Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:Qwed117. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:Qwed117, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:Qwed117 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:Qwed117 you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:Qwed117 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:Qwed117, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hi there.
A request for verification is a request that you provide examples of actual use of a word.
An entry in a dictionary is not such evidence. We prefer examples from books, newspapers or any other source that is not going to disappear over time (this rules out some websites that are not archived).
Removal of an RfV template, as a means of circumventing the process is not allowed and can lead to a user being blocked.
SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Looking at the actual template I belive this would not fall under RfV policy, which is generally held for only well-attested languages, or ones where sources would be found easily on the internet. Instead, this would fall under the LDL policy for poorly attested languages. Regarding the actual discussion over the source, I can find no article saying that it must fall under a dictionary. Much of Latin's words fall under being only sourced by a dictionary or such. If you could guide me to such wikipedia policy, it would be helpful. Is it the "conveying meaning" policy that you are referring to? I would be glad to provide outside sources for such, however with a language such as Sardinian, it may be difficult to find such. Qwed117 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
- The LDL policy in addition states that mentions are appropriate for poorly attested languages or similar. It does state that there needs to be a language-level decision on which sources to accept as adequate. I did not intend to violate wikipedia policy under this. I was under the impression that an RFV template could be removed if the worries were shown to be unsubstantiated. I believe the first step should be to remove the current entry if you believe it should be, and allow for a draft policy to be written. Seeing as there are very few Sardinian language editors at the current moment, it will be impossible to gather the "quorum" necessary to have the policy achieved, but at least we would have something on the table.
- Edit: Looking at the WDL page, Sardinian would definitively fall under the poorly attested criteria.
- Summation: No policy for dealing with CFL:LDL in Sardinian language entries exists, therefore RfV policy is reduced in scope accordingly. Violation made 'in good faith'. Policy impossible to achieve right now. Qwed117 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
Take the survey now!
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to [email protected].
Thank you!
--EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
(Sorry to write in Engilsh)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or [email protected]. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply