User talk:LexiphanicLogophile

Hi. I think that this and some other words may not meet our WT:CFI requirements, which need three sources. Equinox ◑ 14:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

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!

As Equinox said anything, without evidence of actual use is subject to deletion. See WT:CFI for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do not add words that cannot be attested. DTLHS (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure about these, e.g. sophronize, where you are showing letters arbitrarily removed from a word? I'm sure the word you give is related, but I didn't think words were actually formed this way, by removing arbitrary letters. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Same with the unexplained -inous in mansuetudinous. Equinox ◑ 14:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When there's a usage example, or a quotation, or an rfquotek under a sense line, that's meant to attach to the preceding line, so when you added a new sense at consectary, you split the sense line and its quotation. Please watch out for that! Thanks. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is for terms that are etymologically related, not semantically related. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A dictionary or word list is not attestation. It has to be used in a real sentence. See use-mention distinction. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply