Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:Jeffq. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:Jeffq, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:Jeffq in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:Jeffq you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:Jeffq will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:Jeffq, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome, Jeffq, glad to have you aboard! - TheDaveRoss 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I knew Wiktionary didn't have this template, which was annoying, because I needed to use it. I had just heaved a heavy sigh, and was about to copy it over from Wikipedia, when I discovered: you'd already done it! (And just last week!) Thanks. —scs 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
- De nada. ~ Jeff Q 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I’m glad to see someone else working systematically on citing words. However, please take note of my elaborations of your citations. If you could follow that format et cetera in future, that would be grand. Thanks, and keep up the good work! † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
- That's fine, but I'm using Wiktionary:Quotations as the closest thing to a formal Wiktionary guideline that I've found. Shouldn't your alternative be discussed there? I must say that your form is cleaner, but it does present some problems with non-prose quotations, like poems, inscriptions, and lyrics, which have special formatting needs that may interfere with simply appending the citation. (I know this from years of thrashing over these issues at Wikiquote.) ~ Jeff Q 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
- By the way, I noticed your extension of my quotation in salinize. Could you explain why you felt this desirable? I've been trying to keep quotes as short as possible while providing enough context to demonstrate the meaning, in order to avoid overwhelming the primary content, the definition. ~ Jeff Q 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Could you let me know what you think about our differences in formatting? You're obviously far more involved here than I am, and I want to make sure I follow whatever the overall Wiktionary community deems a preferred format. WT:QUOTE isn't a formal policy yet, but I'm not aware of anything that suggests your format is, either. I've made several revisions in the past to my earlier efforts due to bot disapproval, others' advice, and my own learning curve, but I'm getting a little vexed with periodically redoing formats. ☺ Thanks. ~ Jeff Q 12:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, sorry — I’ve been rather slow in responding:
- The format I use is a personal alteration of the “standard” prescribed by WT:QUOTE — I suppose I should try to make it the formal standard if I’m going to ask others to follow it. You say it presents some problems for citing poëms, lyrics, &c. — seeing as you’ve had much pertinent experience of quoting such works over on Wikiquote, could you explain what those problems are here please?
- I noticed that the following sentence also used salinize, so I thought that it might as well be added; it didn’t really offer much extra useful context, but what with wiki not being paper, why not? If you ever feel that quotations given “overwhelm” a definition, you can also move said quotations to a Quotations subsection or a /Citations subpage — a move particularly suitable for monosemic words. (However, such moves — particularly the latter kind — can cause problems as they rely upon “redundant user-maintained data fields” (to quote WikiPedant), which can be a very real problem with highly polysemic words with several very similar yet distinct senses; moreover, there is apparently some degree of consensus that quotations ought not to be moved to subpages until their number exceeds nine (according to Connel MacKenzie).)
- Well, my preference is for my style, generally to the exclusion of other styles — if that answers your question. Of course, if you bring up significant problems with this style (as asked in point № 1), I’ll change the way I format quotations to accommodate necessary flexibility. I can understand your frustration — Wiktionary is not the best for codifying its policies.
- † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Good work here. :) ---> Tooironic 11:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I like to add sourced usage quotations to entries. I came across your creation of disquisitory, in which you added a request for "a quotation of Ed. Rev.". Reviewing the history of this entry, Template:rfquotek and its history and talk page, the user and talk pages of editor who created the template, Category:Requests for quotation, your user and talk pages, and Googling '"Ed. Rev" site:en.wiktionary.org' didn't reveal what you mean by "Ed. Rev.". Since the entry comes from Webster's 1913, I might infer the words "edition" and "revision", but I still don't understand to what purpose.
- Are you asking for something more specific than any ordinary, reliably sourced, properly cited quotation? Is this some kind of Wiktionary abbreviation that regular editors know but we occasional contributors might not? Is it (or can it be) documented somewhere, or not abbreviated to be more useful for encouraging action? Thank you for any assistance you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
It means "Edinburgh Review". The abbreviation was not expanded because it comes from a semi-automated import of Webster 1913 entries. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- To explain: Websters 1913 had the practice of including only terse italicized hints like Ed. Rev. to reference authorities they used for relatively obscure words. We have copied many entries from there, the dictionary being out of copyright. This does not conform to our standards. The template is intended to mark the entries that need to be brought up to our standards.
- It is always acceptable to add citations that conform to our standards. The Ed. Rev. is just a hint on where to look for what might be hard to find. Also, sometimes the hint would take you to a dictionary, which would not be an acceptable author for a citation, but may contain one. Presumably Ed. Rev. is Edinburgh Review (That was not my first guess). DCDuring TALK 12:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- This simple search yields the quotation they must have been referring to. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you both for your help! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
: You requested quotations at minion from Beaumont and Fletcher ("ordnance") and Burton ("minimum"). I dug up the former, but I don't know which "Burton" you're referring to. The only Burtons I could think of are LeVar, Richard, and Richard Francis, in order of what I imagine is increasing likelihood. Could you please specifiy, perhaps with any ideas you might have on work or subject? (I suspect it'll be a bit harder to find this one.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Replied on my talk page. Just saying because I don't think we've interacted before, and some people only follow their own talk pages. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- : : Actually it's Robert Burton (scholar). (Props for being a ST:TNG nerd though.) Equinox ◑ 21:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply