Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/February 2006

Klingon, but there is a claim that this word has been adopted into English. Eclecticology 07:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? Needs formatting anyway. SemperBlotto 09:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete obvious Davilla 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to mean an alcoholic beverage - any takers? SemperBlotto 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

a alcoholic beverage like regular lemonade except with liquor. --StrugglingMinor 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean an alcopop SemperBlotto 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Heard of hard lemonade. Never heard of "alcopop". Davilla 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. I've heard of a couple different "so-and-so's Hard Lemonade," but never "alcopop." --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Frequently used in the NE US to refer to alcoholic lemonade (specifically Mike's Hard Lemonade). Also never heard of alcopop. ^theDaveRoss

• alcopop is British. I've never heard of hard lemonade. It just goes to show. SemperBlotto 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, that's cool. Sorry I had a chuckle on "alcopop". If it sounds funny to my ears, it's mainly because soda isn't called "pop" where I'm from. But research material like this is why I can surf on the clock, or maybe more how I justify it to myself. See, I could teach it to my elementary students, in theory anyways. Davilla

But alcopop isn't listed here on Wiktionary as cheifly British. I think it should be (along with shandy.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Overe here in America there's a drink called "Mike's Hard Lemonade", but I don't know if that'll help anything here or not. SnoopY 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard of this specifically as "Mike's Hard Lemonade" -- a branded drink. I'd lean more toward it being a branded play on hard cider. The same company also does "Hard Lime", "Hard Iced Tea", and "Hard Cranberry something-or-the-other". It's possible all are registered trademarks; I've never heard it used to describe anything but the specific drink packaged under this name. Cruinne 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Its use as a diminutive. How far do we go with diminutives? Aspen is not a particularly common name to start with, and some diminutives are a little too obvious. Eclecticology 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's odd to give one def. for a word and exclude others. On the other hand, people should already know that just about anything could be a name: OJ, Pap, Peace... actually, anything at all. You're right, this one just isn't common enough. Davilla 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Only citations I see are Internet slang dictionary, wiktionary and Urbandictionary. Not the best company to be sure. ^theDaveRoss

Google only shows wiki mirrors and free dictionary entries. I thought this was misspelled, but paleoxylology (without the second 'a') yields no results at all. There's no proof this exists. - 131.211.210.10 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no entry for it (or similar) in the full OED. SemperBlotto 11:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawing. See . Related term used on scientific papers. - 131.211.210.10 12:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

suck up or know it all!

• Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not a support of this one, but it does appear in A series of Unfortunate Events by Lemaony Snickett. It is an insult used first in the volume entitled The Austere Academy, and is probably unique to that series of books. --EncycloPetey 07:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be a general purpose word for anything. Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s probably a phrase that is used only in the poster’s tight circle of family and friends. Most people have their favorite equivalent drawn from recognized wordstock: doohicky, doodlemaflotchy, dealy, bzz-bzz, thingamabob, whatsit, gadget, doodad, thingy, and so on ... I have never heard diddlin' thing (or diddling thing) before, and it doesn’t sound natural to my ear, but I would understand it. Delete. —Stephen 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A homerun by the Boston Redsox? Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sox fan for life, lived in Boston, never heard this word. delete TheDaveRoss

• Deleted (Just had broadband installed - these big lists are now usable!) SemperBlotto 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea - se non è vero, è ben trovato :) (Is the definition around the right way? The etymology suggests it might not be.) Hard to find quotations in Google Print, though - "huxleyed" and "huxleying" don't help, and "huxleys" tends to give the plural of the surname. — Paul G 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"to waste the working day posting on the internet" — Vildricianus 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be tosh - but moved to list of protologisms just in case. SemperBlotto 11:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Words added by the User:130.111.98.241.

• 根本數字 says it means radical number but the Chinese word will be 根数/根數.
• 登上珠穆瑯瑪 looks like go up Chomolungma or something, and can never be Mount Everest. The proper translation will be 珠穆朗玛峰/珠穆朗瑪峰

--Tohru 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Practically all of his/her additions have to be checked. — Vildricianus 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a problem of translation? Are these idiomatic in Hong Kong but not in Taiwan, or vice versa? Davilla 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean those headwords seem to be just invalid, maybe coming from poor English-Chinese machine translation. In the case of the second headword, I guess "Mount" of Mount Everest was interpreted as a verb. The first one would be translated not idiomatically but literally. --Tohru 03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Third sense, has a comment asking if this meaning applies to pie instead? Anyone familiar with the typesetting meaning? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was a foreign-language typographer in the old days and it is the correct meaning. A synonym (actually, just an alternative spelling) was pie. —Stephen 09:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No definition given, possible an alternate spelling. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

deleted (1 month up). - TheDaveRoss 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed redirect, but print.google doesn't indicate that tagging this as an alternate spelling is correct. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

deleted (1 month up). - TheDaveRoss 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a promotional entry. Also, capitalization is inconsistent; should it be a proper noun? --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely self-promotional. The wikipedia page (now AfD'd) was likewise completely written by the same person. It does seem like he's got a bit of a following. A few personal sites show the pose, some linked to the phoon.com site. But apart from these enthusiasts, the closest anything comes to attestation, in my opinion, is a photo titled "too tired to phoon". You'd think if it had gained acceptance, descriptions of some logo or character such as Cactrot would use the word. Instead, the few open discussions of "phoon" tend towards a "who cares?" attitude. From google hits, I'd have to say it's several times more common as a surname anyways. Davilla 11:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Capitalisation correct? Definite article needed? SemperBlotto 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

El departamento de Automóviles is bad on every front ... the article, the capitalization, and the meaning. It’s a bad translation. I would say Departamento de Vehículos Motorizados. —Stephen 12:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Definite article? SemperBlotto 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry should not have the article, and it’s a bad translation. I usually see arma de destrucción masiva or arma de destrucción en masa. —Stephen 12:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

These are listed on the protologism page, but most should at least be considered neologisms in my opinion, and are mentioned because they might have enough merit to be considered for actual entries:

bongwater

buttsack

dry-fuck

facturd

friend girl

fuck nut

homogenism

insy though I doubt claim of first use

manwhore

necroposting -- has probably been argued before

I frequently hear people speak about necroing a thread (posting in a long dead thread and therefore returning it to the top of a forum) perhaps this is a form of that. TheDaveRoss 18:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search for "necroing jargon" to find out what this is. This term probably needs to be on a safe site it identify it's meaning. This may become more relevant as comment spammers do this more & more. 4:40 23 May 2006

pity party

s/he

slut up

webcest—has already been argued

youngin—maybe young'un?

zombie language

Not all of the definitions are quite right, as with any of our regular entries, but completely new meanings, e.g. for golden girl or smooshy, were ignored.

I will back the inclusion of the following from the above list for reasons of seeing/hearing them regularly: bongwater, dry-hump (don't know about the other), pity party, s/he (my foreign language teachers like s/h/it :)), webcast, young'un. The others I have never seen nor heard of. - TheDaveRoss 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (sorry for the conflict)

I know the following have been in fairly wide use for some time, at least in certain populations: dry-fuck (to copulate without the aid of lubricants, especially anally ... used as a threat and form of punishment in prisons, gangs, etc.), young'un (young one), pity party, dry-hump, friend girl (a friend who also happens to be a girl, but not a sweetheart or girlfriend ... TV’s Judge Joe Brown uses it often), manwhore, and s/he. —Stephen 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

These all smell like bogus entries to me. The fact that they've each had discussions and opportunities to have their entries salvaged in the past is a good reason not to encourage them. The process for "salvaging" any of them is to reenter the terms with three solid print citations.

s/he, S/he, (s)he, (S)he, he/she now all need to be deleted and remaining contribs of User:59.112.39.205 need to be reverted. I'm with Hippietrail (or at least the concept he touts often) on this one: no respectable dictionary would have these entries. Why would we want to become another UrbanDictionary? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be User:59.112.39.205 and I demand to know (1) why the mentioned need to be deleted given that s/he is listed in the apparently not respectable AHD, and (2) why my additional contributions need to be reverted. Davilla 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked dictionary.com, m-w.com and I think some others; they do not have an entry for this. Again, these have had rfd discussions in the distant past (a year ago?) and without running text citations, shouldn't be resubmitted. The "bad" punctuation alone is a good reason to delete these entries without discussion, AFAIK.

Regarding reviewing contributions, the edits made from that IP all looked of the same vein; silly addition of these terms (while the prospect of re-adding them is merely being discussed) and odd Wikipedia links inline (instead of in the ===Further reading===

section.) In short, what appeared to be a series of silly edits. I'm sorry if you were offended. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, I should show more trust before overracting. Anyways I entered s/he at dictionary.com and scrolled down the page to an entry for s/he: "Used as a gender-neutral alternative to he or she." Davilla 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but these still all need citations, as they have previously failed to meet CFI. Oddly, in school I was taught "he/she" was the "best" way to represent a singlular unknown gender, yet that one was the only variation skipped. One might think these entries were only to try to prove a point, rather than serious contributions. What remains now is in serious need of cleanup. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So much of this list needs to be looked over, especially in the "# 2.5 Idioms based on partnerships" section, but really all of it needs consideration. Many items on this list I would guess are one-off metaphors and wouldn't be understood without the obligitory "wink and nod" (that is probably on the list as a synonym for breasts...). TheDaveRoss 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Verification process is totally inapproriate to WikiSaurus. I've reverted the list back to it's original. It does, however, need a cleanup to do some decent grouping of the words.--Richardb 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The list looks like the product of a teenage delinquent with too much time on his hands. A large proportion of the items are apparently from the contributor's own imagination. I agree that the existing verification process is not best suited to WikiSaurus because much of what goes on such a page is a sort of to-do list; verifying data should go on each and every article page that is challenged. In reasonable circumstances one would challenge a small number of specified entries, but here the list is so far over the top that a blanket challenge is in order. If the contributor is sincere about his proposal he can copy the list to his own computer before it's purged, and add things back as and when he is ready to provide verification. Eclecticology 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the Verification process is totally inappropriate to WikiSaurus. And perhaps you should rethink your phrasing - If the contributor is sincere about his proposal, since there are many, many contributors. And I think WikiSaurus has moved past being a proposal. It is a growing work in progress. We've already had the arguments about why WikiSaurus is there, and how it usefully gives people a place to put words which are in use, but which don't yet justify a full entry.
Please stop being so prescriptive! This WikiSaurus is not a suitable subject for rfd. Stop constantly retrying to impose your prescriptive, restrictive idea. You make great contributions elsewhere (and some whacky ones too!), so please leave alone something you obviously don't properly understand, until you have a better proposal. Please EC, back off!--Richardb 12:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Promotional. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:zhaaganaashiimowin CJLippert 05:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone should check on all of the recent foreign-language entries by Special:Contributions/130.111.98.241. Apparently he is using a translation program such as bablefish to do them, and I’ve had to delete virtually all of his Russian contributions, as well as many in Chinese, Czech, Dutch and other languages. We could check them all, or we could save some time and effort and just delete them all. —Stephen 11:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• This chap is a known pain in the ass under several IP addresses. The problem is that some of his contributions are reasonable (none of them are great) and I don't really like to just do a mass delete. SemperBlotto 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, he's causing us more trouble and RFDs than anything else. I'd love to see him blocked. — Vildricianus 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'am a human being.

Nonetheless, a clueless one. Blocked and admonished, again. Please help me with the cleanup and correction. We have a speedy deletion template now called {{delete}}. {{delete|reason}} will make it plain why a page needs to go. --Dvortygirl 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

he or she is a human being and i think dvorty you and blotto have been to hard on him/her! 130.111.98.71 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Requests for verification archive (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

The year 2006. Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sense 4: "Written Presidential certificate recognizing service by personnel who died or were wounded in action between 1917 and 1918" and so forth. Is this a special meaning or just 'pedia-content? — Vildricianus 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this special meaning seems to be US Army-specific. http://www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil/dictionary/a.htm#accolade. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven’t read French newspapers for some time, so I’m not up on recent terminology. Is guerre opposant l'Irak aux États-Unis ('war between Iraq and the U.S.') actually how they refer to the most recent Gulf war? It doesn’t look like any sort of set phrase to me, and there are few hits on Google. —Stephen 10:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then surely should be deleted as its just the sum of its parts. Deleted --Dangherous 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Romanian name" — Vildricianus 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

adv. 3 about sports. Exemplification would help establish correctness.Davilla 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that is limited to cricket. Certainly American baseball, football jump to mind as well. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Something must not have be clicking. By the definition it appeared to act more like an adjective. Davilla 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"being unable to be calm"; few google print hits. — Vildricianus 21:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

i think it is a real term ? 216.220.231.226 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Utter tosh. Deleted. SemperBlotto 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Checking Special:Shortpages, I found this entry blanked. I restored it, but it was blanked by the original contributor. Is this Dutch word right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This one is using a weird letter. It should be dijk (notice the difference, I didn't at first). — Vildricianus 09:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I had no idea what the correct spelling would be. It didn't even occur to me to replace the phony graphics characters with real letters...especially since I hadn't noticed them until you pointed them out here. d%C4%B3k != dijk. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

dijk = dijk in the same way that archæology = archaeology. It's just a ligature, presumably meant to encode behaviour like proper spacing of gesperrt, proper title-casing (as IJ ), and the unitary if archaic glyph variants "y" and "ÿ," although lately it's recommended that all of this be done by text processors automatically, ij seeming to be a compatibility character deprecated by unicode (though web google hits show some use of ligated "dijk", mostly in surnames). I'd redirect. —Muke Tever 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Those surnames are all spelt with "y" instead of "ij", which is normal. "Y" is the old-fashioned way to spell I + J, "ij" is not. I've also posted in the TR about this. — Vildricianus 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'd say a redirect (see TR). — Vildricianus 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought I understood what you were saying, but I guess not. I'll restore the deleted entry now, and let you sort out what should redirect where, OK? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another blanked Dutch term. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK (misspelling) — Vildricianus 08:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In English, the letters x/X and o/O are used this way. The Japanese character set might be used by Japanese, but probably not when speaking English. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where would it belong then, under Japanese? I have no problem leaving it as a symbol since it's too much trouble to distinguish between symbols used in English versus other languages. Along the same lines, it doesn't make sense to apply different rules. Where would you classify xoxox? Davilla 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, under Japanese, if so used. BTW, I might expect to see an entry at XOXOXO as they are always in upper-case and in matching pairs of Xs and Os. The symbols used in this entry however, just aren't used in English. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

ARTFL lists this as an n. and adv., not adj. nor verb. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ARTFL is American, right? See OED. — Vildricianus 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yuck! Why would I want to spend money for a dictionary that tells me how to spell words wrong?  :-)   (I.e. British.) All humo(u)r aside, that research will have to wait until I can get to the library next week. So far, Collins, AHD, m-w, bartleby, and ARTFL all agree that the verb sense doesn't exist. And the one that listed the adj. looks like a typo. Hence the request for verification. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I haven't found any web sources either that list the verb - so we're the first ;-). My Shorter OED (no money to the long one either) lists it as transitive verb:

1. Disregard, despise, hold in contempt. Long obsolete exc. Scottish.
2. Efface (esp. oneself). Archaic exc. Scottish.

Seems to appear primarily in the past participle form (couple of Google print results for noughted). — Vildricianus 11:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can find it on Google used (primarily in religious texts) where they speak of "self-noughting", though it is not common. Julian of Norrich, 14th c, (Revelations of Divine Love, Hinduism Today, and Hindu.org. Google also shows that a lot of people can't spell "nothing".  :\ Cruinne 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just tag that usage as "archaic", and let it rest. Why beat ourselves up over whether this word/meaning is well enough verified. --Richardb 04:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? How did the word suddenly become archaic? This requests page is for verification of questionable terms. Checking other references, I didn't find the verb meaning listed - and verification of it is proving it to be very obscure. But 1998 is hardly archaic, in dictionary years. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I have not heard this word ever being used. --Lendu 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also as a native speaker, I find no evidence of the word existing. Anyway, there is no basic form glipsu defined, which would the be able to be used as glipsua: Either a noun in partitive case, adjective in partitive case, or a verb in its basic form.

Delete. Native Finnish words don’t start with with 'gl.' I think somebody pieced this word together out of glide+slip+lipsahdus/liukua, then made up vulgar and idiotic definitions. —Stephen 13:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 12:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've come across Appendix:Communes in Vaud and Muncipalities of the canton of Vaud. According to me, this is not really Wiktionary stuff, am I right? — Vildricianus 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Last time it came up in BP, I think the result was to tentatively permit place names as main namespace entries. The Appendix: pseudo namespace is the preferred place to keep indexes...since that is outside (sortof) the main namespace (NS=0) they are much more likely to be retained. (But who knows...the winds change...the waves wash over the lines in the sand.) Certainly many place names have interesting etymologies and translations, but I don't think this has been developed on, much yet. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Do these particular examples have anything to do with vaudeville? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice word, but can we have some citations? --Wytukaze 18:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing on Google. Deleted SemperBlotto 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This page's talk page indicates a search for the term done prior to WT:CFI being hashed out, while long before the RFV process existed. Should more "proper" citations be added now? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The correct word is mamzer - its from Hebrew. SemperBlotto 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A homerun in baseball. Any takers? (neeeds formatting) SemperBlotto 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing it, but I don't pay much attention to baseball, outside of the World Series. p.g.c. lists a citation for "...bills up the yaya" but I'm not finding any baseball references with this term. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood. (Check IMDB) -- Eddie 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This one again. YASOTSON (Yet another spelling of the same old nonsense.)

The new twist this time is that one meaning might be verifiable, (see history) but none of the meanings listed now are. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted the Random House references as requested, and fixed up the definitions a little as well. I don't think the third and fourth have been sufficiently attested yet. Davilla 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this has been rejected in the past, I think it supposed to have three published citations for each meaning, right Muke? The secondary source (Random House) of course doesn't count as running text. None of these meanings seem to have made it into general usage: both the "Beavis and Butthead" and "South Park" references are funny, but only nonces. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I only valued the meaning of "penis" because it establishes a framework. However, you're right that it's not well attested either. As claimed in the RandomHouse letter, various urban dictionaries and other sources online, the use as an insult does have another attestation in one of the Beavis and Butt-Head episodes. I think Butthead might say "Shut up you f-ing (?) chode!" or something similar, but I can't find any of the scripts online. Davilla 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Two meanings fully attested.MGSpiller 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (m:inclusionist? moi?)

With 49k of google groups hits, 121K of google web hits & 180 google print hits it's pretty safe to say the word is in some sort of use, how on earth can it ever have been deleted? (he asks innocently)MGSpiller 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I see 131 hits on print.google.com, but none of them (including the ones you provided) seem to attest the physiologically impossible definition nor the other vandalism definitions entered (currently meanings 1, 3, and 4) which were the ones in question here! As to how a valid insult could be deleted, I'd say that this term was first entered (erm, the first dozen times) with one of the contested or impossible definitions. That makes it much harder to validate meaning #2 (or even determine it) when overwhelmed with so much obvious BS. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK on further investigation of the print hits Google revises it's estimate down on each subsequent page & none provide suitable running text quotes. Quelle dommage. :-( MGSpiller 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The cites seem to indicate that it is used to indicate a penis in the general sense rather than a particular shape. I've amended meaning 1. MGSpiller 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a procedural note here. I thought we were not supposed to remove the definitions in question, until the RFV time expired. That way, the removed nonsense could be properly documented. That way, future vandalism to the same entry can be reverted (or deleted if that is the case) with no further time wasted on it. If someone wants to resubmit a word that we've previously passed judgement on, they need to submit three print sources (or whatever our harshest criteria is) with their entry. The main reason RFV exists is to balance the wildly deletionist attitudes with the wildly inclusionist attitudes...not to do this verification over and over again for every word. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I was trying to suggest an improvement in response to your criticisms of the "physiologically impossible definition". Sense 1 previously stated what I've amended it to before it was expanded by another contributor so it seemed reasonable to trim it back down again. I've not spent much time on RfV before so if I slipped up sorry. Is there a specific time limit by the way? MGSpiller 01:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

p.g.c lists only two. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is not a word - delete - Παρατηρητής

Is this really dictionary material? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed rfv to rfd. Davilla 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dead-headed SemperBlotto 08:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore and follow process. There was a recent discussion of famous proper nouns - this should be a brief entry here providing a link to Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When did Amharic start to be written in the Roman alphabet? —Stephen 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected and moved to ጓደኛ. —Stephen 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Somali word? —Muke Tever 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The definition from the Zorc and Osman's (1993) dictionary is

loyalist, person loyal to the "wrong leader"

I'm not sure how neutral the definition on the Faqash page is, but it's not completely out of line with what Zorc and osman have. Keffy 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another one for the Persian clean-up crew really... —Muke Tever 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to كس كردن. It’s vulgar, but I’m not sure of the exact English. —Stephen 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of device. Needs cleanup/rewrite as dictionary article if it's keepable. —Muke Tever 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite know what this thing is, but it does sound familiar to me, and it does also get a few hits. What's frustrating is that Wikipedia doesn't have an entry and it apparently should. Why couldn't we just ship it off to them and see what they do with it? (Man that's lazy of me.) Davilla 09:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sense is 'a fight, an argument'. —Muke Tever 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is a Britishism - see, for example ]. It is often hyphenated, and is used as an adjective, typically in a "ding dong battle". SemperBlotto 10:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

• "Onomatopoeia for..." is clumsy. Drop this (move it to the etymology) and use "Representing the sound of a doorbell" instead. Even though this definition makes the interjection look like an adjective, it should be noted that it is not possible to define an interjection unless synonyms that are themselves interjections are used as the definition, which it is not helpful to do.
• The example in the nursery rhyme looks to me like it might be a verb usage (an imperative verb, that is, an instruction to the bell to go "ding dong").
• Those aren't the words I remember for the rhyme, but no doubt there are variations.
• Why only three lines? Either give the full rhyme, or just the relevant line. I'd prefer the latter.
• Better still, because of the objections above, find another example.
• The noun senses are probably all hyphenated.
• The trademark is a proper noun and should either be moved to a separate page or dropped altogether.
• In "a ding-dong battle" this is a noun used attributively (as a modifier), not, strictly speaking, an adjective. Used in this way, it is definitely hyphenated.
• I'd suggest another interjection sense: "Showing appreciation of an attractive woman" (or possibly appreciation of anything), as popularised by Leslie Phillips.

— Paul G 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some colloquial variant of in the nude ? —Muke Tever 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Would appear to be an affectionate one at that, except that the spelling rymes with "nutty" in American English. Entry of four characters was probably entered with four hands. Safe to delete IMO. Davilla 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's childish British English - I'll format it. SemperBlotto 08:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently an acronym, certainly it would be slang, but does it have currency? —Muke Tever 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• An auto-translation from one of our regulars. SemperBlotto 08:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article used to say it was Arabic for translator (my Arabic dictionary concurs). But it has since been rewritten, apparently not by an English speaker. Probably just needs revert. —Muke Tever 05:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.—Stephen 14:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'Asamad'. Says it's Sanskrit for 'I'. Added by the same person who did the usual spelling अस्मद् (asmad) (er, why not अहम् aham?). —Muke Tever 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this must be an experiment. If there is a vote - I'm voting for deletion. SemperBlotto 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this to reformist/Citations and am adding {{seecites...}}. Please join our conversation on irc://irc.freenode.net#Wiktionary . --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then, Jeff, please delete the /OED redirect, and remove the rfv tag from the /Citations version. (That's way more than three quotes!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Entry that predates the rfv process. Needs citations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First two attempted attestations on page reference discussion threads, and the third Wikipedia. Not the best choices. In fact, two of these no longer exist. Davilla 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This city’s name is spelt Zaporozhye in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Or in Cyrillic, Запорожье. —Stephen 12:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ex Primetime. SemperBlotto 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He didn’t indicate the language, and it might be correct in some language or other. The English word seems to be araroba (Russian арароба, Andira araroba), which is from Tupí via Portuguese. I believe the Tupí word was araribá. —Stephen 12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems okay, at least for the plant in the Fabaceae. I don't know yet about the other plant. People who don't know what they are doing would do better to avoid obscure Brazilian plants.  :-) Eclecticology 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 14:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is everyday British English. Added a second meaning and removed rfv tag. SemperBlotto 16:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

pf = preferred? Davilla 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• This seems to be real - see w:enhanced remake SemperBlotto 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm the references to bukket - is this just advertising? Jonathan Webley 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm the general use from personal experience but the double k version looks like a brand to me. MGSpiller 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Definition corrected (also religionist) SemperBlotto 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A well-known Portuguese dog. Any takers? SemperBlotto 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

a cuca é fixe

If it’s the name of a dog, it has to be capitalized. In the meantime, I have corrected the lowercase cuca, which is something else. —Stephen 12:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yoga for dogs perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted - not dictionary material. SemperBlotto 10:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this widespread use? A couple isolated blogs (that seem to relate directly to us?) --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is not a real word - delete - Παρατηρητής

Encyclopedic? Maybe just move to Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 10:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely encyclopedic. Moved to Wikipedia for them to do what they will with it, and deleted (along with the page that had the title all in capitals). — Paul G 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Restore and follow process. The most recent discussion on the topic concluded that we retain such entries as pointers to Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it, and a quick scan of sources revealed no trace... Jonathan Webley 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a misspellng of Jehovah? Or a valid alternative? Also Jahovah Witness. Jonathan Webley 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Both deleted as spelling mistakes. Definitions were poorly written. SemperBlotto 08:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To be happy with oneself. Any takers? SemperBlotto 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Came up empty, aside from this confusing rap song and stuff about blood, oddly enough . Looks highly unlikely. Davilla 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is wrong - delete - Παρατηρητής

Is this part of US legislation? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm. Jonathan Webley 16:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is in w:List of Internet slang if that means anything. SemperBlotto 16:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it used a lot (and may even, under duress, admit to having used it myself). Keffy 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a groups.google.com search would show me using that spelling on occasion, probably about ten years ago during the height of the antitrust era. But I don't think Wiktionary benefits by promoting this spelling. I would think that the "invalid" punctuation character should be sufficient justification for not including it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with a blanket prohibition against "invalid punctuation". But I'll certainly admit that "Micro$oft" doesn't meet the crucial test of "Would any potential user actually want/need to look it up spelled this way?" Keffy 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would. It could contain some information on usage or origin or whatever. It might be interesting. — Vildricianus 10:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As per Vildricianus, maybe. The connotation is negative, and that much isn't gained from the spelling alone. No qualms about the leetesque punctuation, although it must be attested as such. Should I take the time to look for references? Davilla 15:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a bit last year but an {{archaic}} tag will cover that :-). Widespread use, strong keep. MGSpiller 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To manipulate . . . Any takers? SemperBlotto 07:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Went through several pages of Google hits and found nothing about the word. User:Ranix brought it in from Wikipedia, where an article Muncy was started by a User who unless I'm mistaken has only made one edit under his/her account:

Is not a word - delete - Παρατηρητής

Do we? SemperBlotto 08:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to RfD. As the author, I would rather argue the question there than find around 700 citations. Davilla 11:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Second sense. Entry predates the rfv process. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Verified from the OED Online. Removing tag. --Primetime 21:32, 16 February 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. RFV tag restored. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite what your plagiarized rebuttal says, the statement doesn't appear to be copied from anywhere. It does appear, though, to be quite correct, as it a sense is found in the most reliable dictionary on Earth. But, I suppose that isn't good enough. Are you planning on deleting it simply because it doesn't have quotes included, then? --Primetime 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Plagarized? Oh my, you are very strangely mistaken. I'm not planning on deleting it, but it is going to be deleted by someone if it doesn't get quotations added. --Connel MacKenzie T C 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see that much difference between these two senses. What are the stereotypical traits of a homosexual man if not self-image? The OED definition even confirms that. Why not just merge them? Davilla 17:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously correct, or the dictionaries in question wouldn't have said they are. Having a citation added, especially from a published source, should be more than enough proof. Connel just made that up about it having to have three citations. I just checked the Criteria for Inclusion page and found the following:

"Attested" means verified through

• Clearly widespread use,
• Usage in a well-known work,
• Appearance in a refereed academic journal

. . .

It's remarkable to even have a reliable citation added on a project such as this. Every other editor I have seen on these pages remove the tags if one citation from a published source is added (e.g., SemperBlotto, Eclecticology). Connel is operating outside of consensus and of policy when he says that the citations added to the entries above aren't enough. No reasonable person would think that this isn't enough. --Primetime 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did discuss this with others (on IRC) before acting. You on the other hand, have no reason to remove the tag repeatedly while the tag itself is under discussion.

The OED is not a scientific journal, by any stretch of the imagination. That makes your transparent omission of criteria #4 (above) look more than a little silly. A definition is not usage. If you read the next couple paragraphs of the criteria, you might understand that. If other contributors removed the tag inappropriately, they did so in error. Restoring tag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is unsupported by the spirit of the rule (i.e., the intent of the rulemakers). The point of including such a criterion was to allow sources with vigorous fact-checking procedures to count as verification. In any case, your argument that because it's a policy, it's right, is faulty as well. To live one's life based on regulations makes one a simpleton, because life is too complex to regulate. Who am I supposed to believe, anyway, the Oxford English Dictionary--or you? --Primetime 20:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should talk about the spirit of the rule, when you were not participating in any of the discussions leading up to those rules. Also, I didn't make that argument. Lastly, what you believe is your own simple pleasure...but blind trust in the OED when external verification doesn't corroborate it seems misplaced, to me.

• In any case, the page clearly states that if it has "Clearly widespread use" then it's attested. It can also be attested if it has "Usage in a well-known work". Inclusion in the OED, as well as my personal experience, satisfies both of these criteria. Also, you wrote that you don't intend to delete it. I hope you don't intend to move it to the RFD page, either, because it does not need three quotes, and thus has not failed the RFV process. --Primetime 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's obvious you feel that way. But for Wiktionary, the OED (in and of itself) satisfies neither of those criteria.
• Since only a sense is in question, the entry won't make it to RFD. But the unverified sense will be removed, if still without three quotations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Connel, I am curious, did you actually look at the image Primetime loaded? OED provides sources for every definition it gives...

I must appologize. I thought I looked at it, but the version that is there now has exactly the quotations I've been harping about. And the edit history shows only the one version uploaded. I must've looked at the other images that were uploaded and discarded this one out of hand, as being similarly without quotations.

I have removed the rfv tag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, what about gafel? (See WT:RFD#gafel.) --Primetime 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Primetime, this all could have been avoided if you had entered the quotations formatted in a Wiktionary style in the first place. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to. The "Criteria for inclusion" page states clearly that if it has "Clearly widespread use" then it's attested. It can also be attested if it has "Usage in a well-known work". If you're telling people that this is really not true then someone needs to point it out. As for "gafel", I don't have any quotes for that--just four citations. What are we going to do about that? (See WT:RFD#gafel.) --Primetime 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you started the WT:BP conversation about this...very good. The reason "you have to" enter citations is because it was questioned in the first place. "Usage in a well known work" is interpreted as used - that is, in running text, not a definition, not discussion about the word. The beer parlour is the appropriate place to continue this conversation. I'd rather not discuss gafel here as it has it's own discussion area and the various threads here are difficult enough to follow as it is...and as you noted, it is a different set of problems. (Albeit the same underlying issue of usage vs. definition.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fear of puppets. A nonce, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is good or not. It is not in Wikipedia's list of phobias. There are two hits on Google Print, but these look obscure. While a Google search on pupaphobia "fear of puppets" gives 1100 hits, many of these are simply lists of phobias. It's not in this list. It is in this list, but again this is simply a list of phobias. (These two lists are those referred to on the Wikipedia page.) We would need to check a large print dictionary or, better still, a dictionary of psychiatric terms. OED check, someone, please? — Paul G 16:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've hear feck meaning fuck all the time, but I've never heard it used as to steal Gerard Foley 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Verified from the OED Online. Removing tag. --Primetime 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(moved here from RfD — Paul G 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

nonesense Tawker 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hits in Print Google are all to foreign-language texts or scanning errors. Unlikely to mean "to win big" as that is an infinitive, and this does not have the form of an infinitive (which would be "golizar"). Not found in wordreference under "goliza" nor "golizar".

Google gives about 600 hits, suggesting this is a Spanish noun. Keep after cleaning the entry up and verifying the sense. Moving to rfc and rfv. — Paul G 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I initially deleted it as my search of print.google.com showed 4 entries for "Goliza" (a mountain?) two other entries with restricted content and one page of gibberish. My search was not restricted to English. How do you assert it is a proper (verifyable) Spanish noun? It certainly isn't English (as asserted by the original entry.) For comparison, the valid English word "gorilla" gets ~44,500 search results using the same method. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the most-complete Spanish dictionary I know of for the words golizar and goliza (Diccionario de la Lengua Española, "Dictionary of the Spanish Language," 2324 pages) and received no hits. I also checked the Collins Spanish Dictionary, 2140 pages--335,000 Spanish entries--and found nothing. It's either (1) very new or (2) used by a very small group of people. In any case, it's certainly unverifiable. --Primetime 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I speak Spanish and I’ve never heard of it, and it’s not in my Simon and Schuster’s. Besides, they don’t pronounce a /th/ in Latin America. Delete. —Stephen 11:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be lower case, if it exists. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a Swiss/German landscaping company - I had already deleted it as subtle spamvertising. SemperBlotto 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry incorrectly copied from Wikipedia was Toped citing dictionary.com. Any primary sources available? Print.google.com results indicate lots of proper nouns, and lots of other meanings, but I didn't see one that means a habitual drunk. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My COD defines "to tope" as to "drink alcohol to excess, esp habitually", and giving the noun "toper", as both dictionary.com and the entry? Jonathan Webley 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't provide a cite, but this is a fairly common word that shouldn't cause problems, as is "toper". Rich Farmbrough 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to mean "family scandal" - any takers? SemperBlotto 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it’s good. Cleaned up. —Stephen 11:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian idiot. Any takers? (needs de-capitalizing) SemperBlotto 17:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why those who comb new entries should have to verify foreign words beyond looking them up in a translation dictionary. Maybe this really is a word, some sort of slang, but then why isn't it listed at ru:Мудак? Skip the whole verification process here, and just ship it over to the Russian Wiktionary to see what they do with it. The definition that's accepted over there will eventually be translated back here. Davilla 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We have people right here who can handle words like this. Fixed. —Stephen 11:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Too cool. Do you contribute to the Russian Wiktionary as well? Davilla 11:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes. —Stephen 11:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be Chinese for "function" or "use" but is the wrong character set. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 18:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Mandarin for "to use" is 用 (yòng). Delete Yung. —Stephen 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the part about T'i-yung ("essence-function") in this article (page 143-144), the intent of the Yung entry will become clear. The spelling yung is not based on Pinyin, but rather an older system called Wade-Giles.

A-cai 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for the Wade-Giles yung to have its own page apart from 用? Also, what about 门缝? —Stephen 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

门缝 is acceptable, I added some more info to the entry.

Your question about Wade-Giles is fair. To be honest, I don't know the answer. How would Yung be listed? As a Chinese word or an English word of Chinese derivation? For example, the Pinyin spelling for the word kung fu (功夫) is gōngfu, but most English speakers would be more comfortable with the "kung fu" spelling. I read the bio of the person who originally wrote the article (wikipedia:User:KSchutte). The philosophic connotations of the term seemed to interest him more than the etymology. Actually, I'm not sure that wiktionary is the best place for this type of entry. Granted, the wikipedia article was very thin on details.

A-cai 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A Tibetan name - doesn't say if surname or given name. SemperBlotto 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It’s a Tibetan name, but I think we have to have the correct alphabet if we are to keep it. Otherwise, delete. —Stephen 11:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Amharic inability to say "no". References are from forums etc. SemperBlotto 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It could stay as a REDIRECT to the correct ይሉኝታ (yelunyetā). Yilugnta is one of several possible transliterations, and writing "gn" for "ny" is what the Italians do. If we decide to keep it under ይሉኝታ, there is the problem of definition. It’s a bit tricky to define and I don’t think the current "Ethiopian inability to say no" quite does it. —Stephen 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

An attractive East Asian woman. Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a word - delete - Παρατηρητής

Nahuatl woman warrior. Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yāōcihuātl is one of the titles of the goddess Quilaztli. Apparently yāōtl 'war' + cihuātl 'woman', so it would mean something like war-woman, but whether it is so used is probably a separate affair (cue the Jahbulonites) —Muke Tever 01:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Native American for "Englishmen". Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a rumor floating about the Internet that Yancy, from one of the hundreds of Amerindian languages, was the etymon of Yankee (supposedly a corruption of Anglais). To be of any value, we have to know which Indian language it was. It’s my understanding that Yankee is from Dutch Janke (Johnny). Since the language is not named, delete. —Stephen 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Exists as a name, etymology uncertain. Could be a corruption of yankee, prehaps, and not the other way around? Davilla 11:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

redir to red link -- Zondor 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• YASE
• YANAL
• X-Internet
• Xanthophore
• Xenocentrism
• Xerosere
• Wynen
• wwwww
• work procedure
• word splitting
• woop
• wiroos
• wild cat
• whuffo
• WFO
• weng
• weltburgerliche
• Wellstoning

-- Zondor 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good way to use our rfv page. One should check for some minimal verification first. When rfv is not appropriate, perhaps rfc would be better for many of these.

However, I think you should be using the Transwiki process to dump these here from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On wild cat: I'm not sure if Zondor was disputing the oil exploration sense (which I'll vouch for), of if s/he just wanted someone to add the "unauthorized strike" sense. Anyway, I've substantially added to the article on wildcat, including both those senses (though the article could still use some serious cosmetics). It might be best to have wild cat link forward to wildcat. Keffy 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations regarding wwwww may be found on that entry's discussion page. --EncycloPetey 08:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this definition used at all. Certainly the word exists for paganism, witchcraft, etc. but does it for publishing? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition seems reasonable (such things exist). Wikipedia article does not exist. Word is not to be found in the referenced website. SemperBlotto 09:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a word - delete - Παρατηρητής

I think നായ (naaya) means dog, but I’m not positive and I have no Malayalam dictionary. —Stephen 12:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody please confirm. Jonathan Webley 21:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We had one anon who entered a whole bunch of these from an 1800s dictionary of vulgarisms (old enough to be PD and grossly outdated). I suspect you'll find lots of such entries if you check the other contribs for this user. We should probably go through and tag them "archaic" or "obsolete", though, especially since the idiom category is a popular destination among language learners who might not know the difference. --Dvortygirl 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody please check. Jonathan Webley 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The English is very hard to make out, and the reason seems to be that it’s illiterate British from some 200 years ago. Certainly it cannot be vulgar in any modern sense, but merely a metaphor. It speaks of "hulks" and "lighters", which I gather are maritime terms for scrapped ships, and victualing (feeding) is antiquated. Judging from , I think it once referred to worn-out ships that were used in the British penal system for confining prisoners to hard labor. If we keep this (and Floating Academy), it needs a lot of cleanup and rewording. —Stephen 08:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not convinced this is idiomatic, and if the meaning of the phrase is any different from the sum of its parts, that difference is likely to be encylopedic. Kappa 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone ever heard of this? I think he means sluttiness. —Stephen 08:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The word is commonly used online. You can google it, if you'd like, I came up with a suitable number of results. - Darian 205.236.147.59 08:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Noun sense #5, an obese person or animal. Example sentence will suffice. Davilla 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in online profile ads a lot. The canonical example phrase is "no fats, no fems" (no fat persons, no effeminate persons), which on its own gets 861 ghits and here's one off gp to start with. I don't know about it being used for animals though. —Muke Tever 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be under fats then?

I was also thinking "the fat" meaning all of those who are fat, but really you can do that with almost any adjective that describes people, and again it's not just one person. Davilla 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Google of about 4. What say? — Dvortygirl 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable as two words, but not as one. —Stephen 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is not a word - Delete - Παρατηρητής

Someone may be looking this up to figure out what it really means.

Entry needs work though...

users of dope - any takers? SemperBlotto 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the singular, doper, which is synonymous with dopehead and drug addict. —Stephen 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Singular or plural, it is a very common term in the US. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ssomeone who says negative comments about Philadelphia - any takers? SemperBlotto 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is silly - makes no sense - Delete - Παρατηρητής

I don't believe this is a prefix. The only word that could possibly derived from it that comes to my mind is vitamin, and I'm fairly sure that comes from the French, unless it is from "vita-" + "amine". But I still don't think this is enough for it to merit being called a prefix, unless we are going to count the various brand names that begin "Vita-". — Paul G 17:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SemperBlotto has added a bunch of so-called derived terms, but I contest that most of these come to English directly from Latin (or possibly via French) rather than from this supposed suffix. Somehow I don't think "vital" is vita- + -l :) — Paul G 18:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a prefix either.

• vital is vita (life) + -al (of or pertaining to)
• vitamin is a compound of vita (life) + amine (organic nitrogen compound) and this spelling variant has lost the "e" from the French spelling vitamine
• vitamer is a blend of vita(min) + (iso)mer (identical part)

The others are derivations of vital. --Patrik Stridvall 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, even if it were a prefix, the stem is only vit-, -a being an ending suffix, afaict. Any sense that -a is part of it probably comes from the influence of vital (vit- + -alis) and vitamin (vit- + amine), and possibly brand names derived from these two words. (In which case 'vitamin-' might need to be looked into as a sense of vita-... —Muke Tever 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This comes up with a few decent cites from Google books and Google, probably short for goober and nonce, but possibly valid. -- TheDaveRoss 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I had a friend who used to use that expression, but it was short for goober in kind of a fun way, so I don't see how they could be antonyms. Not that I really know what either actually mean (certainly not "peanut" in this context). Davilla 10:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Does not show up in google define. Tawker 05:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the third-person singular of procure. Granted, what was in there when you found it was junk, but search on just plain Google and you'll find plenty of instances. I have improved the article. —Dvortygirl 06:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Found this while going through formatting. It doesn't seem to know what language it is, but might be Lithuanian slang. It has a tremendous amount of detail, for something made up. Help? — Dvortygirl 06:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There might be something to it. In Russian we have мороз (moróz, frost), and Дед Мороз (Ded Moróz, Grandfather Frost), who is the Russian counterpart of Santa Claus. The Russian Дед Мороз, by contrast, is tall and skinny and his white beard is is reminiscent of Rasputin. He may dress in red with white trim, blue with white trim, or white with white trim. He’s a pagan personification of winter (Old Man Winter) and his helper is Снегурочка (Snegúrochka, the snow maiden), a little girl who was created out of snow by an old childless couple. She helps Дед Мороз distribute gifts to the children, then melts when warm weather comes.

The morozas page needs someone who knows Lithuanian to look at it. Perhaps it should be capitalized. —Stephen 12:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I've always wanted to know how to say chav in Lithuanian! --Dangherous 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this an Americanism? Needs formatting anyway (or wayany). SemperBlotto 08:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not any AmE dialect I’m familiar with. Apparently it’s a contraction of "every what" (like "every which" in "every which way but loose", often pronounced "ever which"). I guess it’s plausible in speech. —Stephen 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My visits to the Southern US make me say that yes, this seems to be a kind of Southern Shibboleth. Likewise wax paper. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

doubtful word

• Deleted - spelling mistake - no definition. SemperBlotto 08:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this one should stay -- Tawker 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be used. Needs formatting though. SemperBlotto 10:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Seen it, but still, c'mon... Move to ROTFL*? Davilla 18:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's valid for use, I'd say. ROTFL + LMFAO. Same as ROFL + LMFAO, though. -- VashtheStampede

like zonkers! 216.220.231.226 16:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Zonked on the head. SemperBlotto 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

African + Animation - most Google hits are spelling msitakes for affirmation. Any takers? Needs formatting and severe clipping. SemperBlotto 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Original author removed "rfv" template, now reinstated. SemperBlotto 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a delete to me. Ncik 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Afrimation

From the words Africa and Animation afrimation, this is formed into the English animation

It is a new jargon added to the field (by: Joseph Izang Azi), it is not related to the few instances found on the web, its etymological background can only be explained as being a combination of the words Africa and Animation into an English word.

1. It is an animation style that depicts African art and design characteristics, whereby inanimate Africanized drawings or objects (e.g. puppets) are filmed in successive positions.

2. This is an animation style that originates from Africa as depicted in Sara, Kirikou, Wazobia the Homeboy etc.

3. The word may be new but the concept of animation in Africa is an age-old one. Besides the African cartoons that have developed parallel to the advent of the print media, Africans have had a long-standing puppetry tradition.

This sounds like it belongs on our list of invented words then. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably tosh. Jonathan Webley 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Acording to w:Canadian slang it means an ethnic German, with "square head" meaning an English Canadian. Needs cleaning up anyway. SemperBlotto 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, page 1128, says that it's both an ethnic German and an "Anglophone Canadian". The German sense is also in the OED. I don't know about the "it is assumed that . . ." passage and the etymology, though. I just cleaned up the entry, added the citations, and removed the tag. --Primetime 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in Merriam-Webster, the article Urbanoia has just been deleted at Wikipedia as unverifiable tosh. RobertG 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted as probably subtle spamvertising - Urbanoia is a Texan design company. SemperBlotto 15:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

as dumb as a robot - any takers? SemperBlotto 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC) is it okay to take it of the list? --88.152.210.110 11:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

1. SemperBlotto, this is the first word ive took on. i think its valid.

can i remove the tag?--Raynar 17:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Raynar, I don't see any print citations in that entry. Why would you remove the tag? It may be valid jargon in wiki contexts, but probably does not meet our criteria. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

i didnt find print citations, but i did find bits of internet history attached to it. dumbot was big in the days of (internet) yore. updated bolo article as well.

also appears in 1.urban dictionary 2.star wars lingo 3.first person shooter lingo

isnt that enough? --Raynar 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

dumbass - as dumb as an ass is an accepted, well established derogatory term. but let us be truthfull, time marches on, and come on, when was the last time you saw an ass?

that long huh?

on the other hand when was the last time you saw a robot make an ass of itself? robots are the new icon of dense blatant stupidity. let us embrace this new updated insult and cry out "haleluja"

or at least move it the the protologism list.

update:

1. appears in urban dictionary.

2. there are several bot scripts and minor AI's named dumbot.

3. in minor use since 1998.

--Raynar 18:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Normal definition is missing; financial definition given seems impossible. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Must be a technical term, not applying to deposit accounts as we are familiar with them. Found some evidence here but no luck with technical dictionaries. Davilla 18:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be Middle English, not English. Old texts should be easy to verify. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's just dialectal. Verified from Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. and The O'Byrne Files's "Dublin Slang Dictionary". Removing tag. --Primetime 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Weird that the first listing here was a ME dictionary. Probably should be listed as both then? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Last etymology (etymology itself as well as definitions; the whole section, basically). Ncik 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The second sense of the verb is definitely correct. I just added some quotes and a reference. I'm not sure about the etymology, though.
--Primetime 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the etymology be part of etymology 1 via swinging the lead type idioms? MGSpiller 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It looks like there's only one etymology for the verb wag. --Primetime 11:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Jonathan Webley 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• No hits on Google or elsewhere. Deleted. SemperBlotto 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a personal attack but it might be slang. Tawker 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawker 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition (such as it is) was for steiner. Seems to be nonsense either way. Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an eccentric definition. Eclecticology 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks right to me, try googling "can cold reading" . I added another one which seems to crop up a lot. Kappa 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps cold reading, but not cold read. Andrew massyn 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian surname, meaning Twins. any takers?

The second son of Kublai Khan. Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this idiomatic? It looks like nothing more than the sum of its parts to me. — Paul G 09:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing idiomatic about it is the use of "on" and "off" to talk about a phone. Suppose that much is understood, e.g. from get off. Then with a thimbleful of pragmatism the expression above and its definition are straight-forward. I'd suggest RFD since this isn't about verification.

My question is if get off and get on are the right place to describe this. You can also be on the phone, stay on, etc. But it shouldn't be listed as on or on the phone either, since a person can also be on the bus, on the beach, etc. etc. These are distinguished from in a car and in a tree rather than on a car or "on a tree", so yes, it really is idiomatic! Maybe just a note on the noun page will suffice. But do the states have to be mentioned for each and every individual noun? Is there any way to generalize these? Davilla 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved rfv to rfd. Added rfv to GOMP (see below). Davilla 18:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...and other multiples of seconds. Are these attested? I don't believe anyone would say anything other than "10 seconds". I can just about imagine someone possibly using "megaseconds" to indicate a long time measured in seconds, but I find it hard to see how "decasecond" could possibly have any attested usage.

That said, there are two hits on Print Google but these look like nonce usages. — Paul G 10:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well deca is a SI prefix and second is one of the SI base units so that should be sufficient to attest it. Sure I don't imagine it is very commonly used. Most scientist probably would use kilosecond if using any prefix at all and non-scientist would not likely use it either. --Patrik Stridvall 14:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that Google Print doesn't search inflected forms. The one cite that comes up for decaseconds does appear to be genuine. —Muke Tever 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patrik. In fact, I think we should have entries for all combinations of SI prefixes and base units (and derived units, as well). If they're not commonly used, we can note that in the respective entries. Alternatively, we can redirect the uncommon ones to the appropriate base-unit entry, but only if it explicitly defines the units that are redirected to it. - dcljr 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cited. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A person addicted to answering questions. Zero Google hits. Needs formatting anyway. SemperBlotto 15:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No more than the sum of its parts. A common ancestor. SemperBlotto 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

mea culpa I would accept SemperBlotto's verdict - although there might be a fine dividing line mea culpa being on the other side :) Saltmarsh 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast, Saltmarsh. "Common ancestor" is more specific than the sum of its parts. "The monarchs of Spain and the UK have a common ancestor" does not mean that Elizabeth and Juan Carlos each had a (different) grandfather who was working-class. It does not mean (sense 3 of ancestor) that they inherited their property from the same person. Naive users shouldn't have to figure out which sense of common and which sense of ancestor are relevant for the way the combination is used as a technical term in fields like genetics and linguistics, especially when Saltmarsh is willing to do it for them. The entry may need a little polish, but it should stay. Keffy 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

mea maxima culpa. I have adjusted the definition and removed the tag. SemperBlotto 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Signal to noise ratio is very low on this search. Anyone able to find this third meaning (2¹⁰ * 10³) actually used? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know all three have been used, but it's confusing when and how they're applied. If I don't have my facts straight it's because I've never cared for the ingenuity of the idiots who came up with this stuff. There was a time when everyone would have assumed a megabyte was 1024 kilobytes, and this may still apply to memory chips since it corrolates strongly with how they're addressed. I think it was on hard drives where 1000 KB rather than 1024 KB was called a "megabyte", making the hard drive appear larger than it really was in comparison to a competitor's, kind of like measuring the size of a TV by the diagonal or including the factor of digital zoom when advertising cameras. I'm guessing it didn't take long for someone to figure out that a million bytes is really only 977 KB, and eveyone followed suit after that. Except I wonder if maybe they couldn't for Macs because Apple had a bit more control over the situation. You might find something under their history. Davilla 11:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Until someone attests it rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure on this one Tawker 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1604 Reverend Cawdrey Table Aleph: held that a 'Nicholaitan is an heretike, like Nicholas, who held that wiues should bee commmon to all alike.' Reference Full Oxford. I am not sure which volume, I have a photocopy of the relevant page (P133). Regards Andrew massyn 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• 1556 John Foxes Book of Martyrs:The examination of Iohn Iackeson, had before Doct. Cooke, the xi. day of March. Anno.1556.

Examination of Iohn Iackson before D. Cooke. FIrst when I came before him, he rayled on me, and called me heretike. I aunswered and saide: I am no heretike.

• Possibly not English but Old English? - 71.161.197.148 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Six hundred years too late for Old English. These dates are early modern English. But the article does wrong to say it's an archaic word meaning heretic—it's an archaic spelling for heretic. —Muke Tever 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Date unknown: from The lawfulness of the Oath of Allegiance by Theophilis Higgins: Ref The Christian History Institute.

"I speake out of perfect knowledge, because presently after this Popes death I my selfe was in Rome: and as Honorius Pope, was by three generall Councels accounted a Monothelite Heretike for his hereticall and doctrinall Epistles, which he wrote to Sergius Patriarke, and by him to the East Churches with divers other Popes, whose erroneous doctrinall Epistles cannot bee denied, nor by any meanes excused from errour or heresie, unlesse by some such a Golias, who will adventure after the censure of three Generall councels, and divers Popes to defend Honorius from being an Heretike,"Andrew massyn

• I will change the definition to reflect Muke's critisism, and put in the quotes. Regards ,Andrew massyn

Hi. I think I have provided sufficient sources. Would someone either remove the tag or remove the word. If not what do you want for verification? See my comments regarding verifiability. Regards Andrew massyn

Alleged wrestling move, found one possible site on an anglefire fan site. - TheDaveRoss 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

not sure about it Tawker 06:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Attested meaning 1. Found another meaning I was unaware of ... attested. Found 2 more meanings which were obvious when I thought about it & put one attestation in each. Very wide use I'm afraid, not sure I can motivate myself to fully attest 3 & 4 but I'm confident they are valid. MGSpiller 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the World Tea-time Federation counts if WTF is defined within the document in which it's used. This is very common practice for acronyms, and there would be a flood of them if it were allowed. The point is to include what's considered part of the language. No matter that it may be used as an initialism once the meaning is established, WTF is closer to a definition than running text if it has to be introduced with "Wicked T-shirt Fraternity (WTF)". Davilla 12:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I see what you are saying, but if I look for print cites of an initialism then if the editor is intent on keeping his job in the morning there will be a definition of the initialism near the beginning of the book. It's normal editorial practice to insist on that. The World Taekwondo Federation is recognised by the IOC, does that count for anything? I've never tried a martial art in my life I can't personally attest for WTF being well known but I've certainly heard of Taekwondo & I presumed it had an official body it seems pretty reasonable to keep it. MGSpiller 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Davilla 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I added this word. I am satisfied with the meaning, etymology and source. My crisis is that I dont know if it is English. The best I can say is that it is township slang, i.e. slang used in South African slums. It seems to be a word that has spontaneously erupted into use, but I dont know if the use has translated to English. I think that it has, because I have heard of it and I have no intercourse with townships. Any thoughts? Andrew massyn

I wrote the the Grahamstown project (Oxford editors of SA English) and received the following feedback.

kwiri-kwiri appears to be a variant of the more common (ama)kwerekwere -- if you put this into Google with various permutations of suffixes and hyphenation you will find many more instances of the term. The most common spelling (which would give us the main headword for a prospective dictionary entry) seems to be kwerekwere.

I will work on this one.Andrew massyn 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

I have no objection if kwiri-kwiri is deleted.Andrew massyn 19:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jamming" in Portuguese. (needs formatting) - any takers? SemperBlotto 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to atolar. It means "to bog down", like Spanish atollar. —Stephen 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The study of the nature of truth, and its precepts - any takers? SemperBlotto 12:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is not a word - Delete - Παρατηρητής

Describes what I know as the bridge - where the computer operaters work. SemperBlotto 19:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it, but much more common jargon is server room or NOC. Never heard bridge applied that way though. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Or did you mean the Star Trek / nautical usage? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In -pedia, w:vegoil redirects to w:biodiesel, not to w:vegetable oil SemperBlotto 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually used as a noun? If so:

• provide evidence
• provide plural
• mark as US (as other countries have different codes for toll-free numbers)

If this simply means "the dialling code for toll-free numbers in the US", delete. — Paul G 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase the bumpersticker: I've got a 1-800 you can call to find out.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

All the cites are basically adjectival though... added an adjective sense. I doubt marking as US speech is justified: the phone number 1-800-555-1234 doesn't get "translated" in different countries... the same number has to be dialed, so even in England it is a 1-800 number :p —Muke Tever 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, in that case the definition ought to include "in the US" (as it is not the same in other countries - for example, in the UK, it's 0800, and we call numbers starting with this dialling code Freefone numbers rather than toll-free numbers).

Is the bumper sticker sufficient to show it has a noun use? — Paul G 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. Please note the smiley. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've distinguished between the adjective and noun translations. In the UK, we don't say "an 0800" but rather "an 0800 number" or "a Freefone number". — Paul G 11:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• is not a word - Delete - Παρατηρητής
• Now also at sharted. — Vildricianus 21:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone check the taxonomic name, please? Wikipedia suggests it might be something else. Thanks. — Paul G 07:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have check & edited this in line with info available - removed RFV - Saltmarsh 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• is not a word? - probable Delete - Παρατηρητής

"Hazha..is a kurdish name for girls and it is mean Murmur in english." How's your Kurdish, anyone? —Dvortygirl 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Final sense: "A condition attained through decisive employment of superior firepower". Is this distinct from "absence of war"? It doesn't look like a distinct sense to me. — Paul G 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is repeated vandalism, but the RFV process should take care of this one, once and for all. With superior firepower if necessary. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense in terms of "peacekeepers" brandishing weapons and riot police intent on "keeping the peace". What else would you expect when political authorities misuse the word? Davilla 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

These would appear to have been added by someone knowledgeable on the subject. I'd wait for a verdit against before rfd. Davilla 20:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The searches I have done indicate continuous tracking or continuous advertising...tracking or continuous tracking...advertising. There doesnt seem to be a set meaning. Just old sum of parts, I'm affraid. RFVfailed. Andrew massyn 08:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No matching usages here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search for "working emotion" and it appears to support the definition. Rfvpassed. Moved to rfc. Andrew massyn 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No matches to this meaning here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search for "branding moment" and it appears to support the definiton. Rfv passed. To rfc. Andrew massyn 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No uses conveying this meaning here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The searches I have done do not show this to be supported. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 12:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)