Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006

Archived discussions from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

The Japanese name for a slug - any takers?

Yes, namekuji is indeed slug in Japanese...but are we including romaji spellings? In Japanese it would be なめくじ (or ナメクジ or 蛞蝓). If we keep the romaji, then it must be lowercased. —Stephen 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RfV removed. —Stephen

slang or real rat? --130.111.98.16 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Brit Isles its certainly not the correct name for any species of rat — water rat is used here for what is correctly called a water vole (popularised by Wind in the Willows. Saltmarsh 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s slang. A river rat is someone, usually a young man, who lives on and makes his living on a river. It’s on the order of hillbilly, beach bum, and pool shark. —Stephen 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recreated with cites. —Muke Tever 01:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no definition and it was added by an anonymous user. It looks Chinese.

Yes, it’s Chinese for hello. —Stephen 14:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

losing a job due to relocation of a business or project to the Indian city of Bangalore. - any takers? SemperBlotto 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• " An online anti-outsourcing website is marketing a T-shirt with the legend "Don't Get Bangalored," a term suggesting losing one's job to outsourcing. " and a quick Google search suggests that it's in at least reasonably widespread use. —Dvortygirl 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites off Usenet (no print hits... yet). —Muke Tever 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a composite word ? --Optimix 17:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This entry accurately describes the device known as a gravity bong, I can attest to this having built many myself. User:69.234.157.127

The description is much too long, you can see the description on wikipedia gravity bong and complete there. I am not contesting the meaning of the word. Is this a composite word ? You can also look at an example of wiktionary word like bong for example to see the section a dictionary entry should have. --Optimix 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reduced to a dictionary description. —Stephen 11:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a compound word. Removing RFV now that it's a dictionary entry. —Muke Tever 00:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This word was added without a definition. Is it a Chinese word? Millie 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it means "automobile" in Chinese. I expanded the entry. --Tohru 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s definitely masculine. Fixed. —Stephen 12:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Although the Elizabethans used any number of interjections this one seems dubious. Can anyone confirm it?
• the only Google reference to one of its Synonyms yooniget is to this Wiktionary.

- Saltmarsh 06:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

- As correctly written in the description, it should be UMTS. www.umts-forum.org. Someone in too much of a hurry writing the entry. However, as a rather meaningless acronym, I question its dictionary-worthiness (i.e., whether it will still be around in 5 years). 144.213.253.14 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lasting appeal" is not one of our criteria for keeping words—outside of the fact that a word, unless otherwise notable, needs to have existed for more than one year. This is because a dictionary is not only for the aid of people creating new texts, but also for the aid of those reading old ones. And all the more the better if people can come to Wiktionary to look up something that is entirely forgotten 5, 50, or 500 years from now. Anyway. The bit about UMTS being in the article was only changed recently; as created the article said UTMS everywhere (and this is probably what the RFV was about). Anyway. For UTMS in this sense, I find one cite where it appears (twice!). Same here and here once and here once also and here too. These, all of which occur with UMTS, may be typos for UMTS, but if so they're rather common ones; alternatively they may be referring to something subtly different (or perhaps the acronym is so ordered in another language?) though context makes it somewhat unlikely. —Muke Tever 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added the cites, and referred it to the better form UMTS. —Muke Tever 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the strong suspicion UTMS is nothing but a typo. I suggest we get rid of that page unless someone comes up with a quotation from some official document. Wikipedia doesn't have it either. Ncik 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to drag things down into silliness, but as I'm sure you've already discovered, UTMS is the Universal Traffic Management Society of Japan, another meaningless acronym that others might argue deserves mention. I beg to differ. Acronyms are not words; their dictionary-worthiness must be judged more harshly. Such acronyms convey no meaning (which is why they should always be defined when used). 210.235.58.183 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be merely a typo, but if so it's one that still has enough cites to pass our CFI. Better if we can confirm it means UMTS for those who notice the discrepancy and wonder if it is the same thing or something confusingly given a similar acronym. —Muke Tever 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to mean "the anchor is aweigh". But my understanding is that the phrase is anchors aweigh meaning that "the anchors are aweigh". I could be wrong though. SemperBlotto 08:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Captain Cook said Cook Society my last Anchor apeak So he was using more than one anchor - so either expression could be correct. Incidentally apeak SOED says = aweigh and atrip with the cable being vertical.

BUT my money is that it is neither but has the same derivation as afoot (meaning on foot) and abroad. Saltmarsh 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

- According to the US navy (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/traditions/music/anchor1.html), it means "the anchor has been weighed" where "weigh" means to hoist. Unfortunately, they confound the issue by not writing it with an apostrophe, leaving the essential first point unanswered. But then, naval language is always something of a rule unto itself. 144.213.253.14 05:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be "anchors aweigh". Even if it comes from "anchor's", it has certainly become fossilized as "anchors". Vildricianus 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but language is only an "X or Y" proposition when you're drawing up standards, which we as NPOV can't do. So we document "X and Y," and if possible the wheres, whens, and whos of use. —Muke Tever 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No dictionary entries; can someone provide some quotes? Citizen Premier 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , Encarta's Dictionary , and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary . Removing tag. Primetime 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes provided. —Muke Tever 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition here is "evidence to support a fallacious conclusion". Wikipedia (on the page listing portmanteaux) has "anecdotal evidence". Print Google has a few hits, but all seem to be titles or from non-English sources. — Paul G 10:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked with Google for English pages with "anecdata" and found 245. I haven't had time to really look at them, though. This word was listed on the "List of portmanteaus." SnoopY 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the portmanteaus category because I have put it there. The entry was already in existence before I did that. It is also listed as a portmanteau in Wikipedia's list of portmanteaus, although there is a lot of nonsense and misinformation on that page. — Paul G 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. Changed def to "anecdotal evidence" (which is what it means; though calling something anecdotal evidence indicates you think the conclusions drawn from it are thus fallacious, that's not the definition of the word). —Muke Tever 23:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, looks like a word people use only to be cool, not as an actual science or anything, judging by yahoo search. Sources? Citizen Premier 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a real word. No attempt at a definition. Deleted.SemperBlotto 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Recreated with cites. No, it's not an actual science. —Muke Tever 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

purported vulgar Latin. Eclecticology 11:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly ordinary Latin word. It is probably not of classical date, though probably early: even though it is reckoned as but not attested as existing in Vulgar Latin, so that it might exist long enough to have a descendant in Old French, it is used by Latinists of later ages. However, it's not an adjective but an adverb, meaning literally 'in the Roman manner' (and by extension 'in the Romance manner' and by some people even 'in Romanian'). Personally I would capitalize it, but then, the AHD doesn't in its etymology of the word 'romance/Romance' and neither, apparently, do we. I'll see about hunting up cites when I get to it. —Muke Tever 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you find cites I'm satisfied. I was more concerned with Alexander's wish to start including hypothetical words. Eclecticology 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, hypothetical words per se are bad. No worries. —Muke Tever 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 07:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone support the definition of dapple as an animal with a mottled or spotted skin or coat? I could not find this meaning in any dictionary, all I find is one of the spots on a dappled animal. Thanks. —Oleg Katsitadze 13:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it’s correct per my Random House Unabridged...one of the meanings is an animal with a mottled skin or coat. I will expand the entry a bit. —Stephen 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple mis-spelling. 144.213.253.14 05:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This word is included because it’s a common misspelling. As for the capitalized misspelling, Desireableness, I don’t believe we need to keep it. —Stephen 12:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

- I tried searching for information about this before posting, but didn't find any guidelines. In my opinion, mis-spellings should be omitted. Then a search for the mis-spelling would reveal the correct spelling. As it stands, I look up the mis-spelling and it redirects me silently to the correct spelling which I naively take to mean all's well. At the very least, mis-spellings need to be labelled as such on their own page, not just silently redirect to the correct word! Looking up the correct spelling of a word is one of the primary uses of a dictionary! If there's a better place to discuss this, please point me to it. Sorry, I'm new here. 144.213.253.14 04:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The current policy here is to label a misspelling as such on its own page (personally, I don’t care for this method...I would prefer to be redirected automatically). So, desireableness should be marked as a misspelling of desirableness. As for Desireableness, it could either be redirected to the lowercase or just deleted. (I think the policy is to delete improperly capitalized misspellings, because only a single error should be treated on such pages.) —Stephen 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. Labeled it as 'non-standard spelling', as the term 'misspelling' is hideous naked festering POV of the type we shouldn't be putting up with. (Leaving aside the emerging issue of how POV 'non-standard' itself may be.) —Muke Tever 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

English onomatopoeia for baby talk. I moved it from RFD. —Muke Tever 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

...along with "goo goo", "ga ga", and "a goo goo goo, a ga ga ga" ("is all I want to say to you" - pace Sting) perhaps? There is no set form for phrases of this kind, unless this is actually a noun (rather than an interjection) that is a synonym for "baby talk". Delete — Paul G 10:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for causing Sting to be mentioned! By this fact alone, it must be gone! --Dangherous 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the Google print hits for "goo goo" primarily don't refer to baby talk (it actually seems to be synonymous with "ga-ga" in the sense of 'infatuated', outside of brands such as the band 'The Goo Goo Dolls' and the candy 'Goo Goo Cluster'). There's far too much noise for 'ga-ga' to check the whole thing for signal, but filtering for 'baby' as well I get again the same sense of 'infatuated' (in some cases with conscious reference to baby-talk). Added cites. (I even found a cite where the whole phrase was used as a verb, viz. "goo goo ga ga–ing", indicating that it is, at least in the minds of some, a set phrase, but a verb sense is not on the page yet, so I did not add it.) —Muke Tever 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know about Manx or AAVE, but it’s plain English. Changed and removed RfV. —Stephen 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites for the verb sense. —Muke Tever 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

spasisms

Um, added cites. —Muke Tever 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The source given is a rap dictionary, meaning given as "good, fine, phat". Jon Harald Søby 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 14:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this (and "krunk") are a type of music. Needs checking though. — Paul G 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites for the 'crazy/drunk' or 'cranked' or whatever it is sense; only found two cites for crunk music though. —Muke Tever 02:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning given as "drunk as a crunk skunk". Well formatted though. Jon Harald Søby 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Only found two cites in use on Google Print, whose meaning unclear; the glossary hits give several meanings, one 'exciting' and the other 'unpleasable', and another 'have sex'. —Muke Tever 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This shows up on Google in enough dictionaries of made-up words for it possibly to be a valid protologism or neologism, but has no English-language hit in Google Print. If OK, the definition needs a tweak, and I'm guessing it is a blend of "Rover" and "alert" - am I right? — Paul G 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It appeared in a book of invented words, Sniglets, in the late 80s, which was presumably the source of its ubiquity. And apparently that (Rover+alert) is the reference. But I think, given that its definition is much more common than its use, that it belongs better on the LOP. —Muke Tever 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this exist? Is it transitive or intransitive? — Paul G 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The word does apparently exist. From the Usenet cites I can find, this isn't what it means though, at least not per se—it seems more commonly to be a noun. Shows up a couple of times in the phrase "download a brownload" (which does mean 'defecate'), and once as a euphemism for "shitload", from which one might gather its meaning. Anyway, I only ran across one topic where it appeared as a verb, in the wake of an article where an acupuncturist asserted that frequent pressure on the index finger tends to cause diarrhea. (There was one other verb use which did not support the sense given.) No Google print hits, not really enough Usenet hits, I'm not going to mess with it further. —Muke Tever 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This one is in the List of Portmanteaus--the side definition says "a term for defecation in our digital age." SnoopY 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that the list of portmanteaus I used to find this entry was the one that linked to Wikipedia from the "Things to Do (for the newcomer who doesn't know where to start)" area. SnoopY 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A half fragment of an object. From the makers of "exicornt". SemperBlotto 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. While it may be a proper name (surname) or a typo for comment, it isn’t a "half fragment of an object". —Stephen 08:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible joke entry. SemperBlotto 11:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks very much like it. But googling reveals what might be a too literal translation of some German word:

Only finding evidence for a horn such as is placed on a bicycle which is honked by squeezing a ball. —Muke Tever 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good word (worth remembering!), referenced in Das Capital but an old German publishing story - and it adds an important twist to the whole concept of "paradigm".

'Ballhorn' is the name of the Publisher it references. Etymology would be German.

Usage: to Ballhorn (or ball horn) - to totally revise (with the intent to improve) and mess up further.

I know it in German (verbalhornen or verballhornen, die Verballhornung, d.h. Verschlimmbesserung). It means "to bowdlerize" ... but I didn’t know we had it in English as well. (It seems like it should be one word, to balhorn or ballhorn, rather than to ball horn, though.) —Stephen 13:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

verballhornen

Johann Balhorn d. J. (1528-1603) war ein Lübecker Buchdrucker, in dessen Verlag 1586 das mittelalterliche "Lübische Recht" in einer angeblich korrigierten Neuauflage erschien, die jedoch viele Fehler enthielt. Nach anderen soll Balhorn dem Bild eines Hahnes (für den Buchstaben H) ein Nest mit Eiern hinzugefügt haben. Nach "Trüners Deutsches Wörterbuch, 1996" stammt J. Balhorn wiederum aus dem Dorf Balhorn südwestlich von Kassel.

Ich hoffe, es hat den Leserinnen und Lesern wieder Spaß bereitet. Das nächste Mal geht um etwas, um das sich weder der Etymologie-Duden, noch andere derartige Werke kümmern: die Herkunft von Markennamen.

http://prismenfernglas.de/etymologie1.html

Oskar Seidlin, And who, if we may ask, is Johann Balhorn von Lübeck?, in: Euphorion 77 (1983), S. 230|||

I have never heard that word used as a noun before. I would think "intervening" would be a noun for the verb intervene. Jon Harald Søby 20:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's straight out of Webster 1913, where it's also given as obsolete. He cites its appearance in Henry Wotton, whose works do not yet appear to be available online. "Intervene" as a noun does appear to have other meanings nowadays as well. —Muke Tever 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

- Intervention, I think. 144.213.253.14 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Added one cite ... sort of. And moved to autagonistophilia. —Muke Tever 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

aesthetically displeasing - any takers? SemperBlotto 11:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the adjectival use SemperBlotto 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is pants Παρατηρητής 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

pants is doubtless what the expression would be based on. I suspect it (and butters by the same user) is not much in use outside that user's circle. —Muke Tever 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Verified from Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at p.g.c showed entries with this term in quotation marks, indicating it is known to not be a real word. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Move Misspelling (verbs ending in -ce (where this is prounounced /s/)) do not drop the "e" when "-able" or "-ible" are added. Google Print has plenty (275) of hits, and these look like legitimate uses without quotation marks. — Paul G 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I agree it should only be listed as a common misspelling. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I've moved the page to its right entry and replaced the wrong one with a misspelling reference. Vildricianus 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites from works that used it twice. —Muke Tever 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this - it could do with a reference. — Paul G 09:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your British sense of humor is lost on me. Did you do any sort of web search before submitting this? Perhaps, as the top of this page indicates, this should be moved to the tea room? --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Its called this cos they're so tasty you always want s'more. I saw it on a Barney the Dinosaur show once. --Dangherous 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Muke, did I get the new citation format correct on that first-of-many citations? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine. —Muke Tever 08:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple more cites. —Muke Tever 00:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this as anything but a spelling error - it could do with a reference.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is the British spelling for the US version of color. Gate2Valusia 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I stumbled into the middle of a reactionary joke? Gate2Valusia 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, :-) you did. I didn't actually tag the colour entry, as tempting as it is.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this is OK. I have added a link to -pedia. www.wordspy.com has citations. SemperBlotto 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites, too. —Muke Tever 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero print.google.com hits. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See Truthiness on Wikipedia. The origin seems to refer to the word truthy not truthiness so a cleanup is needed. But the word itself is OK. --Patrik Stridvall 21:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Second that - see Truthiness on Wikipedia, particularly the sources, including Colbert's definition of Truthiness as the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year, a prediction by an etymology professor that Colbert's truthiness is bound for the mainstream dictionaries in the next year or two, and four articles on Truthiness in the New York Times, the latest of which, a column by Frank Rich, noting that "The mock Comedy Central pundit Stephen Colbert's slinging of the word 'truthiness' caught on instantaneously last year precisely because we live in the age of truthiness." - 24.118.48.224 08:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia indicated the first use of the term as 10/17/2005...that means it does not meet our criteria for inclusion (by spanning at least a year.) His monologue joked that any real dictionary would tell "'Hey, that's not a word'."...so I know deep down in my heart that we should not let him down.  :-) It is not a word...not yet anyhow. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word truthiness has received a lot of publicity recently, so we probably should keep it. Even if no one is seriously using it, lots of people will be looking for it. —Stephen 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanning a year is only for one of the criteria. The appearance on the TV show, leading it to subsequently become ADS Word of the Year would probably qualify it under appearance in a well-known work. —Muke Tever 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. Still needs cleanup though (it seems two of the definitions are restatements of the same idea, and the third is ... not very well written) —Muke Tever 08:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this is well known (by Brits anyway) and is in the OED. I have commented out the guesswork etymology. SemperBlotto 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Added cites, too. —Muke Tever 07:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's on Wikipedia, and I came up with ~29,600 Google hits for it. It's a Latin phrase, but I don't think the definition is exactly correct, though. SnoopY 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 07:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Or is it US spelling :-) ? Vildricianus 21:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks wrong to this American. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. American spelling at least is abhorred/abhorring. (It’s from Latin abhorrere.) —Stephen 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites from GP that used the single-r spelling more than once and/or lacked the double-r spelling. —Muke Tever 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused - what is the language, and what is the word? Headword is "okanona". SemperBlotto 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not really clear on whether it is called Ndonga or Oshindonga.

• Ndonga language
• The Bible in oshiNdonga
• Oshindonga Beginner's Guide

Anyway the word seems OK occording to guide. I have move the page to okanona and wikified it and removed the RFV. --Patrik Stridvall 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Ndonga (language code ndo) is the most common name in English. (Oshindonga is only one of numerous alternate names.) —Stephen 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - I have changed the name, added categories for the language and explained that Oshindonga is an alternative name for Ndonga. --Patrik Stridvall 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what he means - but is this the actual name of the color? SemperBlotto 23:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly heard it frequently. Print.google.com lists 6690 hits! Is this serious, or meant as humorous retribution for the joke nomination of colour? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites, removed rfv. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of test-page. I don't think it succeeded. SemperBlotto 08:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it’s good. Zhiishii is Ojibwe for rattle (in Algonquian syllabics, ᔒᐦᔒᐝ). The page needs a lot of work, but the main problem is trying to conform such alien semantics to familiar Indo-European formats ... it’s difficult. —Stephen 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The zhiishii page is only a test. The word zhiishii do not exist in Ojibwe, but it is the root for all the rattling-type words in Ojibwe. The rattling-type words listed are from various documents (Baraga, Cuoq, de Josselin de Jong, Nichols & Nyholm, Campbell, etc.) or have be extrapolated using grammatical tables from Nichols, Rhodes or Valentine. The problem is having it fit the Indo-European form. The purpose of the test page was if instead of listing the words by their grammatical classes, if for Ojibwe and other Algonquian languages if it would make more sense to have the words be presented in their construct classes instead. If this format works, we should keep it. If it doesn't, it was only a test; a different approach will be taken. Feedback at Wiktionary:About Algonquian languages would be greatly appeaciated. CJLippert 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If these articles make ANY type of sense to anyone, could they please make them into a simple definition. Cheers. SemperBlotto 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

early - any takers? If it helps you make up your mind - the contributor vandalised prelate, removing the real definition. SemperBlotto 08:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds familiar, but no print hits outside of some for "P-related" that got reattached over a linebreak and one for "prelate^d" with a footnote marker. —Muke Tever 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Early is the correct use for it. It is a colloquial phrase that is spreading on facebook.com. It gets its roots from a Smallville episode where a one time character was having a birthday, I think. -Hendersond1 15:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As the time for finding citations is up and nothing's turned up, I've added it to WT:LOP. You can recreate the page if you can find and add cites to it. —Muke Tever 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Wonderfool. The image is understandable, but is it anything more than an imaginative metaphor from one author. Eclecticology 03:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderfool goes into stupid-mode every so often. Deleted. SemperBlotto 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say moreso into silly-mode. --ex-admin part-time sockpuppetting quasi-vandal Wonderfool 14:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A lovely autological word. It's the sort of word I'd make up for urbandictionary. But my urbandictionary era is over. I think I added a couple of dozen words to urbandictionary after reading about it in FHM. It was amusing-ish, u know. But not that amusing. Template:Move to Wonderfool's Blog.... anyway, find some credentials for this word. --ex-admin part-time sockpuppetting quasi-vandal Wonderfool 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tosh. Deleted. SemperBlotto 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Slang word for stealing - any takers? SemperBlotto 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• After a bit of searching, it looks to me like it's mainly a word in Polish (and perhaps Gaelic or some precursor) and a surname. It does have appear alongside "steal" in a number of slang dictionaries, though: .

Probable vandalism SemperBlotto 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• It’s more nonsense from the creator of corment. Deleted. The Russian word that he is referring to, хохотать, does not even have that meaning. —Stephen 09:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandal User:SemporBIotto (whose writing reminds me very much of User:Wonderfool/User:Newnoise) keeps re-creating this page (among a number of others), so I have redirected and protected it. —Stephen 12:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was User:Wonderfool that contacted me asking me to help with this vandal. Uncle G 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A hypothetical, alternate universe plot - any takers? SemperBlotto 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- delete non-dictionary 144.213.253.14 05:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This page might be more suitable for wikipedia. -- Eddie 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The death of Superman itself would be Wikipedia material, but the article seems to be indicating that other, similar stories might be called a "death of Superman". However no evidence in GP. —Muke Tever 07:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this idiomatic? Is it someone one is necessarily friends with, or who just shares the dormitory? For example, roommate and housemate do not necessarily mean that the person concerned is a friend, just that they are in the same room and house. — Paul G 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I posted the definition because I used to call My friends at the dormitory dorm pals. -- Eddie 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

- delete non-dictionary Two words, both with their standard meanings. 144.213.253.14 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect this def to be on wikitionary and will prolly be deleted soon. -- Eddie 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This word is still here, eh? Anyways I just noticed that their was a list of protlogisms that were deleted and I'd suggest that deleted words should be redirected to that list, to avoid recreation. -- Eddie 08:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

English verb, to fwa (fwas, fwaing, fwaed, fwaed) — To perform a fwa. (???) What kind of English would this be? —Stephen 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a joke entry to me. Ncik 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The only part of the definition that got close was about people meeting - its does sound rather like an "air kiss". Deleted anyway - the rest was rubbish. SemperBlotto 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this can really be made into a dictionary definition, or should we just move it to Wikipedia and let them sort it out? (It seems to be factually correct) SemperBlotto 14:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"an early concept, model or prototype of one's vision used for simulation and innovation" - I can't find any website where it is used other than as a Proper noun for some company or product (would need deCapitalizing) SemperBlotto 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete is neologism? Παρατηρητής 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved the Romanian content to the proper spelling, zârnă. zarna does not exist in Romanian, for which the article was created, so now we need to know whether zarna exists in another language. Otherwise, zarna should be deleted. Alexander 007 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not any language I know Παρατηρητής 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The babbling voices of gods - any takers? SemperBlotto 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete is joke? Παρατηρητής 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, possibly promotion of a website. No GP hits, no Usenet hits, very few web hits (the website mentioned, and urbandictionary). —Muke Tever 06:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not found in Print Google nor in Google (except as a typo); looks misspelled; not listed among the synonyms for the word to which it cross-refers. — Paul G 11:46, 9 January 2006 ;(UTC)

• it's mispelled. try different spellings -- Anonymous 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• This word, by its other spelling of exi---nt, has been the subject of a long discussion at Wikipedia, which should prove instructive reading. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exi---nt, w:User:Ed dieS egoura/Exi---nt, and w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eddi eSegour a/Exi---nt. Uncle G 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• An RFV tag was added to the page, someone either keeps removing it deleting thepage -- Anonymous 08:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• i'm sorry for participating in this. i defined the word but i had no idea the page was deleted before, nor did i know it was a contrversial word to begin with. i did define scissors crossover as a synonym to double crossover, though. Sunglasses 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

their seems to be an edit war because this definition keeps getting created and deleted again. for some reason their is a dispute over the page's existance itself. -- Sunglasses 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I actually had the subpage w:User:Edd ieSe goura/Exi---nt deleted on wikipedia a few days ago due the the contraversy. I no longer want to have anything to do with the slang word, whether it's vulgar or not. -- Eddie 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Citizen Premier 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This word was presented for consideration last year here and on Wikipedia and it failed rfv. Here it was redirected and protected due to incessant vandalism; Wikipedia did likewise. —Stephen 11:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this word in any paper or online dictionary. The derivation is supposed to be from X and from ---nt meaning a crossing. There is no word resembling "---nt" in the full OED or in the 3-volume Websters. SemperBlotto 11:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm really trying to defuse this problem while agreeing that there may be no evidence for the word. Does anyone have diffs for when it was considered last year? The history of the deleted page only shows the word first appearing here on January 3, 2006. Eclecticology 11:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The earliest one that I was able to find was spelt Exi---nt at 01:10 a.m., 24 November, 2005, by User:69.112.54.11 (this IP address is known to be one of Edd ieSeg oura’s...see w:Talk:Lists of tropical cyclone names/archive1). I also had a look at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exi---nt, a discussion and votes that took place at that same time on Wikipedia. They say there that User:Ed d ieSe g oura is a master sockpuppeteer and his socks were the only ones voting to keep the word. Besides that, he kept editing other people’s comments and vandalizing the real crossover pages during the process. Eddie kept saying that he had a book that used the word, but nobody could get the title or ISBN No. out of him. Finally, he said the book was "Tracks of the NYC Subway" by Pete Dougherty...so an admin contacted Pete Dougherty personally to ask about the word, and Pete said he had never heard of it. Exi---nt is a protologism (later, Eddie changed the spelling to ex---nt, but the subway authorities have affirmed that the word does not exist in any spelling). Also see w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eddi eS egou ra/Exi---nt. —Stephen 13:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple mis-spelling. 144.213.253.14 05:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct spelling and everything. Why was it rfv'd? Jon Harald Søby 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. The person who added RFV was also reverting from someone who seemed to have made a German Welcome, newcomers page out of it, which may have had something to do with it. —Muke Tever 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"One who gets owned with a Dr. Pepper nade." All I found on google were people named Chris Miller. (Mind, I didn't check through thousands of the hits, but...) - Amgine/^talk 04:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

possible or potentially possible electible positions for aspiring political candidates - any takers? SemperBlotto 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only GP hints support uncountable electibility. This RFV page is the only result in web Google. —Muke Tever 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims to be Persian (Farsi) but is in Latin script. Needs formatting and to have the definition replaced with a translation if it is legitimate. — Paul G 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it’s legitimate, but it should be in the Persian script: كس دادن. The correct translation is the biggest problem ... literally it reads "to give pussy," but I don’t know exactly what it means in English. —Stephen 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The script and literal translation by Stephen are spot on. It is a common, albeit quite racy, phrase and its translation is troublesome because in Persian the male "takes" and the female "gives". The closest English equivalent would be "to sleep with someone" typically with an implication of "tramp" or "slut" attached.

old or worn face.

Delete - silly Παρατηρητής 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

you have never heard? blotto?

Perhaps this should be "crater face", which would fit the definition, but I'm not aware of this term, if it exists. — Paul G 09:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head...it has to be crater face. I’ll move it. —Stephen 13:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The verb senses "muddle or confuse", "succumb" and "abscond". — Paul G 09:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

the ‘abscond’ sense is in my Shorter OED. Widsith 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. Is this an extant sense? Could we have some references and quotations added to the page, please? — Paul G 10:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a quotation indicating that sense. Andrew massyn 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites for 'abscond', which is also in the AHD. The 'confused' sense is asserted to exist in one of those 'language facts' books, but I'm not immediately finding cites (except perhaps this one book which uses 'mizzle head' as a term of abuse, which doesnt necessarily continue this sense). I don't know how the 'succumb' sense would work, as there are no apparent hits for 'mizzle(s/d/ing) to' in this sense (but then, 'succumb' might just be quirky word choice, as 'abscond' was, the latter being a word I never hear without 'with'). —Muke Tever 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a Turkish phrase which has been translated into English, and is not a recognised English phrase.

• Deleted - bad title, encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 09:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to mean female masturbation - any takers (I mean, of course, can anyone confirm the meaning) SemperBlotto 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be in the infinitive, if valid. — Paul G 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(This is a reply to the verification template on the article.) This word appears in my Merriam-Webster online dictionary. In fact, you should find it in most dictionaries. What specific sort of verification is needed? Should a citation appear in a References section? Gate2Valusia 15:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Directions are at the top of this page, under "How does one verify a sense?" Generally the citation will go under a Quotations section. —Muke Tever 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites for the sense of works made in childhood; found only one cite for works intended for the young. —Muke Tever 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If legitimate, shouldn't have cross-namespace links in a main namespace entry. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather to have been some user's personal/proposed project, being developed in the wrong namespace. —Muke Tever 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like nonsense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing on Google. deleted SemperBlotto

This, together with storm in a tea kettle seem incorrect to me. I believe it to be storm in a teacup or possible storm in a teapot. Is a tea kettle an Americanism for a kettle? SemperBlotto 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Second storm in a teacup as the correct form of the expression (120,000 Google hits). Tea kettle variants unheard-of (<10 hits each). Teapot has a greater following (<1000 hits), but comparably insignificant and a far weaker variant assignable to misquotation. Suggest move. 144.213.253.14 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the usual phrase was tempest in a teapot (266,000 ghits)? Still, if it exists, it exists, and moving it wouldn't do much. —Muke Tever 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are right, tempest in a teapot and storm in a teacup. However, I’ve never encountered storm in a teakettle or storm in a tea kettle before. —Stephen 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites to storm in a tea kettle and moved it to storm in a tea-kettle. Only found one cite for storm in a teakettle. —Muke Tever 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

dragon maybe or name? ps2 game title...

still waiting...

• It doesn't mean anything. It's a game. SemperBlotto 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

it might mean something i will look hard you can to...

Template:request for drakan

request for drakan

great muta? --169.244.143.115 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ASAP!

muta...?

• Do not load words, if you don't know what they mean. Deleted SemperBlotto 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i did not load muta blotto i added it its different... --169.244.143.115 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be English (freedom from the state of flux) as well as a Hindi proper noun. Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Zero. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be that this one is misspelled. It should probably be undecuplets. It seems theoretically correct, but may not have real incidents of use. Eclecticology 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of glossary hits for undecuplet (singular) in a musical sense ("a group of eleven equal notes"). —Muke Tever 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"to be beaten in games" (medieval) - any takers?

Slang for sex? —Muke Tever 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirabile dictu, found and added one cite. —Muke Tever 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone didn't quite understand (or is this new to me?). Vildricianus 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s wrong. The third-person singular of abet is abets. —Stephen 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'abette' for abet survives late enough to possibly enter Modern English, but doubtful. No GP hits for 'abettes'. —Muke Tever 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides English, it says it's also a French word; I can't find it, though, and I think it should be accoutrer. Vildricianus 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, entry moved. Kipmaster 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this for real? Why would the IUPAC come up with a new name for an element that has long been known of and has a name already? — Paul G 11:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a systematic name. See Systematic element name.

However: All elements up to and including atomic number 111 have received permanent trivial names and symbols, so the use of systematic names and symbols is recommended only for elements 112 and above.

It still belong here though. :--Patrik Stridvall 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's attested. See WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope... The systematic element naming scheme can go on forever; one could create an element name for the as-yet-undiscovered element 718175029875999, but if it's not attested, it doesn't go in the dictionary. Not this one, at any rate. —Muke Tever 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

rikishis special move...

Added cites at Stink Face. —Muke Tever 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

young gun or male on street slang... ? --130.111.98.71 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) has anyone refered to someone as a youngin? street slang urban dictionary might have something???

Perhaps it’s a misspelling of young'un. —Stephen 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Was put up for verification by the original contributor. Does not seem to exist. Deleted. SemperBlotto 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to just mean 'young one'; recreated with cites. —Muke Tever 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cockney rhyming slang? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not in the online dictionary of Cockney rhyming slang. Can find no evidence. Deleted. SemperBlotto 18:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cockney rhyming slang? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can find no evidence. Deleted. SemperBlotto 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A lady or a instance of missing a target? Cockney rhyming slang? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think it is probably Cockney rhyming slang, but this Londoner has never heard it. I would guess it is "miss" in the sense of "missing a target". Needs to be researched and marked up with (Cockney rhyming slang) if this is what it is; also needs to be retitled "gypsy's kiss" (there is no reason for the capital letters). — Paul G 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gypsy's Kiss" means "piss" in Cockney rhyming slang. I have a Mancunian penfriend who told me so. User:Anon

Zero print.google.com hits. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in English. Suspect spelling (perhaps "verandahing", but what does this mean?). Anyone know what is meant here? — Paul G 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Dutch, "regime change", but I've never heard it before. It's certainly not the catch phrase that "regime change" is, just a literal and clumsy translation. My dictionaries don't list it. Both written this way and in one word gives 300 google hits. Yours to delete. Vildricianus 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

last name or first? --130.111.98.189 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s a man’s or woman’s given name or surname in Chinese. If kept, it has to be capitalized, of course. There are several different characters with different meanings that are pronounced Jing. For example, 京 (capital); 清 (pure); 荆 (thorns). —Stephen 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

清 (Pinyin: qīng) was not listed as a surname in any of the dictionaries that I checked (see references below). Also, I can find no dictionary that lists a Mandarin phonetic spelling of Jing for this character.

Here are the characters that I found that can be a surname and spelled Jing:

• • 經, 经
  • 荊
  • 井
  • 景
  • 京
  • 更
  • 敬
  • 靖

None of these made the top 100 list of common Chinese surnames, and only two of them made the top 200 list:

• 井
• 景

I would recommend listing the definition as a proper name which represents a Chinese family name. I would leave out the part about it being a given name, because virtually any Chinese phoneme can be part of a Chinese given name.

References:

1. Lin Yutang On-line Chinese-English Dictionary
2. Top 200 Chinese family names
3. Single-Character Surnames, A Concise Practical English-Chinese Dictionary, →ISBN

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

Sounds good to me. —Stephen 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(third entry). Vildricianus 13:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I thought Muke told me we can't allow secondary sources for citations.

Also, this should move from rfv to rfd as a copyvio, right?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea, but aren't such short sentences allowed? Vildricianus 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The fact that the two meanings entered are copyvios of different sources makes it confusing. (Presumably, they were all glommed from dictionary.com, from the different sources listed there.) The ensuing discussion is why I think it should be moved to rfd. Whichever result, there should be some clarification of where we stand on copyright cases like this. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, the second sense just seems to be a restatement of the first. I couldn't see how one could distinguish from the other in ordinary text, or contrast them? "Inadequate to produce a sensation or perception" is what "below the threshold of conscious perception" is intending to indicate, no? OED only has this subsumed under one subsense, which (to paraphrase) says: below the threshold of conscious perception, said of things that may exist but are inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception. —Muke Tever 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Vildricianus 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to list of protologisms. SemperBlotto

Anyone with knowledge of Persian slang? Vildricianus 11:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Moved to كس دادن. —Stephen 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One citation listed as unconfirmed. Print.google.com lists numerous hypenations of infringer and some proper nouns for Mr. Fringer, but I don't see this meaning used in running text there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it says uncomfirmed, and the category, too. Vildricianus 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the category and template. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote "You might call them fringers" does not sound like attestation to me. Davilla 15:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But those citations only support meaning #4. The rest should be removed, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I took the rfv to only apply to the sense marked as unconfirmed. I didn't look for any others. Oops.—Muke Tever 04:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, wait. The other senses are not too unlikely. I'm fine with this as it is now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In the sense of "fellatio". Eclecticology 19:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty common slang for any sort of agressive sucking (such as hoovering down a meal.) Fellatio would be only one variant though. Should be tagged as slang and expanded to cover more common uses of the term, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As a verb, maybe, but what's being asserted is a noun (presumably with some phrasing such as "gave him a hoover" , but that's the only cite I found so far, and just a web hit). Vastly more common is it being described as like a hoover, which is of course not the same thing. —Muke Tever 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. —Muke Tever 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The sense being RFV'ed really seems to be more an elaboration of the previous sense (of computer hacker sensu puro). —Muke Tever 00:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Def. 3 seems to be more suggestive of hacking for the purpose of self-edification. I'd think "one who hacks" makes more sense as part of definitions 4 or 5. However, none of the definitions really chide jibe with the meaning of "white hat hacker", so this is asking for a rewrite. Davilla 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Another one for Category:Internet laughter slang. I know this word exists but I don't know how common it is. —Muke Tever 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While I use it hundreds of times on a daily basis, I don't like calling it a word. Probably merits inclusion. TheDaveRoss

Added cites. —Muke Tever 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet acronym for "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." —Muke Tever 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure this exists but there's far too much noise to make out any signal. Someone else'll hafta try their hand. —Muke Tever 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be Portuguese for sharpness - I think it might really be agudeza SemperBlotto 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

arguzia means sharpness in Italian. See . Don't know about the Portuguese usage. Alexander 007 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My pt. dict has this word spelled argúcia. Moved the Portuguese entry to that spelling and added etymology; considering it fixed. —Muke Tever 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Common misspelling of dishwasher-safe perhaps. Zero print.google.com hits. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added internet cites back to 1998. —Muke Tever 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick print.google.com shows a lot of noise. The cites in running text on the second page of my google search didn't quite match the definition given. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is verification for one of the definitions (one that I placed): "gank" as in "rob (as well as steal)", "ganking" as in "robbing, stealing". It's a quote from a 1988 rap song by Eazy-E, a rapper from Los Angeles/Compton, California:"I specialized in ganking white, Mexicans, brothers and others...", e.g., specialized in robbing. The usage was/is common among inner-city blacks, especially Los Angeles in the 1980's. I will get more quotes. Alexander 007 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In my edit comment, I noted I removed it because it seemed redundant to the first definition. Isn't it? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The first definition is not a synonym for the type of "ganking" Eazy-E was speaking of: he meant robbing, mugging, either strong-arm or with a firearm, etc. Alexander 007 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, yes that is quite different. I'll change the RFV to rfv-sense. (But citations for the AAVE meanings are also welcome.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Added cites, such as they be, for the internet sense. —Muke Tever 06:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably praeludium is meant, though that's not exactly what it means. —Muke Tever 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not Latin, but it is Romanian for 'prelude', thus added. —Muke Tever 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 07:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Recreated with cites at buff the muffin. —Muke Tever 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 07:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems more or less correct - but I have seen it used with one, two or three yadas. Which should we have? (Needs some cleanup as well) SemperBlotto 09:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense with only two "yada"s. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should have three yadas, and redirect the two yadas to that. —Stephen 12:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've formatted it, yada yada yada, and moved it to yada yada yada SemperBlotto 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever seen this spelled "yadda" (repeated as many times as you please), that is, with two ds. — Paul G 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this another alcopop?  :-) yada 6140 vs. yadda (UK?) 646. If you add a yadda it should probably be labelled with the appropriate region. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To walk in the country or the woods where there is no established trail.

Dear User:69.235.128.188, to add entries to Wiktionary, enter the term (e.g. "bushwacking" with a lower case "b") in the Search box in the leftmost column, then press the "Go" button. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is actually bushwhacking SemperBlotto 12:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

unknown? - So why did you add it? Deleted. SemperBlotto 15:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Verification for both the etymology and the usage for this word is needed.

This page is for verifying existence, not facts. Those etymologies exist; whether they're true or not is a case for Talk:Jahbulon or WT:TR. —Muke Tever 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But the question remains... are they etymologies for an actual English Language word? This is what I would like verified. As near as I can tell, the "word" is completely made up. It would be as if I started a club and said that the password was "Jes-al-dah", and gave that word an etymology of: "Jes - From the English: Jesus; Al - From the Arabic: Allah; and Dah - From Buddah. It would be a valid etymology for a non-valid word. Blueboar 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

From the criteria for inclusion page:

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.

It is not likely to be run across unless someone is blatantly searching for anti-Masonic sources, which are full of misinformation anyhow. The word as stated includes the inaccurate definition, so it does not need ot be in Wiktionary.

Attestation "Attested" means verified through clearly widespread use,

No. This is clear already from sources. If this is a Masonic owrd as claimed, the Masons are certainly not "widespread" as far as attestation requires. There is also a question of whether the word is even used.

Usage in a well-known work,

No again. It only appears in Masonic ritual, and the best consensus is that said ritual is archaic and may or may not be in use. Masonic ritual is only well-known to Masons who choose to learn it, and if this word is indeed a Royal Arch word, it is even a smaller subset of a small group.

Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or

No.

Usage in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

It is in different sources, but it does not convey the meaning, only the word, as there really is no meaning, except that ascribed to it by sources unfamiliar with the context. If it is a Masonic word, why would someone against Masonry ever have learned it properly? That would require them to be a member of the organization.

Independence This is meant to exclude multiple references which draw on each other. Where Wikipedia has an article on a given subject, and that article is mirrored by an external site the use of certain words on the mirror site would not be independent. It is quite common to find that material on one site is readily traced to another. Similarly, the same quote will often occur verbatim in separate sources. While the sources may be independent of each other, the usages in question are clearly not.

The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning.

Exactly. Therefore, by everyone's admission, the word is used by a small subgroup of Masons, at best, and thus is not independent and does not belong on Wiktionary. All of the online sources on Jahbulon are mirrors of each other, and the books on it are all speculation to a greater or lesser degree.

So, Jahbulon does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. MSJapan 17:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as we include entries for "made-up" words such as unicorn and dragon, we include "made-up" words if they are attested. User:MSJapan's analysis is interesting, but contains many of his own personal interpretations that do not match previous encounters on the English Wiktionary with these issues.

To address MSJapan's comments:

1. "...not likely...unless..." well then, someone will at some point search for the term, won't they? IMHO it would be better to discuss logically the validity of such claims on the page's talk page, for all to see for posterity.
2. second section (selectively quoted)
   1. The or condition means if the "term" meets any of the criteria.
   2. The phrase "well-known work" often is interpreted as any book published, especially one that can be found on http://print.google.com/.
   3. Maybe...no one has cited any (but that doesn't mean there are none.)
   4. Clearly, the citations provided do span the time-period required for Wiktionary inclusion.
3. These are independent citations. The term (as MSJapan asserts) is not used only by the "small group of Masons" but rather also by outside critics. As to the content of the books being "speculative," we certainly do not try to convey anything about the contents of an author's book by citing it. A citation for a Satyr might quote and author such as C. S. Lewis but would not make any assertion that such a creature might be real.

• As it is customary for the {{rfv}} tag to be removed once citations are provided, it is abusive for the small collection of fans this word has generated to continue restoring the {{rfv}} tag.
• Also, as it is customary for the {{rfd}} tag to be removed once a term is moved to this RFV list, it is abusive for the small collection of fans this word has generated to continue restoring the {{rfd}} tag.
• Also, mangling the entries to mismatch the quotations is not acceptable.
• Also, the removal of citations seems to be vandalism from my perspective. Repetion of this should result in a short-term block.
• Furthermore, changing the language from ==English== to ==Hebrew== is clearly incorrect. The only discussion about it was in regard to the etymology section; mangling an entry to push a POV in a dispute may result in a block.

I will now remove these tags and restore it to the last known good version.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)