User talk:Ioaxxere

stealing my entries I see! seriously though, you’re one of the best editors I’ve seen around Nervelita (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, let me know if you ever need help on an entry (as I see you're a new-ish editor) Ioaxxere (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I’m getting around well for the most part :)

Nervelita (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Apisite (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Including improving some of my stubs like googan. Equinox ◑ 02:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I get anxious when I see definitions without citations, because as I see it it's far too easy to add fake or misleading definitions to the site (not that I think you would do that, of course).

Ioaxxere (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I add citations to the strange ones that look like they might suffer at RFV otherwise. I can't cite every damn thing because my primary mission here is to add missing words, and 80% of them are pretty much obvious (like the un-, non- and -like). Hmm... some maxim about quality and quantity... anyway. Equinox ◑ 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

One was "odds and ends" (i.e. junk) and the other was "broken victuals" i.e. food leftovers. Maybe more work is needed. Equinox ◑ 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

MW has manavilins listed as an alternative form. Ioaxxere (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Usage notes should be about usage of the word, not encyclopaedic stuff about the topic, or referent. So (made-up examples!) "elephants are called squizzles in Jamaica", but not "elephants have big ears". Equinox ◑ 20:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I know that, the usage note is explaining that perpetual motion isn't being used in the literal sense of something moving forever, instead usually referring to a perpetual motion machine which produces useful work. Maybe the note can be clarified. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"elephants have big ears" is a perfectly fine usage example. GreyishWorm (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd really prefer to start creating these pages myself now that you've reminded me. The only reason I hadn't done anything with Citations:DOTP yet was because I wasn't 100% sure which capitalization to use for the lemma form. Binarystep (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for getting around to DOTP Ioaxxere (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the Top Gear cite you added looks more like engine + nerd than engineer + nerd. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I've separated it into two senses, does it look good now? Ioaxxere (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You can replace one with another in the sentence. They are not "the exact same term" as they are spelled differently and not the same length. Putting initialisms as synonyms on Wiktionary is standard practice in my experience. Equinox ◑ 21:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider "color" and "colour" to be synonyms? If not, then your definition of "synonym" is flawed. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a diagram:

@Equinox: Personally I agree with User:Ioaxxere. "color" and "colour" are not synonyms but rather alternative spellings because they have the same pronunciation. Similarly, although initialisms like BBC can be pronounced /biː biː ˈsiː/, they can also be pronounced for an unfamiliar audience as /ˈbɹɪtɪʃ ˈbɹɔːdkɑːstɪŋ ˈkɔːpəˈɹeɪʃən/, which is the same pronunciation as British Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore they are not synonyms when pronounced this way. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Gee. That got complicated. To reply to Iox's (I hate spelling his name) original comment: I don't believe it's useful to talk about (say) color and colour as synonyms, because they are spelling variants. It's like saying "is red and rud the same colour" (imagining that there is an English variant where— you get the idea, it's a waste of our time). I think that the "same word spelled differently" should be a special rule. Is that what you wanted with your huge diagram? I'm not a total idiot and have a degree in this. But who knows eh. Wiktionary seems to agree because we have "alternate forms" heading and template. They are technically synonyms but it's foolish and disingenuous to treat them that way. Equinox ◑ 07:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you could add {{Babel}} to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. Or making it no longer redlinked by saying "Hi" would also be nice since redlinks look like something is wrong. (By the way, here comes the obligatory, thank you for all your contributions, which I mean sincerely, having seen your efforts.) Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe one day... Ioaxxere (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Wonderfool here. Just thought you might be interested in becoming an admin. I could set up a vote for you if you like Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. The ability to delete pages would be very convenient and I have a pretty good understanding of our procedures at this point. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Please accept at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/User:Ioaxxere for admin. You might want to put some bullshit on your userpage, as it matters to some users. Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Wonderfool here again. Perhaps the nomination was too early, after all. I apologize if the result caused you any grief, that was not my intention (although to be fair, on other occasions I do like causing grief to users) Mr. Turbo Lexicographer (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that either. It seems like people are voting "No" out of spite (although your nominations have done well in the past, not sure what's changed) Ioaxxere (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've definitely got the title of having started the highest number of successful admin votes (I counted a couple of years ago). OTOH, I probably also hold the title for highest number of unsuccessful admin vote (I didn't count). Perhaps I got too obsessed with my own personal statistics and wasn't focusing on general Wiktionary quality enough. Mr. Turbo Lexicographer (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your work keeping track of RFVs. Just wanted to drop a note that when you're failing an RFV for an entry that only has the RFV'd language, I think it's better to just add fail=1 in the {{rfv}} template because it will flag the entry for deletion—if you only add {{no entry}} then it won't be listed for deletion and it implies we want to keep the page around as an empty entry for whatever reason. I've added it here. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna Yes, I did add fail=1 in the past, but it seems like the entries never actually get deleted (Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has dozens of RFV fails at this point). This is the closest I can get to deleting the page myself. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

From experience so far it can take a week or two for an admin to get round to it, but {{no entry}} isn't a substitute for deletion and if you want to clear the entry in the meantime you can just do both. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that looks like a good solution. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm slowly getting around to these. Please be patient because I have to check the discussions too. I'd prefer if you didn't use {{no entry}}; it's easier to judge these pages based on the content when it fails RFV. Also, it allows users who see the deleted page warning to get an idea of what it was like before deletion. Ultimateria (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

When deleting these could we please copy the citations over to the Citations namespace, e.g. in the case of Adamaua Fulfulde? I don't know whether this is the proper job of the RfV closer or the deleting admin, I just think it would be a good thing to do.

70.172.194.25 06:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Very little of this process is codified, FWIW. Ultimateria (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go back to my original system. @Ultimateria: while you're here could you undelete Xiden? It passed RFV and was deleted by mistake. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Ultimateria (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You failed the RFV saying that "two tweets don't mean much". Clearly you didn't look at the references I added to the second sense. There's no good reason for having redacted the second sense.

• https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Physical_Anthropology/Book%3A_Physical_Anthropology_(Schoenberg)/07%3A_Human_Variation/7.04%3A_Sex.
• https://www.kent.edu/lgbtq/terminology-list.
• https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Queertionary2.0.pdf.

— This unsigned comment was added by Wordbookeeper (talk • contribs) at 03:58, 22 February 2023‎.

@Wordbookeeper I couldn't have seen the references because apparently they were removed by @WordyandNerdy in diff a few days before I closed the RFV, so all I had was the two Twitter quotes. Also, note that references don't count for attestation⁠—they have to be added as quotations. Ioaxxere (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change aesthetics from being a child of Category:Philosophy? Was there any consensus for this or even discussion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf There's ambiguity in the word aesthetics in that it can either refer to the field of philosophy or it could be the plural of aesthetic. In this case, I believe the second option is much more useful as we were previously labelling these TikTok aesthetics as "neologisms" which is a really weird way of describing what's going on. By the way, before I moved and cleaned up the category it was a hodgepodge of random terms like ugly and eesome as well as a few aesthetics of the second type—clearly not serving any purpose. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then I think we need "aesthetics (philosophy)" and "aesthetics (culture)" or something, if the one category is getting polluted. We still need categories for both technical terms from axiology and also cultural aesthetics. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Do you think a synonym like Category:en:Philosophy of art or similar could work? Ioaxxere (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2007 quotation you added at wiki crack is from Google Groups (the group “Wiki World”), not Usenet. Thus, it should not have “(Usenet)”. Perhaps a separate template should be made for Google Groups. The difference was explained by Chuck Entz at Talk:NMSL:

“It's from the part of Google Groups that isn't Usenet, so it's not durably archived. Usenet is completely separate from Google (and decades older), but Google provides access to it as part of their service to Google Groups members. The structure of a Usenet address starts with one of a small set of top-level domain names followed by subdomains and sub-subdomains in descending order, all separated by periods/full stops.”

And by Wikitiki89 at Talk:two-thousandsies:

“That's not Usenet. Google Groups is a discussion forum thing that also serves as an archive of Usenet. Not everything in Google Groups is Usenet. I'm not an expert on Usenet, but I do know that Usenet group identifiers generally look something like "alt.language.latin", while that quote is in a group called "Buffalo OpenCoffee Club".”

Mr. Granger noted at Talk:millenuple that perhaps Google Groups should also be considered durably archived:

“The one citation I've found is Google Groups but seemingly not Usenet. Some users have been arguing that only Usenet should be considered durably archived, not the rest of Google Groups, but my understanding was that the reason we consider Usenet durably archived is because it's available on Google Groups. So it seems to me that the rest of Google Groups should be considered durably archived by the same logic.”

However, my point is not whether it is “durably archived” or not, but that we should not incorrectly call it “Usenet”. J3133 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Ioaxxere (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth making a template for Google Groups? J3133 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but in that case we might as well have RQ templates for Reddit, Twitter, etc. Ioaxxere (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey. Perhaps we should have a navigation template for all the newspaper/magazine/etc templates you (and others if there any) have created? lattermint (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lattermint sure. I don't think anyone else has created any, but mine are {{RQ:NYT}}, {{RQ:Guardian}}, {{RQ:Daily Mail}}, {{RQ:NYPost}}, {{RQ:WaPo}}, {{RQ:LATimes}}, {{RQ:Independent}}, {{RQ:Telegraph}}, {{RQ:Vanity Fair}}, and {{RQ:Atlantic}} (they originally all had "Online" in the name but apparently people weren't keen). Ioaxxere (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't suitable for a dictionary, dude That was New York (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stuff I see from laptop (troll ping) Ioaxxere (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You made it lattermint (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Both of you edit slang. Both of you do maintenance things. Also, he supported you for admin. You supported his page moves. With this diff you seem to know much more about him compared to other editors. So, are you WT:WF? Daniel.z.tg (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel.z.tg It's very easy to catch Wonderfool socks by looking at the page histories of Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components and RFVE. Also, Wonderfool is creating entries on Gen Z slang? This is news to me. Let's see the diffs. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. Now I finally learned how you all find WF's accounts.

Your User:Ioaxxere page says "focus on slang" without "Gen Z." I was referring to the link inside this diff for WF's slang. Both of you look like you edit slang compared to my edit history. In contrast, I would never edit anything not related to academia or business, with the reasons including but not limited to my account being under my real name. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Please admit to being WF! It would considerably boost their statistics! Jin and Tonik (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I will never get tired of telling my first introduction to this place in mid-2008, when I was trying to find out the meaning of "countline" or "darkwave" (or something) and I got hooked on WT:REE and started trying to fulfil them all. Some say Equinox is still trying to do it to this very day. Anyway SemperBlotto kept blocking me as Wonderfool (I am the only user who is not Wonderfool). But I knew I'd outlive him and I have. Equinox ◑ 17:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Can FR be attested as an abbreviation of for real? PUC – 19:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@PUC We have fr with that definition, but I've never seen it in uppercase. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to know about your general state of mind. Jin and Tonik (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on Google it seems like we're missing an entry for "rugby union football club" at RUFC, might be an idea for future expansion? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The WP page distinguishes "England" from "elsewhere", you colonial leftovers. Since you are all posting RU sections: a long time ago I studied at Reading University (RU) and almost all of the societies and clubs had that name. I made a hi-quality joke about this on Facebook (I hate it, I had to have it to join their social events). The non-booze society was called RU Not Drinking Much and it went from there... oh I wish I had saved it. Anyway have fun, Equinox ◑ 14:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't remember. Vininn126 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, why don't you start editting and adding Polish entries instead of those boring English ones? English lemmas look like shit anyway, they almost always lack sources, and they're unaesthetic. CPTray2000 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was told I had to follow the pattern. I like your very clean and coherent entries. Anyone who wants to RFV an Iox entry shall deal with me first! (I'm fairly weak.) Equinox ◑ 19:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it correct? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk I don't know, but I would personally pronounce it as /aju/ rather than /ɑju/. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It's up for RFV; I couldn't find any actual uses. grendel|khan 18:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Re "analyzing it as a blend doesn't make any sense": language ain't logical, and I'm sure you'd happily take the opposite side in similar cases. But fine, thanks. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

chickenhead and skank use nonextant RQ template P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks... BTW, what is a nwoman??? P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me ask you then; if it's not simply a single entry in Black's Law Dictionary, but an admittedly obscure word found in several different English dictionaries, is that sufficient? I'm certainly not defensive over this word; I simply am curious about the rules. Logomachies (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Continued from your talk page) @Logomachies: the basic rule is that there must be three examples of someone actually using the word, but an entry in a dictionary doesn't count as a use (the full rules are laid out in Wiktionary:CFI). BTW, I would guess that all of those dictionaries are simply copying off one another—notice that the definitions are almost identical, word for word. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I only found this old use of "ejurated", this (probably insignificant) Reddit thread where a bunch of writers purposely use the word, and this possible use in a newspaper. However, I don't think this is a word worthy of inclusion. I apologize for adding the entry and agree that it should be deleted. Logomachies (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon further review, I found this antiquated use and this antiquated use as well. Combined with this one, perhaps I have satisfied the rule. I don't know. Logomachies (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Logomachies the newspaper quote is scanno for "operating" (, login required). The Cyclopaedia quotation is a mention rather than a use as it's comparing the definitions of several words. Social media sites or online forums like Reddit generally don't count, although they can be accepted on a case-by-case basis if editors agree (this is sometimes done to attest obscure Internet slang). So we have one quotation for ejurate and one for ejuration. But don't worry too much about making mistakes as you learn! Just keep on making solid entries like discriminatee. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously I found it through flipping through my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and I'm usually good about finding attestations first. I simply thought the dictionary entries were good enough. Thanks for clarifying the rules. Logomachies (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like your kind of word. Equinox ◑ 04:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like all of the compounds were immediately added back into 人 with no problems. In fact, I don't know what the problems ever were, as the page loads fine, no memory/Lua errors, etc. I moved it to your userspace: does it need to exist at all or can it be deleted? If there's something that I'm missing, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: the page you linked is showing Lua errors right now ("The time allocated for running scripts has expired."). For whatever reason some editors don't think this is a big deal. And even when these errors don't happen, the massive list causes the page to load extremely slowly which is just a bad thing in general. So yes, please delete the page as it seems that no one has any use for it. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a big deal, but I don't see that. Where are you seeing it? This is evidently an issue on your end (and I have a pretty lo-power machine). I also don't see any tracking category on that entry and the size of the wikicode itself is only 54 kB... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: It's inconsistent. Making a null edit usually results in everything breaking. This is what is looks like now: https://imgur.com/a/MqLcRGm Ioaxxere (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

/ I still don't see it, but this may be worth mentioning at the Grease Pit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I see errors on three devices (desktop, laptop, phone) so I assume this is a server-side problem. To be clear: you're currently able to go to the page and scroll all the way down with no errors? Ioaxxere (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf oddly enough, it seems to work better on Firefox. Try checking it on Edge/Chrome. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That may explain why I'm not seeing it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Zionazism.