generalize the definition to include all of these - ergo it's the initial (“first”) assessment. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not my emergency room, all of the ones in the United States, these terms are all standardized by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and American Red Cross. They are usually adopted by Canada as well.Gtroy 09:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the words that are standardized, it's the procedures. Dbfirs 06:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness sir, you are dead wrong. initial, secondary, rapid assessment are standardized terms. Open up one of the books, ask a doctor or paramedic. Ask them anywhere in English speaking north america. You will get the same answer It is called rapid assessment everywhere and it has a very specific procedure as defined by the term.Gtroy 01:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And in all seriousness by way of reply, it is the procedures that are standardized, not the words. Dbfirs 12:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I think you are doing good work adding terms to the dictionary, and I agree with most of what you have added. If you are interested in medical terminology, we have a project at User:Visviva/Medical where we are trying to add several hundred terms common to old medical dictionaries. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

I think that you have accidentally removed the definition. SemperBlotto 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up buddy.Gtroy 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!

Spanish nouns do not begin with capital letters. See sacramento‎. SemperBlotto 10:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

!!!!!PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE Create a new threat on my talk page, thank you.!!!!!!