Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/April 2006

Seems to mean download. Any takers? SemperBlotto 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

no hits on google.--Richardb 10:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectly spelled - we already have floccinaucinihilpilification. — Paul G 09:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Or rather floccinaucinihilipilification. —Stephen 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we all know how to spell that in our sleep ! But I certainly wouldn't like to see an entry for every possible mis-spelling !!--Richardb 14:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete, if anything, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonce, new invention. --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A three-dimensional physical scaled model based on a specific percentile with moving parts. Are used to consider spatial arrangements - Really? SemperBlotto 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No lang info, a quick google search returns nothing in context in the top 10 -- Tawker 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The newly added adjective looks suspicious to me. Ncik 22:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Has been removed by User:69.110.42.211, possibly the same as the original contributor User:69.110.47.43. Davilla 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do they mean ceil? Widsith 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the word is "to ceil", "he ceils". —Stephen 11:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So formatted. SemperBlotto 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever heard this with "the" for "one's" (dot the i's and cross the t's). Does this exist? If so I would suggest it is less common than the form with "the" and should be a cross-reference rather than a fully-fledged entry, and should be listed under "Forms and variants" on the page for the "the" form. — Paul G 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "the" form--Richardb 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the. —Stephen 11:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dot your i's and cross your t's" doesn't sound that far off, but nowhere as certain as the. Maybe the mixup is with mind your p's and q's. Davilla 12:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree - "the", not "one's" SemperBlotto 14:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Paul G: should be listed under "Forms and variants" on the page for the "the" form. I used a variation (verbally) last week to a colleague who was working with a very legalistic customer 'Make sure you dot all your "i"s and cross all your "t"s!' Enginear 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The originator Ssgash admits "Adding a new word, cobwebsite - coined by myself" - seethe page history.--Richardb 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from RfD after tag change. Davilla 13:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Some anonym marked the article for speedy deletion. I can't see why it should be deleted. There is no definition yet, but it can be added sometimes. Most probably 'alnicanter' is indeed an archaic spelling of 'almucantar', although that needs to be checked. Dart evader 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say delete to this one. The reference given is full of what are either archaic spellings, spelling mistakes, or OCR errors. SemperBlotto 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaic spellings are allowed in Wiktionary, or aren't they? Anyway, here is another reference.

... old Colonel Robotham would surely do him to death upon discovering that Miss Lucy was wed not to the Poet Laureate at all, but to a servingman, whose astrolabe had already taken the alnicanter of her constellation.

My favourite John Barth. :-) Dart evader 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly like an OCR error. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand this. Barth wrote his book in 1960. There was no such thing as OCR at the time. Dart evader 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And did you read the book - or just the website that was generated by OCR from the book? SemperBlotto 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the hard copy now to check the word, but I doubt such an error could've crept in. It's too improbable. Besides, someone who has the book may check it. It's easy. Dart evader 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

scannoes are not improbable. And for obscure words, they are all the more likely to go unnoticed. —Muke Tever 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How could it be possible that two different sources have got two identical sets of OCR errors (almucantar → alnicanter)? Dart evader 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one copied from the other. Or maybe they both used the same OCR software on the same source material. In any case, the etymology is from Arabic, and the Arabic prefix mu- is used for this word (it makes particlples and certain types of nouns out of verbs); the Arabic prefix ni-, OTOH, indicates the 1st-person plural present of verbs and can’t be preceded by the article al-. Deleted. —Stephen 00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. As they put it, if the word is not on Google, it doesn't exist. And even if it is on Google, it's still nothing but an OCR error. Dart evader 09:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sense of

1. An expression of frustration, anger, or infuriation.

Who says "fuck all" ? You just say fuck!, or fucking hell!.
I'd like to see some verification for this useage. Was put in originally by an "amateur", and subsequently wikified.--Richardb 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the interjection meaning is just plain wrong. SemperBlotto 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of this being used as interjection. It means "no". For example you could say "that's fuck all use to me". --Djmac 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an expression used in the UK to mean "nothing at all" as in, question: "What have you done today?", response: "Fuck all." I think in the US, the equal response would be "Shit." ("What have you done today?" "Shit.) (Unsigned)

I agree with the unsigned comment above. It is fairly frequent in UK and, although I do not swear often, I have used it myself when frustrated and angry (close synonym jack shit which I only recall hearing as an interjection from US people). The reason why we're so sure -- this recent news story about a ridiculous on-the-spot fine: ]. Although bowdlerised by the BBC, other sources, including I think the London Metro, confirmed that the answer given was Fuck all!. Unfortunately, none of those sources seem to be available online. However, I found a comment on a news message board confirming it, and have added that, and another attestation, to the entry. The fact that a policewoman who was passing overheard it, and felt that it constituted abusive or threatening behaviour, suggests that it was said in an emphatic manner, a forceful interjection, as it often is. (BTW, the police saw later saw sense and withdrew the charge, though I can't find that noted online.)

Intriguingly, I also found an MSN Search hit for a rather emphatic "FUCK-ALL!!" on a Cleveland, Ohio blog ] but I could no longer find the target on the blog itself. Enginear 02:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Several entrioes for names of groups, video games etc. Probably should be removed ? Not exactly iconic stuff. But I'm not sure of "policy" on this.--Richardb 14:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely lose them. SemperBlotto 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Davilla 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A song about the dawn. Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of not-so-many Google hits I get searching are surnames or misspellings of "concert". I come up empty on my music dictionary and all the online dictionaries I tried, suggesting that it's probably not just rare or specific. In the absence of any other evidence, I recommend we delete. --Dvortygirl 05:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs part of speech etc, I'm just not 100% sure -- Tawker 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed It is an indefinite pronoun. The translation was also wrong. It means "anything". "whatever" translates to "vad helst" or "vad som än" and they are relative pronouns. It is easy to get it wrong. I added them to clarify the difference. --Patrik Stridvall 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that people are closely scrutinizing scarf, but since its validity has been questioned I suggest that it is moved to the protologisms list. It is not widely known and therefore might not meet the usage requirements of this dictionary. However, I believe that it is on the same level as frindle.

Please sign your comments in discussions. This nomination is unclaimed and undated. Scarf should not be contested IMO. I looked it up to be sure and AHD lists it as slang. Davilla

I'm sorry to do this to a requested entry, but I don't see any evidence from google or on the talk page that this is a real, established term. Kappa 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple. (I'm sure there are more, I'm just being lazy at the moment, to encourage others to experiment with the formatting exercise.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the first quotation contradicts the definition given (not a "motorized winter sport"). Also I don't think those are independent uses of the phrase, since they are both reporting the same thing. Kappa 12:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think these are probably right, although the English isn’t entirely clear. I’m not familiar with these two words, but I know that haistaa is "to smell," and haistella means "to sniff something." —Stephen 08:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The description is rather clumsy if not wrong. "Haistatella" means to say something ugly to another (for example, if somebody says "haista vittu" (fuck you) to you, he haistattelee). Haistattelu is the noun describing the action. The word itself, of course, comes from haistaa (to smell), but they shouldn't be taken literally. If I'm correct, haistatella is transitive frequentative form of haistaa.--Jyril 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely gauger? Widsith 08:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It’s okay. In technical usage, ‘to gage’ is commonly used in place of ‘to gauge’ in American English. —Stephen 08:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who added this entry did not identify the part of speech. I think it's a verb form, but if so, it word be nice to link to the infinitive. However, it might be an adjective. Can someone verify? --EncycloPetey 12:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Technically, it’s an old past participle, but it’s better just to consider it an adjective. The infinitive incluir also has a regular past participle, incluído, that is used for the verbal purpose. —Stephen 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's Italian too. Adding Italian entry. — Paul G 08:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither the phrase, nor the word "judicagenic" are attested. bd2412 T 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• My contact is included in the original posting and anyone with any questions may contact me through that. Again, the Comments in the original posting explain the origins and wider usage adoption of the term. Jahos 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I can provide lawyers who will attest that they are using this term regularly in courts in Ontario and that the court clerks are requesting dictionary definintions be entered. It is being submitted to Blacks and other legal dictionaries. Jahos 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That it "is being submitted" to dictionaries suggests that it is a protologism. I found it nowhere on the internet (where new terms in actual use often quickly pop up), nor in any cases or other legal documents available through LexisNexis. Can you cite an instance in print? bd2412 T 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Verified Usage 1. I, J.J. Avery, Barrister and Solicitor, hereby verify that I have used the term judicagenic injustice in two separate court matters in the past year. These were clear cases where the systemic barriers were preventing people from entering or continuing legal matters of vital interest, one concerning a child protection matter and another an appeal matter. Unfortunately, both are protected from publication to protect children's identity. However, I certify use of the term in accordance with its meaning. Sincerely, J.J. Avery 306-52 Chatham St. W. Windsor ON N9A 5M6 2. Two other Ontario court cases in Toronto are cases No: 04-CV-266943CM1 and No: 04-CV-274072CM1, which are cases specifically addressing judicagenic injustice and using the term throughout the current documents being prepared for a constitutional challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Jahos 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 3. Judicagenic injustice is named and cited repeatedly in the Written Submissions of the Plaintiff in an arbitration of Case No: 6136/85 within Case(s) No: 95-CQ-061553CM & CMA Jahos 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Very soon, media releases dealing with the cases in 2 above will lead to wide media coverage, and a conference on Judicagenic Injustice is now in the planning stages for later this year or early next. Jahos 02:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Verified Usage

1. I, J.J. Avery, Barrister and Solicitor, hereby verify that I have used the term judicagenic injustice in two separate court matters in the past year. These were clear cases where the systemic barriers were preventing people from entering or continuing legal matters of vital interest, one concerning a child protection matter and another an appeal matter. Unfortunately, both are protected from publication to protect children's identity. However, I certify use of the term in accordance with its meaning. Sincerely, J.J. Avery 306-52 Chatham St. W. Windsor ON N9A 5M6

2. Two other Ontario court cases in Toronto are cases No: 04-CV-266943CM1 and No: 04-CV-274072CM1, which are cases specifically addressing judicagenic injustice and using the term throughout the current documents being prepared for a constitutional challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Jahos 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Judicagenic injustice is named and cited repeatedly in the Written Submissions of the Plaintiff in an arbitration of Case No: 6136/85 within Case(s) No: 95-CQ-061553CM & CMA Jahos 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Very soon, media releases dealing with the cases in 2 above will lead to wide media coverage, and a conference on Judicagenic Injustice is now in the planning stages for later this year or early next. Jahos 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the term will likely have the attestation necessary to be included in the dictionary later this year or early next. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Does he mean take issue with ? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 07:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• The legal usage (at least in the U.S.) would be take issue with. bd2412 T 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a real term. Some interesting things pop up at google.print: . — Vildricianus 14:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - the uses attested in those sources seem to have the opposite meaning from the definition proffered (i.e., to take the same side instead of to take the opposite side). These are not legal usages, but in light of the google books results, the phrase should definitely be kept. bd2412 T 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I googled join issue and got this newspaper article which uses the phrase in the headline. 'Take Issue' was originally 'Join Issue', according to houghton mifflin. - Bnitin 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BDA that the legal use (in the UK in my case) is probably the opposite of what is defined. I am no expert but I think that "joining someone in an issue" is to legally require them to stand alongside you against a third party in a civil case. I seem to recall that "joinder" is a related term. Any UK lawyers out there? Enginear 03:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In South Africa (British procedure), all one does is join a party either as a a plaintiff or defendant by means of a "notice of joinder". If the plaintiff is joining as the person as a defendant, then he will be called the (Second) Defendant. If the Defendant is attempting to evade liability by suing him someone else and joining them to the suit, then he is called the (First) Third Party and (Second) Defendant. Your pleadings would then look something like this.

• "Take notice that Defendant intends to join John Smith as First Third Party and Second Defendant to the above matter. Take Notice that unless objection is received within ten days, the First Third Party and Second Defendant will be deemed to be joined." Andrew massyn 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

four times. Probably LOP. — Vildricianus 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have seen it used, but only in the form of a joke with something like "if there is such a word" appended. Needs formatting if we keep it. SemperBlotto 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • If we keep this, we should note in its etymology that it is formed by analogy with twice and thrice, as if these come from two and three + a would-be suffix "-ice" (which they don't). — Paul G 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning 2: kinda like the cherries on a washing board . --Expurgator t(c) 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreported personal savings for special occasions. — Vildricianus 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a joke entry to me. There is such a thing as a suspense account, but the definitions are totally different. I would make it into a simple plural of suspense. SemperBlotto 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick search says its just a website. --Expurgator t(c) 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If this one is wrong, what is the English denoting what's described by the definition then? The German translation matches the definition. Ncik 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a real term in use to me , might be hard to find print sources for it though. Kappa 02:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Let's leave this one on UrbanDictionary for now, please. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tramp stamp is a real slang term. I've heard it used by both guys and gals before. If you're hip to the tatoo scene, you'll know this term. But it is slang and not mainstream English. User:64.95.68.14

(Moved the entry above, which had been erroneously inserted a few minutes ago unsigned under RFV: metacosm) Enginear 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed slang. It dates at least back to 2003 and shows increasingly frequent use over time.

Well, I've heard it on 2 radio shows and seen it on Fark in the last week. That's mainstream to me.

Imported from Wikipedia. Beats me. SemperBlotto 13:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a neo- or protologism, probably being derived from "thingamajig". — Vildricianus 14:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So that's what it's called.  :-) Move to WT:LOP? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A Christian that purports to be very religious etc. Perhaps WT:LOP. — Vildricianus 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should it not be chieftainess Andrew massyn

After 27000 hits on google, I withdraw my objection. Andrew massyn 22:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation, lack of citations, "slang dictionary" reference, etc. Google search didn't show anything close to this, but did have a lot for the set phrase regarding country boundaries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, username is an imitation of a well known Wikipedia vandal. Other admins should consider a permanent block of User:Marmoset (vs. w:User:MARMOT) as probable vandalism account. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as a contribution from a known sockpuppet of User:Primetime. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This entry (created by Connel MacKenzie--of all people), does not have any citations. I'm going to need three quotations from printed, respected sources very soon, or I propose someone delete it just like that guy deleted my entry without explanation.--Marmoset 18:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just cited it from Oxford's online libary, I hope that resolves your lack of citations -- Tawker 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some difference between between nonsense poorly punctuated headword entries, vs. obvious language elements. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotations from published works added (2 for the first meaning, 1 for the second). We lack citations and quotations from most of our entries, but it is not a priority because we are confident that they are real words - unlike the one above this. SemperBlotto 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything from a reliable source corroborating this one.--Marmoset 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking, eh? Try looking at Wikipedia before arbitrarily calling something questionable. I gave you the same courtesy. But your Free State border! thing did not (and does not) match anything, when doing preliminary searches. The "reference" you later provided showed it not to be a specific term, but rather slang. Outside of your single "reference" I find no attestation of your highly questionable term. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First Wikipedia defines your initialism as "Composite Health Care System" so stop lying. Further, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We're still waiting for your quotations. If you don't have any, then it should be deleted.--Marmoset 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though we don't normally add citations to abbreviations I am adding them. Because I like you, I guess. Patience. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations added. Please remove the RFV tag at your earliest convenience. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RFV is for the translations - I think they are for the infinitive. SemperBlotto 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also alternating from the same person.

Yes, infinitives or nouns. Fixed some. —Stephen 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed RfV tag. Please TTBC any you are uncertain of. However, inflected forms don't get translations, so those under possessing should probably be deleted, right? I've moved translations of alternating under adjective definition when changing from level 3 to level 4 header. I hope that was correct. Davilla 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero at . --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted - a Primetime entry that I previously overlooked. SemperBlotto 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Recreated with citations I found very easily on Google.--Primetime 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• And deleted and recreated again. Contributor demands that we haul it through RFV, so here we are. Searching on the entire phrase in Google, I found zero hits on this. If "Irish toothache" is attested (as it appears to be), that is where this entry should go. --Dvortygirl 08:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course anyone who does a Google search for the whole phrase will find the quote I added, as well. Also found cites for "Irish toothache". This is besides my print source I already had in there.--Primetime 09:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. —Stephen 09:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted - a Primetime entry that I previously overlooked. SemperBlotto 07:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Recreated twice with citations.--Primetime 09:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  What's this edit war about? Davilla 17:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. Since the entry has been protected from editing, I'll paste it here:

              ==English==
              ===Verb (imperative)===
              U.S. black; South; Northern cities: let's slap hands 
              
              :150 years - that's still young dude!!!! (Give me fin)
              
              :H'are you boy? . . . give us your fin--Spirit of the Times (Nov. 21, 1840) 446
              
         ==References==
         Clarence Major, "give me five on the soul side"  Juba to Jive, (Penguin Books: 1994) p. 202.
              
         John A. Simpson and Edmund S.C. Weiner, eds. "fin", The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989) defines fin as slang for "hand".
              
         Jonathon Green, "give me fin on the soul side" The Cassell Dictionary of Slang (1998) p. 495
              
         Jive Translator, "give me fin on the soul side"
         <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:3RHBjYasqaAJ:internetjunk2k.tripod.com/jive.htm+%22give+me+fin+on+the+soul+side%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4>
              
         Runnin Down some Lines: The Language of Black Teenagers (Harvard University Press: 1980)

The entry was first deleted by SemperBlotto--no offense taken, he thought it was a copyvio. But since it wasn't part of the pattern we discussed on the BP, I recreated it with the citations you see above. Then, Tawker deleted it again with the explanation "g4". (I guess that stands for Google 4.) I then talked to Tawker on IRC, and it appears as if it's entirely personal. It's clear that some users are trying to get me to leave Wiktionary (fat chance). I think it's obvious that's why Stephen G. Brown voted to delete it below. (He gave no explanation.) It's obvious the phrase is legitimate, and if anyone wishes, I can obtain more citations still. I stopped where I did, though, because it was clear the repeated deletions weren't about accuracy at all but more about picking on a defenseless person who they don't like. I've been punished repeatedly by being blocked several times (including indefinitely) and many of my contributions have been deleted, but that just isn't enough. Their thirst for revenge (for copy violation and formatting I guess?!) is insatiable.--Primetime 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. —Stephen 09:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Primetime behaviors: continuous lies regarding copyright status (fooled Ec for a long time!), creation of dozens of open proxys/sockpuppets, total disregard for community, hundreds of verified copyright violations (the rest certainly are as well, just not all have proven yet, since he was stealing from different sources,) trolling/baiting in here and elsewhere, numerous personal attacks. I'd say we've pretty well established your intentions, Primetime. Your current actions are doing nothing to persuade anyone to ever reduce your blocks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is about the phrase in question, not the contributor. It is not "obvious the phrase is legitimate" - dictionaries are not acceptable citations - and the quotes included are both referring to (if not quoting directly) the film Finding Nemo, which clearly invented this phrase as a piscine equivalent of ‘give me some skin’ or something of that sort. It was right to delete it. Widsith 09:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So, it's right to delete entries on sight simply because they don't have citations or seem suspicious? RFV and RFD are both unnecessary? Perhaps you should bring this up on the Beer Parlour and change the intro for this page. I doubt you will, though, as your "uranist" entry is also suspicious and has only one quotation--much fewer than my entry's three. Can someone please delete that entry immediately? It seems "suspicious" to me. I know the OED cites dictionary entries in their quotation sections--but I suppose you'll say that you don't care about them. (I know you do anyway.) It just seems like the rules are no longer being followed here when it involves the user Primetime. You all can admit it--it's not as if it will change anything. Wiktionary operates in total anarchy, with no consistent application of the rules. It's not as if anyone will actually defend someone they don't like--even if it would be the right thing to do.--Primetime 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Suspicious" to a known bad-faith contributor? To be consistent, we can only ignore your bad-faith request. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added 3 more references and a quote for a total of 5 references and 2 quotes. How many more do you need? Do you still think it's not an expression?--Primetime 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When did I say it is not an expression? I assert that it doesn't meet our criteria. (Sorry, but references provided by you are more than slightly suspect, especially when hard impossible to verify, or inapplicable to the phrase in question.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The term appears to be valid, but I'm not going to insist on its being kept until I have had the opportunity to verify at least one of Primetime's dead tree references. (I have just won a copy of one of his references on eBay, and may acquire another one soon.) It is difficult to keep people from projecting their attitudes about Primetime onto their attitudes towards this particular phrase. Eclecticology 08:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have come round on this one as well. I can confirm it's definitely in Jonathon Green's definitive Dictionary of Slang. He says it's been around since the 40s....I guess it was those references to Nemo that threw me! Widsith 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although that reference wouldn't count as a citation, given that the phrase is listed there, maybe it would be better to give the benefit of the doubt, and let it last the RfV process? Davilla 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this company name dictionary material? Needs moving to capitalized form. SemperBlotto 07:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a commercial IP in Malaysia. Delete. —Stephen 09:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A magic plant? —Stephen 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the entry. It's definitely a word...there should be some cites in any old translation of the Odyssey. Widsith 12:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation added. Widsith 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! —Stephen 12:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also a colloquial short form of molybdenum or molybdenum disulfide: see the OED and the Wikipedia article. — Paul G 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

the feeling inside when someone you love says something wonderful and so forth. — Vildricianus 14:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Legit I'd think. Definition could probably be generalized though. Davilla 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

annoying and irking person. — Vildricianus 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Legit and worth searching for validation. Davilla 17:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of this one. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Put in WT:LOP by contributor. — Vildricianus 11:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of the word. I added it to WT:LOP. I received a solicitation for more info, which I thought had originated from here. It had a link in the body which brought me to an entry window in Wiktionary. It was not my intention to violate any protocols. However, let me say that since creating this word about two years ago, it has spread rapidly around my area. I have on several occasions heard the word used by someone who I do not know, but who is a friend of someone I do know. — Christopher M. ([email protected])

I know what he means, but is it a prefix or a combining term? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 07:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not always a prefix in the strict sense -- sometimes the initial letter or sound in the repition is altered of removed. My best guess for finding quotes and examples would be to look in some on-line collection of humor from Mel Brooks, Jerry Seinfeld, or Billy Crystal. --EncycloPetey 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I found an on-line thesis via Hong Kong in which Yiddish introductions to English are discussed. The URL is ugly for pasting, but it shows up in the second page of a Google search for: Mel Brooks schm. One example given there is fancy-schmancy, demonstrating that this is not a strict prefix. --EncycloPetey 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OY! Dat's a woid! bd2412 T 20:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

According to a google search, the word (in the sense in which it is defined) is a neologism peculiar to a single individual. The user who submitted the entry and definition has found two instances of the word, but with completely different definitions -- once as an undefined Latin word, and once as a "nonce-word" in the OED -- see the Talk Page of the word for the supplied citations. --EncycloPetey 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The word is legitimate, in the sense that it is made from perfectly valid roots. In the same way, you could create a word like unhideousness, which is not wrong per se but which has probably never been used. I feel we should keep it, but the definition should should say something like

1. a rolling-outwards (used by X to designate continued human development, by analogy with evolution)

...or something like that. A usage note could record its rarity (only recorded once before 2006, or whatever). Widsith 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem -- no two uses have the same definition. The OED uses this word for the process of becoming revolute, that is, a physical curling of the edge of something outward (as opposed to involute). I'm familiar with revolute because it's a standard morphological term in botany. The other procided citation has no definition. The Google search I looked up hit on a quote in sci.bio.evolution where the poster had coined the term himself, but I could not find the name of the person who claims to have coined it. --EncycloPetey 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It clearly does not meet our criteria for inclusion. It belongs on WT:LOP if anywhere. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, the second result from Google is SemperBlotto's talk page. — Vildricianus 19:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As the 'definer' of the word I agree with the suggestion from Widsith. This is indeed a valid word with sound linguistic roots. How could a word that exists in the OED not meet the criteria for inclusion? My definition is a valid one, which complements the original (although vaguely defined) usage. --Djmac 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's definitely a valid term as it appears in OED. Fark 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As a verb? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems completely reasonable to me, control is obviously the implicit verb of a valve. I can see an engineer saying to another "If we valve the pipe we will probably solve the problem we are having.". Almost all nouns can be used as verbs. Unless implicit verb suggested is unreasonable I see no reason to RFV it. --Patrik Stridvall 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It was used in that sense at lunch today, (some mucking about with water supply to the syrup room IIRC) written references might take slightly longer though. MGSpiller 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Patrik, I asked the question, as I'd never heard "valve" used that way, and the first dictionary I checked listed it as a noun only. Others do list it as a verb so I can agree with removing the rfv tag. But something you said is not quite making sense. Were you suggesting that English nouns in general are verbable? I didn't think that was acceptable outside of Calvin and Hobbes. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

English have in my experience a tendancy to use nouns as verbs to a much greater extent than for example Swedish. Whether or not it is good English or not is beside the point, the fact is that many people do. The point is that the verbing of nouns in general is not something that is strange enough to waste time verifying unless of course the suggested implict verb is nonobvious and possibly idiomatic. Note that you can also make the verb an adjective ("valved pipe") which actually has quite a few Google hits. --Patrik Stridvall 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that was just a good deal of Patrikking :-) — Vildricianus 08:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. :-) Sometimes when I'm bored I comment thing more to have something fun todo than for any real need. Still, I think Connel is wasting time RFV these sort of things. --Patrik Stridvall 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

While I can agree that many nouns in English are "verbed" I can also safely say that most are not. I'd never heard this word used as a verb (obviously, I'm not a plumber!) and checking a reference showed that it was a noun only. All that aside, what on Earth is wrong with asking the question? Ultimately, all Wiktionary entries "should" have a minimum of three durably archived citations. At least, that is what was discussed when this RFV page was created. Are you saying I'm wasting time by checking references before submitting something to RFV? With this sort of response, I might agree. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you never heard it or believe you never heard it doesn't really count for very much. As long as you understand what somebody is saying I don't think you will remember what part of speech each and every word belongs to.

That's why I mentioned several times that I checked another dictionary first!

What I mean is that both checking and RFV:ing verbalized nouns which claims an "obvious" implicit verb is overly pedantic and takes time that could be used for more important things. Your time is your time. However by RFV:ing it takes up other peoples time as well. Eventually we will have quotes for everything, but please lets concentrate on keeping stuff from Urban Dictionary and similar out first. Having a theoretical "obvious" verbalized noun will not hurt our credibility in any significant way. --Patrik Stridvall 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So: it doesn't check out in other references, doesn't pass a common sense test, therefore it shouldn't be checked? Your logic is broken, sir. If you don't want to "waste" your time on valid rfvs, don't. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that other sources are complete. Especially not for obvious derivations. Futhermore words that don't pass a common sense test is not obvious. I never claimed that non-obvious derivations shouldn't be checked out. In this case using valve as a verb is as obvious as verbalized nouns can be. Whether it is commonly used or not in practise is not something we should waste time verifying IMHO. --Patrik Stridvall 10:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are as welcome to hold that opinion, as I am to disagree. Valve simply is not an obvious verb, or it probably would be listed as such here, here or here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This source disagrees with you. The other sources might not have meantion it because of lack of space in the print editition. Or more probably because researching every obvious derivation is an inefficient use of resources. In addition, I guess that valve as verb is mostly used in more technical speech and writing and thus less likely sources for most print dictionaries. --Patrik Stridvall 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't disagree with me it disagrees with the sources I checked. The other sources do mention verb forms for words that are more often nouns. This implies the opposite of your conclusion; they weren't merely trying to conserve print space. Rather, they were being accurate (by ignoring uses specific to incredibly narrow fields.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Sure, strictly speaking it disagrees with your sources, and yes what I said was vague. Incidently, it perfectly illustrates the topic. Sentences are often shortened because any intruduced vagueness can be easily deduced. Since the alternative interpretation was the more insulting "Haha, you were wrong!" that interpretation was unreasonable since as you should know I don't usually insult other people.

As to valve, saying that it is accurate to ignore presumably predominantly technical usage in contexts where "put on" and "control flow with" is the usual thing you do with a valve and thus need not be explictly meantioned is a very strange claim. --Patrik Stridvall 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. It is easy to misinterpret what you've said, considering your earlier accusations. What exactly are you saying I claimed? Your last sentence doesn't exactly parse. Are you suggesting that all editions of all dictionaries include all jargon from each and every very narrow field of study?

Accusations? An accusation suggests some wrong doing. I have claimed that you are wasting your time, nothing more. All dictionaries prioritize depending on the prospective audience. This makes it difficult to verify things like valve as a verb using them. It is one thing to be hard on extraordinary claims but trying to verify every "obvious" short form has IMHO very low priority since it doesn't reflect badly on us, unlike things from Urban Dictionary and the like. --Patrik Stridvall 08:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Turn on the valve", "put on the control valve", "control flow with the valve". I'm sorry, but I don't see why a "technical use" would find it more convenient to use "valve" as a verb. And even if so, in such a technical context, I'd think "valving a pipe" would mean installing a valve on the end of a pipe. Perhaps plumbers might say that - but saying that aloud sounds extraordinarily wrong; a native English speaker would just say "put a valve on a pipe." Note: "valving" appears as a spelling error in my editor.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is used since the source I pointed out lists them. As to why it would be convenient, well, short forms in general are very common because people are lazy (or efficient) and the implied meaning is obvious. Nouns as verbs is just one commonly used way to construct short forms. As to valving, Google Books has 3770 hits, so your spell checker seems to be wrong. --Patrik Stridvall 08:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

UK mechanical engineers use the word, or rather the verbal phrase to valve off, not so much as accurate jargon but as a loose slang, both in the sense of inserting a valve in a pipe and of closing a valve. We do that to ensure that the flow is directed usefully rather then wastefully. People are of course more difficult to control. ;-) Enginear 03:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Says it's a verb, but defines it as a noun. It it real? Needs cleanup. SemperBlotto 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The original contributor says that this is a "TV word". Citations, anyone? — Paul G 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was in an episode of Friends, does that count as a TV word? Kappa 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but if it was just made up for the episode, that fails WT:CFI because it is not attested. We require:

1. Clearly widespread use,
2. Usage in a well-known work,
3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
4. Usage in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

so one instance of its use in Friends isn't enough. — Paul G 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends is not a well-known work? Kappa 21:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Friends? SemperBlotto 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the complaint is the nonce usage (even within the Friends context) rather than an attack on anything US-specific. Furthermore, I understood #2 Usage in a well-known work, to apply only to printed books, though I may be mistaken on that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand 4 to cover television programmes (which, of course, usually have printed scripts, so the word would be in print), but a nonce usage in a single episode of a single TV programme is not sufficient to satisfy WT:CFI. — Paul G 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have just seen this epiode again. "Mockolate" was a brand name of an artificial chocolate substitute product for a Friends Thanksgiving episode. As far as I know, (1) it appeared only in the single episode, (2) it was a fictional brand name, (3) it is remarkable only for generating lines like "This is what evil must taste like." Delete. --EncycloPetey 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fails WT:CFI. Deleted. — Paul G 08:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Stated to mean both "potato" and "Adam's apple", although these are "pomme de terre" and "pomme d'Adam" respectively; does "pomme" have these meanings, or do the translations belong under the phrases instead? — Paul G 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

According to it is colloquial for "potato". It doesn't meantion "Adam's apple" though.

It's a general problem that some words appears without qualifiers when the meaning is clear without them. See for example shine. It is often very difficult to know even for a native speaker how common short forms are. Even regardless of that I not sure what is the best way to format it. I'm not entirely happy about how shine is formatted for example. --Patrik Stridvall 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint is unclear. What is wrong with shine? Or rather, what aspect of its formatting are you unhappy about? --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The "See shoeshine, sunshine, moonshine" parts. OK, it was I that added them and yes it's probably obvious that shine can be a short form for these words, but we probably should try to define some kind of policy regarding how it should look like. In some cases the short form might possibly alter the meaning in some subtle way. How should this be marked? I also added a "See" in the synonym parts to induce people to added synonyms on the longer form instead. Does that also looks OK? --Patrik Stridvall 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

not obvious to me. As a native English speaker, I've never heard shine used as a short form for any of those words.--Richardb 15:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See and . But perhaps it is not that common. However, despite not being a native speaker I believe I have seen or heard all three short forms. But they big question is the formatting since many more words have short forms. --Patrik Stridvall 15:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already listed on our list of protologisms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Found three cites that convey meaning from Usenet posters using full names. However, they are all Usenet. This was allowed in the past but I consider these guys to be all the same community even if they don't know of each other. So will it be necessary to search the web for others? Most of what I've found from Google is in forum threads themselves, and I don't like to cite those.

Also, I don't want to bring up gerunds, but necroposting has an object in one of the quotes, and I've seen uses of necropost as a verb. It might make sense to deveolp that entry as well. necropost could also have a noun sense, meaning necroposting the act or the posted message itself. Not sure if those can be attested though. Davilla 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"This was allowed in the past but I consider these guys to be all the same community even if they don't know of each other." Ridiculous. On the same grounds I'd think we should throw out evidence from anyone who's ever used a telephone. They're all in contact with each other even if they don't know each other. —Muke Tever 11:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd sense. This is already listed on our list of protologisms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already listed on our list of protologisms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is clearly a neoplorgismanteau!!! bd2412 T 09:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already listed on our list of protologisms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The attestation I had put on the talk page for it wasn't enough? Peptonized 04:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If it stays, the entry has make clear that the word is pure wordplay, and not intended to refer to any real or supposed condition. --Piet Delport 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.
• The seven "references" listed on the talk page, no, do not count as even one use of the term. I believe there is formal list of acceptable dictionaries being developed, but obviously the seven "joke" dictionaries wouldn't count.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. Anyway, they're not all dictionaries. So Many Dynamos! : and Other Palindromes uses it in a warning on the back cover, WordPlay Cafe has it on a page without defining it, and TriMathlon uses it in a sentence in which it is defined, but not in the context of being a dictionary. Peptonized 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To vocalise a short scream or yelp - any takers? SemperBlotto 06:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was synonymous with eek but I'm not finding any references; the signal-to-noise ratio (or in this case, the noise-to-noise ratio) is very low - "sleep" is very frequently scanned/OCR'ed as "s!eep" for some reason. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. Apparently there are women happily eeping all over the Bay Area. —Muke Tever 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Muke, that word is part of my vocabulary but I didn't think it was going to survive this process. Kappa 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't make up its mind if it is English or German. Needs cleanup. SemperBlotto 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. RFV tag can be removed. — Vildricianus 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the redirection it is still spelled with a capital letter in the entry. I have never seen it used except in the beginning of a sentence so I not sure if that is correct or not. Sure it is an interjection but teoretically I guess you could use as a noun it you talk about the occurance of a use of the interjection or something like that. --Patrik Stridvall 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's my fault. I transwikied it from w:Tschüss unaware that it could be lowercase. BTW it's a fairly common german word, iirc. --w:User:Snargle 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fairly common. And not capitalized. — Vildricianus 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious. — Vildricianus 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

See also talk page. — Vildricianus 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the surname of a Russian economist - but Anglicized. It is used only as the name of an economics equation (which we should have) but we don't need this by itself. SemperBlotto 21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As a wikipedian I'm not an expert in wiktionary policy, however as an economist I can confirm that this is a perfectly valid and important concept in modern economics. Among the uses of Slutsky constructions are tasks as fundamental as determining the characteristics of a demand and supply schedule, although the concepts oulined by Slutsky have been applied to a range of other problems and situations. Hope this is helpful, feel free to post further questions to my wikipedia talk page. Ian3055 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page now contains several references to the term being used for more than just the so called 'Slutsky Equation' and reports recent usage in several English-language refereed journals. I believe this meets Wiktionary criteria for inclusion.

Removed the rfv. Verification and citations have been provided. 207.174.249.2 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

True variant of incomprehensible? — Vildricianus 08:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Defined as "The nose". I thought it was a type of dog, and that the nose was "schnozz". I could be wrong, though. — Paul G 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So it is. I'll make the necessary changes. --Expurgator t(c) 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

3 sites on Google. Seems bogus. --Rory 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition given seems contrived. - TheDaveRoss 05:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is freedom an adjective in Irish?

Protologism? Appears in no other dictionary. All Google hits I could find were Wiki mirrors; Google books hits were actually misreadings of other words (aïdeism, aldeias, and aldeiar); see also w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aldeism. bd2412 T 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be real. The Wikipedia article w:Deism has an external link to an Aldeism site (I haven't followed it). Not sure about the definition though. SemperBlotto 17:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That external link was one of three edits by the anon contributor, who also added the same to the userpage of the person who claimed to have invented Aldeism (see this version of his userpage), and complained of its deletion (leading me to think it was the same person). Hence, I'm proposing removal of the link from the Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is as much a target of protologists as Wiktionary. bd2412 T 21:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief update: I have removed the aforementioned link from Deism following a talk page discussion with the poster, who happens to be the creator of Aldeism. bd2412 T 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it meant to be ham mocking or hammocking. --Richardb 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I've moved it to hammocking. I must've got distracted when Yahoo! search asked me "do you mean ham mocking"? --Dangherous 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To consistantly leave the bulk of the work for your co-worker. Joke or non-joke? — Vildricianus 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

claimed to have been coined today, tossed it - TheDaveRoss 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This entry needs to be verified (and desperately needs to be cleaned up!). --EncycloPetey 06:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The verb's OK, it's the noun. Supposed to mean ‘knowledge’. Anyone heard of this? I've searched on Google, but it's just the inevitable misspellings of writing... Widsith 10:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be spelled witting now. Webster 1913 seems to have it: -- but it's marked as obsolete, and his source is Chaucer, which would make it Middle English. —Muke Tever 16:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muke; I finally found a quote for this. Updated accordingly. Widsith 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Dirty, dangerous, difficult jobs" - any takers? Should it be singular, if it exists? SemperBlotto 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is unclear to me how common a term this is in English, Chinese or Japanese. The Japanese term appears to be a neologism that dates back to at least the 1990's. Preliminary checking suggests that the English term may have actually come from Japanese, and not the other way around. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Never-the-less, I have found google hits for all three languages with the above connotation. Here is another site where it is used in English. I would suggest moving the entry from 3D jobs to 3D job. The etymology section would state that this term originates from the Japanese term "3K shigoto" (3K仕事, "3K jobs"), which stands for kitsui (きつい difficult), kitanai (汚い dirty) and kiken (危険 dangerous). It was changed from 3K to 3D in English, because D works better in English than K. The term was translated into Chinese as 3K產業 (3K chǎnyè).

A-cai 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A mother whose children have died. Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what else would it be? Davilla 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning they're seeming to imply is that the children died before the "mother" actually became a mother—the children were never properly born. So I could see it being idiomatic, in a sense. But I don't know if it's in use. —Muke Tever 23:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not completely a mother whose children have died, although that is certainly the case with any parent who loses a child at any age. Said definition coined to explain the phenomenon of women who deliver a stillborn child,of which there are hundres of thousands per year around the globe (checkout www.stillnomore.org for statistics). We are still mothers even though we buried our infants shortly after we delivered. All mothers give birth - birth is a process that creates a mother, regardless of whether the child survives. Please reconsider. Thank you, Amy L. Abbey Elovesme99

Be aware our process does not debate the existence of the concept (certainly mothers give birth to stillborn children), but whether the word you have asserted already exists describing it. To make sure this word is retained, all you need to do is cite the word being used with this meaning in at least three written works—preferably published books or periodicals, though durably archived Internet content will also suffice. —Muke Tever 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a tough thing to do. I've seen the phrase used only a few times on the Internet, and I've recently included it in my own website - it's not something in the general literature. The phrase itself wasn't defined. Can you direct me back to where I could even list the citations? Elovesme99

Citations are normally listed in the ===Quotations=== section of the entry itself. Note that many personal webstites don't often count as "durably archived." Usenet archives from http://groups.google.com on the other hand, usualy are considered to be archived. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a "word" in this silly Lojban language – but in English? Citations please. Widsith 09:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few examples on the web of its use in English language sentences - but always when talking about the stupid language. SemperBlotto 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's one of those weird Lojban-specific words. It has no use beyond the Lojban grammar. Because of its limited usage it may be questionable to call it an English word.--Jyril 18:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then, I've taken the =English= section out. Widsith 08:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Like an underdgo. Any takers? (Davidic is well attested) SemperBlotto 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning has been changed from duck to mouse. Can someone who knows Irish please validate. Jonathan Webley 08:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I studied Irish for several years in college, and I changed the definition when I came across it (after checking with my Oxford pocket Irish dictionary, of course). The Irish word for duck is "lacha," not "luch." Sorry for not putting a note of this on the discussion page. The same definitions can be found at www.englishirishdictionary.com. 205.197.148.2 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I created this entry, must have got distracted, but mouse is the correct definition, apologies TheSimpleFool 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Google does find a definition for it but Google book search isn't coming up with much -- Tawker 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure its fine - just rather old and not used much. I've wikified it. SemperBlotto 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Verb. The verb intended is err. Should this just be moved to WT:-)? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's incorrect, is it? It might be a pain combing through them, but I wouldn't doubt there are enough cites out there. Davilla 17:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not too hard. erroring, errored... It seems to have a specialized meaning in computing (possibly 'to return an error' or 'to fail with an error' ?) —Muke Tever 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Norweigian-American slang, see also oy wey or simply oi for the Jewish-American equivalent" - TheDaveRoss 01:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a citation - looks like there are some more at books.google.com. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Milk? Any takers? Needs uncapitalizing. SemperBlotto 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's real. Very uncommon. I have heard it before. Googling it finds a very few references. e.g. http://www.yak.net/fqa/402.html and http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-103423 NotAUser, LBP from Chicago, 6:57 CDT 19 April 2006.

...but is it really capitalised? — Paul G 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any reason or reference for capitalization -- suggest decapitalization.

An Irish fool. Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try not to take that personally, citation in a national paper ]

Serious?

Capitalized, print.google shows a lot of hyphenations for the alt spelling dinghey and as a surname. But this could be an interesting word to watch, if sufficient citations are found to pass rfv. This spelling (possibly/probably used in chat rooms for ages, since filters have been around at least since the 1980s) has none of the ambiguity of gay - this term, by the very nature of chat rooms, is certain to be used only pejoratively. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, never seemed unambiguous to me. It's just an internet altspelling, like teh for the and -eh for -y. (In fact, you find a lot of teh ghey on the intarweb.) —Muke Tever 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Should mention I added cites back to 1998, moved to lowercase ghey, and did miscellaneous work on it a couple days ago. —Muke Tever 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's um, quite a few citations. I've removed the RFV tag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No lang info -- Tawker 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WhatLinksHere says it is Thai. Started cleanup, but I'd like verification that it is OK. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Does any other language use that script? Davilla 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It’s correct. Added pronunciation. —Stephen 07:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean modicum? SemperBlotto 06:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. I should try editing while awake next time. It's gone. --Dvortygirl 07:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No real definition, and the quotes don't even use the term being defined. SemperBlotto 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but not a term I've heard on the slopes. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty common term in hip-hop lyrics and the like. Widsith 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is too narrow, and I thought it meant skill, not style. Davilla 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The science of the internet? -- Tawker 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It's the study of animal behaviour. Fixed. SemperBlotto 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops - that's ethology - perhaps we better delete it (and talk page) and start again. SemperBlotto 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, states that etology exists and is different from ethology. Kipmaster 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a spurious entry that's being confused with pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. (The "super" entry isn't even formatted right, BTW.) - dcljr 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of these words have ever really been used. Widsith 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

...at least, not with that spelling. "Codswallop" is fine. If we do decide to keep this, can we trim the verbosity, please? Perhaps a simple cross-reference to "codswallop" will be sufficient, moving the etymology there (and making it more concise). — Paul G 08:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I combined them under codswallop--Richardb 13:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why a redirect? I though we were actively discouraging redirects? — Vildricianus 13:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are used for capitalization, diacritic and punctuation variants, such as this, I though. Actual spelling differences are considered separate spellings, so I can understand why we don't use redirects for them. But the others are things that the software probably should (but doesn't) redirect transparently for. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask a similar question, which is so nearly on-topic that I'll put it here. As a newbie, I've been slowly reading through some of the Guidelines. The draft policy on Spelling Variants in Entry Names, which I found yesterday, seems (with good reason) to differ significantly from the general statements elsewhere about use of redirects. It states:

"...Use a simple REDIRECT entry if, in your opinion, as the creator of the variant entry, the spelling you are entering is simply a valid variant of an already existing entry, and you can see no difference in meaning, usage, etymology etc. eg: naivety, naivete, naiveté, naïveté; tea cup, tea-cup, teacup. In the case of a misspelling, it is not adequate to just use a simple REDIRECT, as the user may not notice the change of spelling. Make a brief entry with a link,..."

I can certainly see the NPOV advantage that all spellings lead to the definition without an intermediate click, and the more I think of it, the more I like it. (It's certainly better, in data management terms, to the absolute NPOV idea of copying the same entry to each spelling variant, a recipe for growing inconsistency as articles get updated.) The basic distinction is between acceptable variants to be redirected, and misspellings to be linked. I am thinking of changing some entries I made recently to follow it. But, since it is only a draft policy, will someone then object to my breaking the previous rules? Enginear 04:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That page was recently created (with the best of intentions, I'm sure) with a spectacular disregard for existing practices and previous discussions the the topic. I've just tagged it with RFD, as such. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition given in the entry is different from the one on urban dictionary, so I suspect the contributor created this term (as well as nermit above). Move to WT:LOP? Rodasmith 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologism. Move to WT:LOP? Rodasmith 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The poster even admits that this protologism is his own creation. —Stephen 07:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Noun, 1st sense. 1st Frith? Frith doesn't seem to help. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Russian and I'm very sorry, but there is NO such word in Russian :). It's a great mistification.

Try to search it (разблюто), f.e. in Yandex (russian search portal). All links will bring you to humourous posts in blogs or in forums. We (Russians, I mean) can't even understand, what this word means. :))

--Jaroslavleff 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true this is a hoax word. I found it on languagehat.com some time ago where it was found in a book or list of the most untranslatable words from various languages. I may have even requested it at that time just for fun to see what would happen. So the question is, like dord, should we keep it and mark it as a hoax? By the way, Google will find quite a few romanized hits too. — Hippietrail 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Other than in sewing, one would never, ever use this as a verb. In fact, one would get laughed at if one did. Please, can we either remove these senses or mark them as (obsolete)? Celestianpower 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaic maybe, but certainly not obsolete. Even if how I speak is (as you say) obsolete, wouldn't someone want to find the older definition for a word in a dictionary? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Does he mean symbiont ? SemperBlotto 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. Might qualify as a "Common" misspelling even. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No google book search results -- Tawker 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What a brilliant neologism. It is sooo London wine bar. I've never heard it (I move in the wrong circles) but if it isn't already in circulation, it will be next month. To LoP, please, for a year or three, prior to joining the elite of yuppie, dinky (dual income, no kids yet -- sense not yet added, I see, but been around a few years now), etc. Enginear 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See etymology on Talk:w00t The etymology listed here seems very folksy and doesn't seem to be verifiable, aside from the AdAge buisiness. The whole "Ninja" part and the first known usage need some sources if they want to live on the main page. - TheDaveRoss 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Second sense, especially as it ends in a smiley. The word definitely exists, but I'm not sure of its actual meaning, so the first sense should probably be checked too. — Paul G 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the first one who added this word. I assure you that this word does exist in modern American colloquial speech. Oft used in the Northwest, as far as I know. The second definition is more rarely, and arguably less accurately used but does find it's way into conversation. I've removed the smiley face link that someone left.--IndieNate 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, could you add some citations to back these usages up, please? — Paul G 10:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are Saanich words really in uppercase? SemperBlotto 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, according to the Wikipedia article on that language: w:Saanich (linguistics) (quote: "It uses only uppercase letters, with one exception: the letter s, which marks the third person possessive suffix.") Kipmaster 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow – cool! Widsith 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a load of rubbish. The Wikipedia article referred to gives it as the name of a band, with no adjective meaning. The respelling looks like it comes from an online dictionary. The pronunciation is ad hoc. The meanings are suspect. The translations are complete nonsense, all being in Latin script despite being for languages that do not use the Latin alphabet. There are also two supposed related terms, "funkadelicacy" and "funkadelicate". — Paul G 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have simplified the definition, and added a quotation from Google book search. The Uppercase version was a band, and the name of one of their albums. I have no knowledge of the translations or related terms. SemperBlotto 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the band name. The translations are unquestionably wrong, and I have deleted them. The related terms are suspect and so I have commented them out. I'll make a new section (below) for the one that has already been defined.

Some very peculiar-sounding names have been entered for some extremely large numbers. Given that these have been listed along with their equivalents in scientific notation, I take it whoever entered them knows what he or she is doing, but we could really do with some citations for these. I'm not convinced that the list of lists is sufficient as many words in "lists of strange words" rarely appear outside of these lists. — Paul G 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have no doubt of them. Mathematicians get quite silly when it comes to naming unfathomably large numbers. bd2412 T 07:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please supply just ONE print reference for a work in which just ONE of these words has been used in natural language (not just in a definition) - that would be a start. SemperBlotto 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to say it, but when would one be used in anything but a definition? These are numbers that represent amounts greater than the number of countable things in the universe. bd2412 T 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it sounds like they don't meet Wiktionary's criteria. Amusing: perhaps. Should they be listed on a page in the Appendix: or simply on LOP? --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, by their very nature these large numbers are NEVER going to be used for real. However, the Mathworld article on Large Numbers (which says most of these are contrived) lists them, and says they may have some sort of use. It also gives the reason for their being two systems (UK and US) which is marginally interesting. But I'm still not really happy with them. SemperBlotto 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that many of these large numbers that people claim cannot be used for real actually can be used for real. For example, if there are over a billion universes in the multiverse, and each contain over 200 sextillion stars, then the number of stars in each universe altogether may equal one of these very large numbers. It's just that numbers this large are generally not needed and that's why no one has ever used them outside of definitions. Fark 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A sextillion is 10 ²¹; 200 sextillion is 2 x 10²³. Multiply that by that billion universes (10⁹) and you're up to 2 x 10³². Assuming that each star is composed of one octillion subatomic particles (10²⁷) power, the total number of subatomic particles in all the stars in the billion universes would be 2 x 10⁵⁹. Just for fun lets say there are 5 trillion multiverses, that would bring us up to 10⁷², or one trevigintillion particles. In layman's terms, that's 1 followed by a 72 zeroes, or:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

We're still quite a few trillion powers of ten short of reaching the numbers that are controversial here - ones that are themselves followed by billions or trillions or trevigintillions of zeroes, e.g.:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,...

...

...,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

There is no counting of anything that will reach this number, and as a practical matter it can only be used to define an even larger number - but the number has a name, and so is a thing that belongs in a dictionary. bd2412 T 21:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For Wiktionary, the criteria are if it is used, it belongs here, rather than what you said. That's anyway my understanding of it :-) — Vildricianus 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but someone is using them, otherwise we would be speaking entirely in the abstract and not about a "gongulus" or a "great big boowa" or a "guapamongaplex". bd2412 T 22:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on... we're missing the point here. The assumption that a number has to be useful for it to have a name is false. The appropriate criterion is whether they exist conceptually. Dragons exist only as a concept, but we still have an entry for dragon. Mathematicians have abstract uses for such large numbers even if they have no concrete reality. The number of atoms in the universe is of the order of 10⁸⁰ but that's no reason to delete googol, which is 20 orders of magnitude larger, because "googol" is actually in use.

So, rather than philosophise about whether these terms are possible in reality, we must find actual uses in print, just as we do with any other terms. If there is a mathematical paper in a mathematical journal that uses "great big boowa", then it stays. Does anyone have access to any searchable online mathematical journals? — Paul G 09:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the RFV tag and added some references. Town Door 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suspect; misformed from "funkadelic" and "delicacy". There are Google hits; some refer back to Wiktionary.

Could well be OK, but needs to be formatted (compare funkadelic). — Paul G 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hoist with his (one's) own petard" is not an example of the verb "to hoist" - in that example, it is a past participle, I believe - was there once a verb "to hoise"? — Paul G 16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's always looked like a participle (adjective) to me. --EncycloPetey 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, in that (Shakespearean) sense, it's the past participle of hoise. Widsith 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Medical term, anyone heard of it? -- Tawker 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims to be internet slang -- Tawker 06:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another faulty entry created by User:Drago. I can find no evidence that Latin rigare has the meanings he's given on this page. --EncycloPetey 06:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

corrected by SB. (sorry, was dragged away before I could update this page) SemperBlotto

Thanks, but see also the several artcles marked for Cleanup. I'd be doing them myself, but I can't keep up with Drago's new-word-per-minute pacing. --EncycloPetey 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was think of asking help on the Latin Wiktionary's version of the Community portal (probably a forum). There must be people out there who have both the time and the knowledge to add Latin words. My own knowledge is sketchy, and my Latin entries are relatively poor (but better than bad). SemperBlotto 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a new entry, with only verb definitions. It also need wikification. --EncycloPetey 09:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As a non English native, I'm trying to avoid creating English defs, so maybe someone else could use w:Bird_dog to complete the page :-). Kipmaster 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just rewritten the whole entry with the proper noun sense. We may as well have it. Widsith 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you add some examples? I don't know if "a tout" is meant as, "He gave his coworker so many bird dogs that the guy went postal" or "Ha ha, you're a bird dog." Davilla 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the English entry be here or at Trentino-South Tyrol? — Paul G 10:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have both as English entries, with a short explanation of the reasons. We should also have Trentino-Alto Adige as an Italian entry, and Trentino-Südtirol as a German entry. We might also have an entry for the historical Venezia Tridentina. SemperBlotto 10:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (whose Italian teacher came from Trento)

The Canadian sense is fine, but how is this spelled? dictionary.com has "loonie" only. Are "loonie" and "loony" interchangeable? Does this apply to "t(w)oonie/y" and "doubloonie/y" as well? — Paul G 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: And are these really slang or just informal?

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's wonderfully onomatopoetic, but.......no. Widsith 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are variants on it, "Bow chicka chicka bow" brings up some but I doubt if it's in any dictionary. Peptonized 05:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

blah#Verb says, "used to replace an explicit verb such as screw or fuck, usually directed at a subject". Is "blah" attestable as a self-applied variant of "bleep"? Rodasmith 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, blah is not a verb. —Stephen 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

oni#Japanese lists oni (おに) as a noun meaning "ogre" or "demon". I added the kanji reading section, but although おに (oni) is a reading of 鬼 in compounds with that meaning, I don't think it's a noun of its own right. Rodasmith 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Claimed in a comment to be possibly army slang and Australian or English. Can we have some citations, please? — Paul G 09:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This term is common in Australia, in the sense descibed, but not sure if it belongs in a dictionary. --Dmol 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Defined as if the is the correct past tense, which it is not. If this is the southern US dialect past tense as in "The grass is riz/I wonder where the birdie is" then:

• check and correct spelling
• mark as southern US dialect, or colloquial or whatever
• remove translations (these are for the infinitive and should not be given for finite verb forms)

"ecological effects of altering the environment" - any takers? SemperBlotto 07:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To smoke the peace-pipe. Any takers? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Google books turns up:

• He say tree, "Be good Indian." He say Indian, "Be good tree." We swear by Great Spirit. We smokum pipe. Johnny Appleseed And Paul Bunyan: A Play of American Folklore in Three Acts with Prologue by Henry Bailey Stevens
• "Givum dinner ; smokum pipe," was all that we could get out of Quatchett. King Noanett: A Story of Old Virginia and the Massachusetts Bay by F J Stimsom
• Historyland... sought to present a historical image of Native Americans ... different from the "Ugh! We-smokum peace-pipe” images once presented at Knott's Berry Farms. Time, Space and the Market: Retroscapes Rising, Stephen Brown, John F Sherry, eds.

In sum, it's not really an "Indian" word, but rather one stereotypically and derogatorily attributed to Indians. Keep, so defined. bd2412 T 07:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The suffix -um is used to mark transitive verbs in the trade pidgins used between English-speakers and American Indians. It is used derogatorily in English and is incorrectly added to any verb, transitive or not. However, smokum is more common than most such verbs. —Stephen 11:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed the article to so reflect. bd2412 T 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Content needs cleanup and currently is "Chavving is a word used to describe something that a "Chav" does or has a tendency to do." --EncycloPetey 09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

...if indeed it exists. Is this meant as a (verbal?) noun (as in "The kids on the council estate are known for their chavving") or a verb (as in "I really don't like the way you keep chavving all the time.")? If the latter, move content to chav. — Paul G 09:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? (And the other contributions by User:America's Sweetheart) —Stephen 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:America's Sweetheart blocked for one day for repeated vandalism. —Stephen 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to something more likely that's still consistent with general sense, but different from the probably malicious intent of the original. Of course, addiitonal sense can be added as verified. Definition probably should be deleted.--Halliburton Shill 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added two quotes and a reference from a printed slang dictionary. I will check another slang dictionary tomorrow.--Squealer 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Primetime's latest contrib; will permablock Halliburton and Squealer once checkuser verifies he too is a PT sockpuppet. Reminder: Cassell's Dictionary of Slang was previously dismissed as as a humorous reference only (after discussion.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Connel, thanks. Is there a central repository of the dismissed books, etc. that we can reference? A link I can watch or add to my user page.--Halliburton Shill 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Connel just lied! There was never such a discussion. Halliburton, just ignore everything MacKenzie says. He lied last night on IRC when he said there were no quotes for "nigger" in the OED, too. He's lied many, many, many other times as well. BTW, do you even have checkuser privaleges, Connel? Last time I checked you weren't even nominated and the discussion was still ongoing. 84.16.234.153 21:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Lied? I think not. The person doing the checkuser is never the same as the person requesting the check. If no "checkusers" who know me are around on IRC, I have to make a formal request on Meta:. Until Wiktionary has their own checkusers, I'll still have to go to meta: each time. The discussion on WT:BP was specifically about "Cassell's." I did not lie about the OED - I said my library's on-line version did not provide cites. You, on the other hand, were caught lying with pretty much everything you've said. Still. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Regardless of the checkuser thing, the OED online has more quotes than the pirated CD version I have. Shrill, here's another example of a lie by MacKenzie: . He said that all of the entries I was copying were from Bartelby (a publicly-available site). He then refused to provide a link even though it's accessable to everyone. Speaking of links, MacKenzie, can you provide a link to the discussion where we talked about Cassell's? Also, I was wondering how old you are? Just curious.--168.95.165.186 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In the course of two weeks the def has changed from a gay man sucking cock to a woman gargeling with cum. There is no verification. The def is puerile. The entry is not thorough. Just delete the fucking thing.Andrew massyn 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC).

It seems they meant hammered? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Hamstered would make a nice metaphor for getting lost in the middle of a big city, but I'm not aware of it being used as such.--Halliburton Shill 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it and deleted the Wikisaurus entry.--Halliburton Shill 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A Shona word meaning happiness or joy - any takers? Capitalised? SemperBlotto 07:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Widsith 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to User:America's Sweetheart, angel means:

1. a gay male who practices anal sex especially with a boy as the passive partner--a pederast
2. a passive male receiver in anal sex

Other than the fact that many people are called angels by someone (firemen, policemen, nurses, doctors, soldiers, waitresses, husbands and wives, etc.), is it actually a term used as described above? —Stephen 09:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand this is a variant of ingle, engle, words with the same etymology ("angel") and meaning (Webster 1913 gives them as "favorite" (presumably = ἐρώμενος), "paramour": ingle, engle). I found a discussion of 'angel' in A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and their Significance but I'm not really up for hunting cites atm. —Muke Tever 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rolled back nonsense again - vandalism removed. (A bible quote with the opposite meaning, for example.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Content is: "A jeesh is a word thought up by

• Added to list of protologisms and deleted. SemperBlotto 15:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's actually in the book, this word appears to have usage in a well-known work and thus to pass the CFI Kappa 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also used instead of "jesus" like "gosh" is for saying "god". Amazon's keyword search finds it in about 133 books, including Ender's Game. I say, keep the entry and expand it as primarily an interjection.--Halliburton Shill 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I put in the etymology for drat. The sources I found for this etymology are

• Concise Oxford 7th ed. and
• Brewers Dictionary of Phrase & Fable 17th ed.

However, I cannot find any written form of Od 'od or anything similar which would support their etymologies. Is this not a classic case of why we need written verification? If no-one can support the construction of od I would be happy to remove the etymology. Regards Andrew massyn 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's dead right. I've put the relevant forms of od and rat in. od or 'od is reasonably common in Shakespeare, I will try and dig up some cites. Widsith 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's going to be hard to search for electronically. If you like, I can look it up in my Concordance to Shakespeare (hardcopy) when I get the chance. --EncycloPetey 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Electronically means nothing to me! I just sit here surrounded by books. Remember them... Widsith 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember? How can I forget when books take up the majority of space at home. I've got a whole bookcase devoted to language dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks chaps. Andrew massyn 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly a male given name from a Hindi word for the satr Canopus. The second definition is dubious. Anyone? --EncycloPetey 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

          My friend made this entry. For proof of the meaning see http://sohailsiddiqui.rediffblogs.com/. to see that the name is in       
          common use just google it. I know The second definition is a joke and i have removed it.

Definition 6 "(pejorative - slang) boring, unappealing, bad, of low quality, annoying, unfair" was listed as "Verfication requested" by someone, but not listed here. They apparantly dispute it existence, so I'm listing it here. I'd be surprised if someone had not heard this usage of the word and am definitely surprised that they listed it, because that usage is actually quite common. Fark 16:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It’s correct. —Stephen 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's incorrect. So where does that leave us? A couple unsupported POVs. Actually, the sense you probably have in mind is #4 or #5, another pejorative for saying something is non-masculine, unmanly. This is a request for verifiable sources. Citations and quotes from reliable sources.--Halliburton Shill 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's correct, analogous to calling something "retarted" as an insult. My dorky little brother says it all the time. utexas.facebook.com has a group "Only Dumbasses use the word Gay as an Insult". Online you can find stuff like "TAKE ALL POKEMON CRAP OFF THE AIR PLEASE SIGN THIS IF YOU ARE SICK OF GAY RETARDED CREATURES THAT FREAKIN BLOW BUBBLES AND SHOOT FIRE" Reliable sources are another matter. Davilla 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is conversational and it’s unlikely you’ll find it in print, I should think. Using gay as a predicate adjective is extremely common in the U.S. in the meaning of retarded, lame, ], idiotic, boring. If you want to hear it used this way, just watch w:South Park ... several times an episode one of the boys proclaims that something or other is gay, meaning lame. —Stephen 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not questioning whether gay gets used as an insult. It does. You're preaching to the gay choir. Stop it or we'll sing! I watch South Park all the time and the closest way I see it used to this sense is as politically correct, soft, or sissy. Most of the time, it gets used as the adjective for fag. Again, all grounded in non-masculine or weak. Regarding the above Pokemon example, why would you use a word that supposedly means retarded, stupid, and idiotic next to the word retarded? Seems, hmmm, retarded. I suppose you could argue that it might be used in the boring sense there, but it would make more sense to replace gay there with “faggy” or “girly” or “wussy”.--Halliburton Shill 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear it used in the UK all the time, yes it wont be found in many dictionaries as it is a touchy subject, but the thing about wiktionary is that it keep up with word usage far quicker than any printed dictionary. "Gay" in this sence is quite new, but it is correct.

I'm 49 years old, and American. I first heard the term gay used in a purely pejorative (non-sexual) sense when talking with a 21 year old employee of mine two years ago. When I asked him why he was calling a bad driver who had just cut in front of us gay, he asked me, "and I suppose you think he's a good driver?" I've since heard other younger folks use the term in exactly the same sense. My impression is that it's a word recently coined by younger folks, whether the gay community approves or not. As noted above, the purpopse of Wiktionary is to accurately report word usage and not to be politically correct. Personally I think the term is a bit childish sounding, but it deserves to be accurately reported here. -Scottperry 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I tutor math (in Texas, college level) and have heard more than one student call tricky or annoying problems "gay". - dcljr 17:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its crap.Andrew massyn 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironically? Anyway, if it's real, it's definitely unique to UK. I don't see any reliable sources given. A discussion board, a blog, and the Urban dictionay, all of which can be edited by anyone, just like this. In fact, the 2nd source even uses it in such a way that it is something different than a gay man. More like a man with a shit fetish, which, from my reading of w:Savage Love, is actually more common among heterosexuals.--Halliburton Shill 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not how things are done here. The quotes illustrate usage, as that is what means a word has made it into English. The word is found in The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, but I didn't cite that as some editors here prefer quotes instead. I agree that dictionaries are more-reliable sources, but quotations are perfectly-acceptable on Wiktionary.--Squealer 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Probert has an entry for shit stabber and shit shover as British slang for a gay male.--Halliburton Shill 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, shit on a raft. —Stephen 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the creator is the same as User:America's Sweetheart. — Vildricianus 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The only remotely reliable source I found was this , and it has nothing to do with sodomy. A 2002 comic book type story, possibly self-published.--Halliburton Shill 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Is sense 1 dubious? Could someone fix it. Thanks Andrew massyn 04:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

We could say that it's the "traditionally accepted landing site" to hedge our bets. --EncycloPetey 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the rfv tag.Andrew massyn 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

surely not? Andrew massyn

It's a brand of duct tape. I.e., duct tape. I'd recommend deleting the article as an attempt to advertise a product. A re-analysis of spam, if you will.--Halliburton Shill 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, delete the second sense, mentioning the brand in some note if necessary, but keep the article as a generic if ignorant equivalent of duct tape. Davilla 19:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Davilla, delete the 2nd sense. The term is used as is, even if it is incorrect. --Dmol 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read (although I don't remembere where) that there is some disagreement over which came first, "duck tape" or "duct tape". "Duck tape" might have come about by mishearing "duct tape" and losing the t from the first word. "Duct tape" could be derived from the brand name "duck tape". More research is needed... — Paul G 09:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. There's actually no difference in pronunciation! One of them "reads more professional" though. Davilla 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you confusing the pronunciaton of the past tense of the verb duck with duct? Duck and duct sound similar, but the "t" or "ed" sound is distinct.--Halliburton Shill 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Q] From Jonas Wetherell: “Is that universal sticky tape stuff that everyone has in their garage toolkit called duct tape or duck tape? I've seen and heard it both ways.”

It’s possible to make a case that either is right. The story behind the stuff is confusing enough to require some sorting out. Bear with me while I trace the evidence and the contrary opinions, though I must warn you that I come only to a tentative conclusion. The first example of duct tape I've found is from an advertisement in a newspaper in Wisconsin in September 1965. There are lots of earlier examples of duck tape in the same archive that date back to the early 1940s (and the Oxford English Dictionary has found one from 1902), which might suggest that it’s the older form. But that’s misleading. This duck tape isn’t the triple-layer, tearable, silver, sticky-backed stuff but plain cotton tape. The material has been called duck for four centuries, though it was originally made from linen, not cotton. It was a lighter and finer material than canvas, often used for seamen’s trousers and sometimes for sails on small craft. Duck tape was widely used at one time for the vertical binding tapes of venetian blinds. There’s nothing in any records of usage in historic databases or in the entries for both terms in the Oxford English Dictionary that suggests what the original name of the adhesive-backed material might have been. From here on I can do no more than relay and comment on accounts that have appeared on various Web pages and in a column by William Safire in the New York Times in March 2003. All tell the same story (so much so that they arouse unworthy suspicions). The tale is plausible, though I can’t prove it and there are some worrying loose ends. The original material was developed, it is said, by the Permacel division of Johnson & Johnson in 1942 for the US Army as a waterproof sealing tape for ammunition boxes. The tape proved immensely versatile and was used for all sorts of repair purposes on military equipment. These facts come from Johnson & Johnson’s historians, so ought to be accurate. But the story goes on to say that because the fabric backing was made from cotton duck and perhaps because it repelled moisture “like water off a duck’s back”, it became known to soldiers as duck tape. However, there’s no known use of duck tape in any document of the Second World War that anyone investigating the matter has looked at. A column by Jan Freeman in the Boston Globe in March 2003, partly in response to Safire’s, implies that the story about the name duck tape might have been a folk etymology passed on in good faith by employees of Johnson & Johnson. Otherwise, we have no information about what Permacel, or the US Army, called the material. Some time after the War, it is said, engineers begin to use the tape to seal the joints in air-conditioning ducts. This tape was manufactured in the same way, though to match the ducting it was coloured silver rather than the green of the Army version. Because of this use, it became known informally as duct tape. Duck tape is a trademark of Henkel Consumer Adhesives, dating from 1982, who sell it under that name in several countries. John Kahl, the CEO of the firm, was reported by Jan Freeman in the same article as saying that his father chose the name after noticing that duct tape sounded like duck tape when customers asked for it. (The collision of the two ts in the middle of duct tape causes the first one to be lost by a process called elision.) The term duct tape has never been trademarked, though several compound terms that include it have—it looks as though it had become generic before anybody thought of registering it. Apart from a one-off instance in the Oxford English Dictionary of duck tape from 1971 (which looks like a case of the duct—duck elision), I can’t find duck tape in the adhesive sense until the 1980s. My view is that the original name was duct tape, given informally to it by heating engineers post-war, and that the duck tape version is elision in rapid speech, later capitalised on by a manufacturer. But, as things stand, nobody knows for sure. As etymological asides, the tape has also been called ninety-mile-an-hour tape or hundred-mile-an-hour tape (because, it is said, you could drive a vehicle repaired with the stuff at those sorts of speeds without problems). A closely similar material used on television and film sets is called gaffer tape. This gets its name from the chief electrician, the gaffer, because one of its main uses is to hold cables in place, though it has many others. (In general, a gaffer is the boss of a crew, a foreman or similar person, a name which derives from an English term of respect for an old man that's most likely a contraction of godfather.) The term gaffer tape is of similar age to duct tape, being first recorded in the 1970s. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-duc4.htm - 10k

Etymology on line defines duck tape as strong untwilled linen, later cotton fabric, from Dutch doeck (linen or cloth.). So I guess we keep it. I will try to summarise all this on the talk page of the article. Andrew massyn 20:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember a fucking thing. (moved from fuck) Davilla 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, I say. Also check out w:CRAFT Club. Widsith 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling or just wrong? —Vildricianus 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it qualifies as a misspelling. —Stephen 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

of frequent occurence. Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Even in 1913 it was considered obsolete. None of the uses included "of frequent occurence". The closest would be "additional", and that seems more like Shakespeare taking artistic liberty with the pronunciation of "more" than it does actual use. How about a redirect to more?--Halliburton Shill 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)