Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/October 2006

Noun - sense #2 "A bullfinch" --Versageek 04:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• This sense was added by User:Poccil a long time ago. Maybe in another language? SemperBlotto 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Webster's 1913 lists it with that def, with the note "Prov. Eng." However, I am unable to dig up any non-definition references in printed text. I tried such things as "a nope," which primarily gets scannos for rope, "nope feather", and "nope song". --Jeffqyzt 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes dictionaries get things rong. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not wrong. I noticed OED had several cites, and got looking. It is a most frustrating word to cite, since about 99.9% of the 151,000 instances in books.google are either mis-scans of hope, rope, pope, none, note, etc or, since the 1850s, use as No. However, the bullfinch sense does seem to meet our CFI, and there are other uses too. I'm still working through it and will restore the definition, with cites, in the next few days.

Meanwhile (after edit conflict with the archiving...I was that close!) I've restored it here, "unstruck", so the discussion remains until I can report completion. --Enginear 16:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now restored the sense, added two more (noun & verb re blow to the head) and cited the lot. Also Nope, which turns out to have been the original name for Martha's Vineyard...perhaps some of those court testimonies need revisiting...Do you know where she had been? Nope. --Engingreen">inear 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Talk to talk page & rfvpassed. Andrew massyn

Any takers? (Definition needs adjusting - verb rather than noun) SemperBlotto 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It occurs a few times on Google, but I don't think it is any more than the sum of its parts.--Dmol 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that a few is only 17 on straight Google, and several of those are obviously not the defined sense. None in either Google's USENET or Book search. No support. --Jeffqyzt 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed Andrew massyn 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a word? Is it really English? --EncycloPetey 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s supposed to be South African English, so User:Andrew massyn should know whether it’s a valid word or not. —Stephen 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of it. I did a google search specifically to SA and only found the ref to the geographical location. It is not English, Afrikaans or any of the black languages. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such prefix listed in any dictionary that I can find. The supposed examples given would be Robo- anyway as they are both proper nouns. SemperBlotto 12:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

+ Thanks for researching it, and sorry for adding cruft. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion, as I don't think it will be controversial. --Hroðulf 13:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a combining form, per the def it should be used in words where it means "robotic something" or "robot something". A quick look on Google books gets hits for roboarm , robohead , robopet , robocat , robocar , robolawyer , robofish , and robochef . Not all of these would meet CFI on their own, but the combining form, sure. I'm not sure of how we attest combining forms, though; do we cite examples where it is used to form a word? --Jeffqyzt 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

+ Interesting. I withdrew the speedy delete proposal, as it seems to be more common than I thought. --Hroðulf 14:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget robosaurus, robocide, and roboverse! Plus a few actual uses of robo- with the hyphen - Robo-roach could betray real cockroaches; Military robo-surgeon prepares for battle, Wired News: What's the Play, Robo-Coach?; and from a Time Magazine article, "No, it's not a pet you take to the beach. Robo-Lobster, a 7-lb., 2-ft.-long crustacean made of industrial-strength plastic, has a bigger job to do: detecting and destroying mines buried in the surf zone." . I'd say it's pretty well attested that putting robo- ahead of something is understood to convey the meaning that the something is in the form of a mechanical automaton. bd2412 T 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I give in. I have cleaned it up and added a few more (but not all the ones in Urban Dictionary). SemperBlotto 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually Indonesian?--Williamsayers79 13:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that the first sense is valid. The word gang is a very common Indonesian word that means alley or narrow street. You can google, for example, "anak-anak di gang" (children in the alleyways). —Stephen 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its the Afrikaans word for alley as well, derived from Indonesian. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFD. DAVilla 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"No Ugly Men Please"? Really? bd2412 T 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is National Ultimate Media Panel, (some sort of college frisbee championship) and a rapper. Admittedly most dating sites send the web-crawlers away so perhaps there are cites out there but I can't see one. MGSpiller 22:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Original RFV tag was by User:Connel_MacKenzie. Definition given is: "Of or pertaining to the state of being flamboyantly messy."

Zero Google Books hits, zero Google Groups hits, 2 straight Google hits, both of which are Wiktionary. No support. --Jeffqyzt 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also zero hits on Amazon.com's book search (which sometimes comes up with results not found elsewhere), and zero hits on Project Gutenberg's book search. bd2412 T 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Then no further search is necessary. RfV failed. DAVilla 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite right. SemperBlotto 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't find it in an on-line dictionary, and it isn't in wikipedia (if it turns out to be a real word and correctly spelled we should let them know), but I found 98,300 googles, looks possible. I did fix some of the formatting. (it's still rfc, still capitalized). RJFJR 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the facts that I am unsure of. It doesn't seem to be a peptide (as defined) but a derivative of pyridine that links peptides. I haven't been able to find a good definition or a structure anywhere though. SemperBlotto 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved the question to Wikiversity & will revert later with a descision. Andrew massyn 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I got the following from various online Oxford dictionaries:

• pyrrolidine (noun) (Chemistry): a pungent liquid made by reduction of pyrrole. Chem. formula: C4H8NH. -- The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition
• pyrimidine (noun) (Chemistry): a colourless crystalline compound with basic properties.
  • A heteroaromatic compound; chem. formula: C4H4N2.
  • ( also pyrimidine base ) a substituted derivative of pyrimidine, especially the bases thymine and cytosine present in DNA.
  • ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from German Pyrimidin, from pyridine, with the insertion of -im- from imide. -- The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)
• pyridine (noun) (Chemistry): a colourless volatile odorous liquid, formerly obtained from coal tar, used as a solvent and in chemical manufacture (Chem. formula: C5 H5 N).
  • ORIGIN Greek pur ‘fire’ + -ide + -ine4 -- The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary.

Nothing of that spelling listed however. Cormaggio ^talk 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

However, a search of a medical database gives a number of results, eg:

• Urinary CTX-II and glucosyl-galactosyl-pyridinoline are associated with the presence and severity of radiographic knee osteoarthritis in men. K.M. Jordan, H.E. Syddall, P. Garnero, E. Gineyts, E.M. Dennison, A.A. Sayer, P.D. Delmas, C. Cooper, N.K. Arden. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. July 2006 v65 i7 p871(7).
• Vitamin K status among children with cystic fibrosis and its relationship to bone mineral density and bone turnover. Steven P. Conway, Susan P. Wolfe, Keith G. Brownlee, Helen White, Brian Oldroyd, John G. Truscott, Julia M. Harvey, Martin J. Shearer. Pediatrics. May 2005 v115 i5 p1325(7).

Basically, I can find reference to it in medical journals but not medical dictionaries - perhaps people like JWSchmidt or HappyCamper might know better where to start looking? Cormaggio ^talk 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I forgot this page existed on Wikiversity until I saw your edit summary! The spelling is correct. Check out D. Fujimoto, T. Moriguchi, T. Ishida, H. Hayashi, "The Structure of Pyridinoline, a collagen crosslink" in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications volume 88, number 1, 1978, pages 52-57. In their abstract, they say that they isolated this compound from bovine bone. Plenty of details in this paper. I'm not going to draw the class of compounds represented by pyridinoline though, since ASCII art is not my forte. :-) I suspect the entry on Wiktionary is based on more recent (and interesting) findings about this compound - that I'm not familiar with. If anything, at least this paper is a solid reference for that Wiktionary entry. --HappyCamper 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems dubious. - TheDaveRoss 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a genuine WW II Army term (for a cursory cleaning, using one's helmet as a basin) according to books.google.com but I don't see running text citations right off. --Connel MacKenzie 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In the form whore's bath, it’s a common term in contemporary Texas English. It means getting washed up in a sink while on the road, generally in the men's room of a gasoline station or roadside eatery or bar. —Stephen 03:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard a friend say it, so maybe it is Texan. I don't remember the 's though, and I doubt it's actually applied to whores. That's more of an etymology sort of thing. DAVilla 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 08:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Now has both an entry and is in List of protologisms. Sounds like a word but it's not in the dictionary I checked. 11,000 googles but that could be a misspelling. If it's a word does in mean possessing ingenuity; ingenious (as listed) or ingenuous? RJFJR 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The eight available hits from Google Books seem to support the definition given. --Jeffqyzt 15:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, and those hits (including some in gov't documents) cover a swath of years, at least from the 70s to today. bd2412 T 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Exellent, cited. DAVilla 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this could qualify as a flagship entry, for the reform needed to the RFV process. This is worse than leet, in many regards. If Wiktionary is to actually become a usable resource, especially for people learning English, entries such as ingenuitive have to be (much more) clearly marked as jokes/blatantly incorrect/absurd comedian usage only. This goes beyond Hippietrail's proposed multi-level Wiktionary. Purposefully ignorant uses, such as "ingenuitive," should be labelled as such. But they should not be clogging the main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 03:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see Princess Leia or Leia being a valid entry, but this? Do people use this when they're not specifically referring to the Star Wars character? --Jeffqyzt 14:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have RfD'd, personally. DAVilla 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Needs formatting and slimming down anyway. SemperBlotto 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

All the Google Books hits seem to be scannos of inequity. Only one Google Groups hit that looks to my non-accountant's eye to be a typo for equity. There are a lot of straight Google hits, but most seem to be lists of various one-off permutations of financial terms; my guess is that this is linkspam. --Jeffqyzt 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfv-sense for verb sense 3: "the psychological decay of a primary-relationship commitment and bond".

Note there was an external link on "bond" (that I removed) to http sfhelp.org/01/bonding.htm ; this web site is also pointed to in the user page of the contributer of this sense. --Jeffqyzt 17:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've broken the http link above: no need to promote that site here. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do quite a lot of family law and share offices with a psychiatrist. I have never heard of it. No citations no comment. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten and cited. "lower form of Japanese written language called Katakana"!? --Ptcamn 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition reds: "One who sacrifices his own life for redemption." Is there any evidence for its use outside Tolkien's works? Does this meet the WT:CFI? --EncycloPetey 02:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien is a well-known author, if contemporary, so that would at least merit nonce usage, no? DAVilla 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought nonce usages were specifically excluded? Hrm...don't see that in CFI at the moment, but by the definition of nonce word, wouldn't they fail to be widespread, unless that one instance resulted in further use? Anyway, I came up with zero English language hits on Google Books for "a boromir" , and only one hit (in LoTR itself :-) for "you boromir" . Similarly, all the English Google Groups entries for those combinations seem to be referring directly to the character Boromir in LoTR (e.g "a Boromir type", "a Boromir-clone", "an Aragorn or a Boromir doll", etc.) or various fanfic additions. Perhaps this character is well known and attested enough to be defined as that character, but the definition given is shaky. Probably the encylopedic entry w:Boromir is enough. --Jeffqyzt 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Language listed is "Rohingya", definition says it's a vegetable but does not list scientific name or English translation. Google lists the Wiktionary entry followed by lots of gribble. -PierreAbbat 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even with all the lists out there of made-up phobias, Google draws a blank. In my opinion, it doesn't need to be wikified, but deleted. Any evidence, anyone? —Dvortygirl 20:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to one of several made up phobias by the same user. Deleted them all. SemperBlotto 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• "paraletic", which occurs in the definition, is not a real word, but a mispronunciation of "paralytic" which acquired the meaning "drunk". The Urban Dictionary lists both words. Besides the definition given here, there appears to be another meaning of "maggoted" referring to wounds with maggots in them. -PierreAbbat 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A listing in urbandictionary is a red flag here. Usually it is a very good indication that a term has been made up and not worthy of an entry in a real dictionary (nor even Wiktionary.) --Connel MacKenzie 12:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked up maggot both here and in a print dictionary. One of the meanings is whimsical (which I didn't know). Perhaps by extension, drunk is a possibility. I am leaving it till the end of the month for a descision then. Kept on a whimsey so to speak. Andrew massyn 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"No cites, no interest. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Handful of books.google.com don't seem to indicate this meaning. --Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• It may well have some sort of quasi-religious of philosophical meaning. Deleted this one until something better comes along. SemperBlotto 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  One user asked about it, so it might be better to give it time. DAVilla 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have checked my Oxford and Webster and it appears in neither, which is odd, because I always thought it was a word. I then looked on line, and couldn't find anything except a possible entry in the new Websters online, (blocked to me). How sad! I am going to have to revise my vocab. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it means something (47 = handful?) just not the indicated meaning according to Connel. DAVilla 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put RfV on the Verbal sense of wale because it just looks like a mispelling of wail and if so it needs removing, if it colloquial we need cites and it would also be good to know where it is used colloquially.--Williamsayers79 08:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED has the first sense (and I can't see much difference between that and the second). Misspelling...makes me think of "Oh wale may the keel row, the keel row, the keel row"...or is my idea of a Geordie accent just too off the beam ;-) --Engingreen">inear 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some researching on the internet and have amalgamated the first two suspect senses and don't have a problem with them any more. But it is the drukeness reference that I can't find any thing for.--Williamsayers79 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've cited the to beat sense (with some difficulty, since the Scots verb is much more prevalent) but not found anything for the make intoxicated sense. --Engingreen">inear 14:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm damn sure that the beat sense is substandard spelling for "whale" (for which we dont yet have the verbal definition). I am marking it as such. As for the drunk sense, I am removing it as I have been unable to find it. Andrew massyn 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--08:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pack of cigarettes? - cites please.--Williamsayers79 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with UK "fag" (a cigarette) perhaps? — Paul G 09:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so, If we don't get any cites I reckon it would be a safe bet to remove this sense.--Williamsayers79 07:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites, quotes, references given so I'll apply the {{rfvResult}} to the talk page until someone finds any evidence.--Williamsayers79 13:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This need new cite/references since the ones from transwiki are now dead.--Williamsayers79 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I ran a Google search, and I got an article titled "Hot," written by J. R. Victorio for the Philippine News Online Edition.  It looks like pogi points is legitimate, but it is (I think) not American English, but rather Philippine English. — V-ball 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So this is actually a Fillipino English word then? Do we need a new category in category:Regional English or is it Tagalog?--Williamsayers79 09:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safer to put it at WT:LOP for now. I hope someone comes up with a regional category in due course. Reluctantly rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? (English and Swedish) SemperBlotto 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know about the English, but I think the Swedish is valid. I don’t have a Swedish dictionary, but I think truten means something like "the turkey"...and also has the slang meaning of gob, kisser. So that håll truten would mean, I believe, "shut your gob". —Stephen 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some references for the English. Thanos6 07:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, trut (definite form: truten) is a collective term for some of the larger species of gulls, according to sv:wp (I know next to nothing about birds, though, so please don't ask any details :) ) But yes, it's also slang for mouth, and the interjection "håll truten" translates as "shut up" or "shut your gob". \Mike 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My ward says its ok. rfvpassed. Now if thats not an idiosincratic way of passing something then I'll eat my hat. Andrew massyn 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No such thing; lists Urban Dict. as the reference, therefore delete? --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this one is right. I seem to recall using that term many years ago, and I found this among the 13,000 google hits:

"Soon after the Model T. Ford came on the market in Chickasaw County, Ford came out with a 'newfangled' invention, then called a foot-feed—later called an accelerator—which could be installed in the floorboard and used to feed gas into the carburetor rather than using the lever on the right side of the steering column." —Stephen 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the un-reference. DAVilla 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My grandfather always referred to it as the foot feed. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 06:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RFC, predating RFV process.

At first glance, looks dubious, but seems to exist. Provide quotations, if possible. Distinguish proper and common nouns, or remove proper nouns if these are too obscure. — Paul G 11:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the proper noun does exist, of course, but it is rather too obscure, and also a vanity page, IMO. I'll remove that. However, I cannot confirm anything of the noun sense. --Wytukaze 12:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion here. , which essentially says that the Spizzwinks? is an akapella group and was named after the mythical bug in the 1906 corn blight. However, I have looked up "spizzwink bug" and "spizzwink insect" and "spizzwink blight" and come up with nothing.

So on the basis that the group is capitalised and has a ? incorporated, and no verification for the bug, It has failed rfv. Andrew massyn 08:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

POV, discursive and contains definitions of other words, which need to be moved to other pages. — Paul G 17:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Added a request for cleanup template, with suggestions in the Talk:jologs page. Manu3d 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to RFV or RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To rfv. The etym and defs. Andrew massyn 07:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful discussion on the etymology here, although it is not definitive at all. . On the basis of this discussion, I am removing the etym def and leaving the word, which is quite well verified. (someone else can add the citations) Andrew massyn 08:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

For such an unusual construction, it would really help to have quotations. They should be easy to find for archaic texts, right? --Connel MacKenzie 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Archaic? Ha'p'nies may no longer be legal tender, but like brass farthings they're not erased from our minds! (OK I just made up that shortening, but since we've always pronounced halfpennies like that I wonder why we stuck to the long spelling -- maybe someone called Featherstonehaugh (pronounced "Fanshaw") insisted on it.) --Engingreen">inear 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a Dickens cite. --Ptcamn 09:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well-known work, rfv removed, feel free to add more though. DAVilla 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

More added. Also, sense as stupid person removed as incorrect -- certainly, daft ha'p'orth means (usually between friends) a stupid person but it is daft that means stupid while ha'p'orth is merely the use of halfpennyworth in its figurative sense, to mean item of little worth. If that needs an extra sense, it should be listed under halfpennyworth rather than under ha'p'orth but I feel it's adequately covered by the halfpennyworth Usage note. --Engingreen">inear 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoring this sense... when I call someone a "daft ha'porth" this is indeed a figurative sense, extending the first meaning. Note that "daft pennyworth", "daft twopennyworth", etc, do not exist.

Furthermore, it belongs under "ha'p'orth" rather than "halfpennyworth" as that is the usual spelling. — Paul G 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair comments. The previous def irritated me by saying that ha'p'orth meant idiot, when actually it only means worthless person, with daft etc adding the silly sense. I still don't like the present def, but can't think how to improve it further without overcomplicating, so have left it.

It is by far the most common verbal usage of ha'p'orth, even in London 200 miles from its roots, but for some reason is hard to find cites for (compared with other generally verbal phrases). --Engingreen">inear 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In the UK slang sense of "twenty-pence piece" - does this exist? Does the urban myth really state that crabs have six legs? — Paul G 10:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'd have thought that at least one of our UK residents would have known it. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 08:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to move Scissors Crossover to the lower-case, but there's some fancy protection on this page, so I thought it might be wise to double-check first. DAVilla 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This (and e.g. "exic*rnt") (* is o, we don't want any hits) is the target of a well-known vandal. By all means move the legitimate page there, but keep or restore the fancy protection; he thinks his coined word is the proper word for a scissors crossover ... see Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress/Long-term alerts Robert Ullmann 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I added Synonym diamond crossover back; this is a legitimate term; used (e.g.) on the Indian Railways. We should probably have a real entry. Robert Ullmann 19:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see it has been restored and deleted 22 times. Why didn't somebody just add the bloody citations? I have added them Rfvpassed.

— This comment was unsigned.

Well, I know you are capable of looking at the deletion history. This was a one-off vandalism. For the en.wiktionary.org history lesson: this is why aol.com is currently blocked. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what's being proposed for verification/deletion here. I can confirm that all of these are very real terms:

• diamond crossing
• diamond crossover
• scissors crossover

diamond crossover and scissors crossover are synonymous. This kind of crossover contains a diamond crossing in its center, which is where the name diamond crossover comes from. Our diamond crossover page should exist and should say this; it should not be a redirect to --error: link target missing--. See w:Crossover (rail) and w:Diamond crossing for confirmation and more info. —scs 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been through this before. According to a train buff coworker (and by train buff, I mean that he operates real trains and builds parts for them):

• A double crossover switches trains from either of two tracks to the other, to permit passing.
• A cross junction (not an X-junction) is where two different tracks going different ways cross. A tower would control the junction. Often these are two different railroads.
• He has never heard of a "scissors crossover", and I have no notes about a "diamond crossover".

These terms are problematic not due to whether or not they exist but because we had a user demanding that these and the term "Exi*ornt" were words, and submitting articles long after we confirmed very clearly that the latter failed utterly to meet CFI. With evidence, I think we can safely tidy up and correctly file the rest now. FWIW the vandal in question was ultimately tracked to an individual and asked to stop, and the request appears to have been effective. Dvortygirl 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dvorty. I agree (and I hope everyone else does) that the fact that a term was once pushed by a notorious vandal does not forever poison the term against inclusion here, if the term turns out in fact to be valid.

I'm no expert on the nuances of our CFI, but I'll note again that Wikipedia's article Crossover mentions both "diamond crossover" and "scissors crossover". I'll see if I can find some independent citations.

Next time you see him, ask your coworker how he distinguishes between these two cases:

      ===**===========**===        ====**==**====
          \\         //                 \\//
           \\       //                   XX
            \\     //                   //\\
      =======**===**=======        ====**==**====
        double crossover           ??? crossover

—scs 16:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Observation: while the vandal (who's identity is known, a NYC subway fan) was very annoying and disruptive ... Connel refers to the words he was adding as "made up", but they aren't, and we should keep them of course ... I suspect he was pretty frustrated ... (which doesn't justify anything of course) ... especially with ex*cornt, which he probably was very sure was a real word.

Ah, you say: but ex*cornt is not in any way imaginable a word? But I think he and his friends used it, just as he says. It just isn't spelled correctly, isn't one word, and isn't English. It is jonction à X au coeur — rail junction with X in the middle. (and yes, coeur is the usual French word for frog, in the railway sense) Robert Ullmann 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW! Mystery solved! DAVilla 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And you used other Wiktionary's vandalism entries to reach this conclusion? Sheesh. DELETE ALL. --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Delete all what? —scs 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems legit, but content was questionable. Okay now? DAVilla 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Great, struck! DAVilla 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DAVilla 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Well, did it myself. DAVilla 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Its a yukky word. There is still debate re blog spots but in the interests of assuming good faith, rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of pointing out the complete collapse of the RFV process, I'd like to note that only one of those "references" is remotely "durably archived" by google, but that one has "" in it! --Connel MacKenzie 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would happily delete it. However, it is cited. Perhaps this will prompt a definitive descision on google & durable archiving and give me some guidance. Please leave comments. It would help! Andrew massyn 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any clues as to what non-paper media are durably archived? There was a suggestion in CFI (?last year) that Google had started long-term archiving blogs, but some seem to doubt this, and personally I have seen no news of any internet archiving except for items within the same domain as the archive -- where presumably the durability must be gauged by the apparent status of the site -- after all, even paper archives are subject to fire and water damage, so "durability" is never 100%. --Engingreen">inear 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The US Library of Congress has a Digital Preservation Program to archive digital and video media. You can read the glowing non-specific discussion on their website (link on the left side under "Library Resources"). --EncycloPetey 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the ohgizmo.com blog is also a news article for that website, it is archived by web.archive.org. In fact it is archived twice, for retrievals on 28 Oct 2005 and 12 May 2006. The problem with web.archive.org though is that they have absolutely no spine. If anyone complains about content for pretty much any reason they will take down a page permanently. In fact if ohgizmo.com were to be restructured, or fall under new management, which restricted robots in certain areas that accidentally coincided with the URLs of the old site, the web.archive.org spiders would delete the content automatically! That to me is incredible, and worth writing a letter over. To that extent the content is better archived here, provided somebody has verified it. Or is it? What kind of medium does Wiki-Media store on? Even CD's will fail in a hundred years. What an incredibly difficult problem! DAVilla 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is a set phrase (obviously not idiomatic,) is the definition given correct? --Connel MacKenzie 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest, no sense in the def. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Many Google hits, not a lot are promising from what I saw. - TheDaveRoss 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it really means "to forward email" - especially see w:anonymous remailer SemperBlotto 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the supposedly "friendly" sense of someone who has good taste in clothing and knows how to talk to young people - is this a deliberate NPOV attempt to counter the derogatory definition, or is it actually used in this way (perhaps as a form of reclaiming the word)? — Paul G 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never come across an non-derogatory or non-pejorative use of the word chav. The is an insult and I'd find it hard to believe (with out any proof) that it is used in a positve way.--Williamsayers79 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This definition is nonsense. Chav has been employed as a form of address in a non pejorative way amongst young men in Kent who could themselves be described as 'chavs'. However the word chav refers to youth not someone who can speak to them! User:Apollonius

remove Can we fix this now, no one seems to know where this daft sense came from, probably a chav!--Williamsayers79 09:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this usage in nonsense. Occasionaly someone who perceives that they are considered 'chav' will claim to be proud of the fact, but not by altering the sense of the word as suggested. Moglex 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sense from the article to the take page until someone can come up with any real support for it.--Williamsayers79 08:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers. Needs a spellcheck. SemperBlotto 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Only one Google Books hit that does not appear to support the definition given. There are 109 Google Groups hits , but they are all either clearly nonce uses or a reference to the 1980's pop song by Combo Audio titled Romanticide. There's also a 2006 novel by the title Romanticide , but I couldn't say whether that's supportive of the definition or not. No clear support. --Jeffqyzt 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this capitalised? SemperBlotto 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC) "The first few Google pages show capitalised and lower case in equal quantities. Moving to lower case. Andrew massyn 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A misspelling of hydromancy or genuine? Jonathan Webley 11:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a Middle English form, long obsolete. Widsith 12:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Replaced with a proper entry. SemperBlotto 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is slang if it's anything. The vast majority of hits, especially print hits, are either fragments from "Spooner" or "harpooner", or they're surnames or screen names. Searching on "you pooner" or "what a pooner" suggests that it might be some sort of an insult, possibly based on pwn. Is this sense worth the cleanup, or should we banish it to Urbandictionary? Dvortygirl 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that it claims to be based on a personal name, and it's derogatory, IMO we should banish it. --Engingreen">inear 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. To WT:LOP

Any thoughts? Jonathan Webley 11:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the second person it's almost perscriptive, and that's a no-no, isn't it? :-J DAVilla 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say the definition in the entry is rubbish. There does appear to perhaps be some use as "one who is gangly" or "one who gangles". --Jeffqyzt 15:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1993: Gardner R. Dozois, Modern Classics of Science Fiction

  "I'm Robert Rampart Junior," said a nine-year-old gangler, "and we want it pretty blamed quick."

• 1994: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Fat Art Thin Art

  ...it had spawned this elegant square-jawed young gangler, this inspired, easy student...

• 1999: James Michael Welsh, John C. Tibbetts, eds., The Cinema of Tony Richardson: Essays and Interviews

  ...he was a "loping creature who looked about seven feet tall" and "had the authoritative stoop of a gangler who is born to mastery."

• 2000: Sylvia Plath, Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams: short stories, prose, and diary excerpts

  Everybody went: the spry, the shy, the podge, the gangler, the future electronic scientist, the future cop who would one night kick a diabetic to death...

• 2002: Hortense Calisher, Sunday Jews

  Yet was it "down in the teen dump," as her cousin Eustace, an older gangler of like temperament, had called it, that she'd acquired a lifelong habit of feeling always more the observer than the observed?

I changed the rfv to rfv-sense for the disputed sense, and added the sense above, with cites at the entry. --Jeffqyzt 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed disputed sense. Andrew massyn 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

These are mispellings of flogging and flogged - this is actually my fault! I'll fixed the en-verb template usage in flog and fix the relevant entries too.--Williamsayers79 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mispelling entries created for both that redirect to the correct spellings.--Williamsayers79 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Questioned sense is:

1. (Christianity) the sixth level of angels, ranked above principalities and below thrones.

The original contributor marked it as (Biblical Tradition) and it was later changed to cat:Christianity. A few searches on "minion" + "angel" didn't come up with any obvious linkages. FWIW, I never heard of this in any of my Christian teachings, so if it's Christian, it's particular to a given sect or sects. --Jeffqyzt 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• This sense is NOT in the OED. SemperBlotto 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a mistake for dominion. --Ptcamn 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Best I could find was "These are the rest of the angels. What you might call "minion angels". Since these are the closest to humankind, these are the angels that are most likely to interact with humans". I don't feel this passes the CFI as it seems to be using minion as an adjective, to imply that they are common. --Dmol 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"This is taken from New Advent; the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I recon they should know. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We know on the authority of Scripture that there are nine orders of angels, viz., Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Throne, Cherubim and Seraphim. That there are Angels and Archangels nearly every page of the Bible tell us, and the books of the Prophets talk of Cherubim and Seraphim. St. Paul, too, writing to the Ephesians enumerates four orders when he says: 'above all Principality, and Power, and Virtue, and Domination'; and again, writing to the Colossians he says: 'whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers'. If we now join these two lists together we have five Orders, and adding Angels and Archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim, we find nine Orders of Angels.

Does this word actually mean wanker and friend? Does not make any sense.--Williamsayers79 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems feasible. Greek μαλακός means soft, tender; and μαλακίζομαι means to abuse oneself, to masturbate (lit., I make it get soft). I’m not familiar with the form μαλάκας per se, but μαλάκα means a softening of the brain. I can see how μαλάκας could mean both. —Stephen 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did we chase all the Greeks away? I will ask at Wikiversity. Andrew massyn 19:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

its been cleaned. Andrew massyn 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally at "gummi bear". I've moved it to the plural as (I assume) that is the brand name. The following need to be checked:

• Is the brand name in the plural or singular?
• Trademark status: (R), TM?
• Spelling: "Gummi" or "Gummy"? The Wikipedia article seems to use both.
• Does this even merit a Wiktionary entry?

— This unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talk • contribs).

In the US, this is absolutely a very common generic term for this class of candy. We ought to have entries for gummy worms as well. I strongly agree that the plural (is it pluralia tantum?) is the much more common form. --Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, please update accordingly. Similarly, see the noun sense listed for gummy. — Paul G 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, if no one beats me to it. Yes, gummy is very common also, to refer to an individual piece of candy. --Connel MacKenzie 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Noun sense two: a ball? What sport might that be? --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's cricket - but very old-fashioned terminology. Now called a daisy-cutter. SemperBlotto 07:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

its also JK Rowling. Still...Andrew massyn

added by anon, just need a German speaker to check it. - TheDaveRoss 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ncik 23:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you add an example or two to demonstrate the use of this word? —Stephen 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that it is recent and slang, don't expect to find it in Goethe ... but I added a usage example. Beobach972 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed rfv. —Stephen 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Attractive moral excellence.

As per anon on talk page. DAVilla 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed disputed sense. Andrew massyn 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several versions of this, all meaning basically the same thing. But as it stands, it only gets a few hits on Google. Interestingly, "throw enough mud" gets a lot more. But the variations are too many to allow it as is.--Dmol 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Variations on the name of the undesirable gooey substance aside, it's also incomplete.. It should be something like: throw enough muck at the wall and sooner or later some of it will stick It doesn't make sense without the last part included in the term being defined (eg: article name) --Versageek 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am working on citing two variations of this which I think both meet CFI: throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick and throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick. I have tried a load of other variations, but have not found more than two poor quality independent cites for any of them.

I don't think the present entry (now showing as throw enough muck at the wall and sooner or later some of it will stick) does meet CFI (I can't find any independent cites), so will move it to one of the variations...maybe tomorrow, else Monday, as I shall be without an Internet connection at the weekend. --Engingreen">inear 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now done as above --Engingreen">inear 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed in new format. Andrew massyn 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The sound of a brass band? I'd like to see this in print. --(P) 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I pulled one of the books.google entries. But I'm pretty sure I recall this (or some variant of it) in one of the many Winnie The Pooh stories. --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The more it snows
(Tiddly Pom)
The more it goes
(Tiddly Pom)
The more it goes
(Tiddly Pom)
On snowing.

And nobody knows
(Tiddly Pom)
How cold my toes
(Tiddly Pom)
How cold my toes
(Tiddly Pom)
Are growing.

Robert Ullmann 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase possibly originated in, and certainly was made popular by, a short 1907 music hall song, I do like to be beside the seaside, which I've now added to the entry. The song was in use by several artistes by 1909 and apparently became very popular in the 1920s (when AA Milne was writing the Pooh books). It is still reasonably well known today. There's an amusing set of letters about it at (I'm sure most or all of the "etymologies" were meant to be tongue in cheek, and one person there also misremembered Pooh's poem.) --Engingreen">inear 11:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah. rfvfailed. Its just a meaningless bunch of sounds. it could be tiddly pom, tiddly pom-pom tiddly om pom tiddly tiddly pom....And besides, a brass band doesnt sound like that. Andrew massyn 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed at this decision. Where is the consensus to delete? The song it was in was an important part of my youth (even 40 years after it was written), was very well known in the UK, and probably influenced the AA Milne poem above. I agree that the original songwriter probably used ant convenient set of sounds to suit the tune he had, but the fact is that set of sounds, and none of the other million possibilities, became famous. For comparison, how many Beatles-era songs are still well known. 1%?

If no one else thinks it's worth having, please copy it to my talk page, as I failed to keep a copy of my input to it. Thanks. --Engingreen">inear 15:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems (from cursory google searching) to be an interesting hoax being pulled on Wikipedia and Wiktionary? --Connel MacKenzie 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Collins, Encarta, and M-W online all have entries stating that pompon as another way to write pompom. If you mean some other aspect, please state it. — Hippietrail 06:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd only noticed it as pompom or pom-pom, but OED lists pompon as the earlier English spelling (from 1753, still in use in 1977 re cheerleaders) with pom-pom only appearing in 1897. The original use was as a hair decoration, later a decoration on a hat (as still used in UK on bobble hats). However, since the "bobble" is made from strands tied in the middle and fluffed out, just like a cheerleader's pompom, I've no doubt the OED are right to say it's the same word. --Engingreen">inear 10:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Noting that Wonderfool was involved, I was quick to assume this was completely bogus. --Connel MacKenzie 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember some 30 years ago finding this word in a dictionary and being jolly surprised. rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. Jooge 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Crap. Delete. If we are going to have every error produced by the English language, we'd be here forever. --Dmol 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

While worser is a very common form in spoken Southern U.S. English, worstest is fairly rare. I believe these two have been discussed here before. —Stephen 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For worser, added a quote from Shakespeare. "Every error produced by the English language" indeed. --Ptcamn 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't worstest be an adjective as well as a noun? (p.s. added worsest as well). SemperBlotto 21:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it even a noun at all? I would've thought it was just an adjective. --Ptcamn 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the cites are real (probably want some more though) I'd err on te side of keeping them, however, they could be tagged with {{archaic}} or {{rare}} and make a note under ====Usage notes==== to explain they are definitely not standard. This is only a suggestion, but we should keep words if they are useful to know about.--Williamsayers79 08:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have though they were both adjectives, comparative and superlative forms respectively.--Williamsayers79 09:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Much like the gerund problem, here superlatives are quite frequently used as nouns with the same meaning. In fact comparatives can also be used the same way, though that's "the rarer" of the two cases. Using any other adjective in this way I would construe as an ellipsis in most cases, but Spanish for instance allows any adjective to be used as a noun. What to do? DAVilla 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In Spanish, it's a legacy of Latin. In Latin, any adjective can be used as a noun. The Latin grammarians use "substantive" for this, though English grammarians (and Dutch) use the term "substantive" to refer to any noun -- not just the adjectives functioning as nouns. I've been wrestling with the problem of how to handle this in Latin, particularly since there are additional inflection issues with calling something a "noun" in Latin. --EncycloPetey 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The parts of speech for a foreign language entry follow the conventions in that language, or don't they? DAVilla 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a cite for worstest. It seems User:Doremítzwr has tagged these as (nonstandard, redundant); is this sufficient, or do they need rare as well? --Jeffqyzt 19:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they need rare. I'm sure they're common in the dialects that use them. Rare should be for things which do occur, but rarely, in standard English.

I've reverted redundant as POV. Plenty of standard constructions are redundant too. What about lesser? --Ptcamn 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 20:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this one even listed for rfv. There are over 200,000 hits online, including the following organizations and books.

• American Association of Suicidology
• Irish Association of Suicidology
• European Network for Suicidology
• Comprehensive Textbook of Suicidology (Hardcover) / Amazon.

--Dmol 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Over 3,500 Google Books hits, seems fairly well verified to me. Anyone care to add cites? bd2412 T 02:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  No need. Clearly widespread use, rfv passed. DAVilla 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. Jooge 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the etymology given, but the rest of it is accurate. It’s a very common misspelling of y'all. —Stephen 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely it's true. And how would you expect anyone to know the correct spelling if they're never taught? Though one may seem more evident to you, language doesn't always adhere to patterns in the first place.

Now how could we verify a misspelling like this? It's not likely to appear in a refereed academic journal, after all. DAVilla 15:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Its use in Southern U.S. English (my dialect) is very widespread and is considered a standard form. We don’t use it in formal writing (the few of us that ever write formally), but we regularly write it in casual and conversational styles. I know the correct spelling of y'all in the same way that I know the correct spelling of the. I didn’t have to look either up in a reference book, I just know them because that’s the way we write them. The spelling "ya'll" usually accompanies other misspellings such as "is'nt", "are'nt", "I'd of thought", and so on. The spelling "y'all", on the other hand, is generally to be expected in text that is more carefully and artfully spelled. —Stephen 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Stephen you know everything. ;-) I'd put it somewhere between an illiterate are'nt (inexcusible for a word taught in schools) and the more common its/it's confusion (where confusingly 's commonly denotes possession). DAVilla 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

y'all is sub standard in for you all, which is sub standard for all of you. How far do we go? rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 12:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just a silly spelling sometimes seen on things. Why take out a silent letter and replace it with an apostrophe? Jooge 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the criteria for inclusion. "Not being silly" isn't one of them. --Ptcamn 21:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Every used to be a trisyllabic word, and it was therefore at times necessary to replace the second e with an apostrophe for poetic reasons. Past tense verbs formed by suffixing -’d in place of -ed (as used by Shakespeare) were used for the same reasons. Hardly silly. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about this in the entry. Can you cite uses of this spelling by major poets? RJFJR 12:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Complete Lyrics of Cole Porter (1992) p. 345:

• There's a boy snail for ev'ry girl snail, There's a boy quail for ev'ry girl quail/ There's a boy mouse for ev'ry girl mouse, There's a boy grouse for ev'ry girl grouse

Alan Aldridge, The Beatles Illustrated Lyrics (1991) p. 185:

• Ev'ry night when ev'rybody has fun, here am I sitting all on my own.

Wikipedia, America the Beautiful:

• America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw; Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law!

bd2412 T 16:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I copied this information to the article page. RJFJR 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 12:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Two music senses are listed, that seem adjectivial, under the noun, that seem unlikely. --Connel MacKenzie 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are easily verifiable with Google searches and . Why so skeptical? DAVilla 15:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rrfvpassed. Andrew massyn 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cited. The online material was very restrictive, so I could only gets snippits here and there. I think the last quotation may refer back to the first NY Times Magazine article, but I'm not sure. DAVilla 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What a foul word. I wold rather it were still-born. Unfortunately rfvpassed.

Not in my Latin dictionary. SemperBlotto 06:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be Late Latin, and Muke thought it was from Greek from metaplasmós "reforming", anyhow...

• metaplasmus est transformatio quaedam recti solutique sermonis in alteram speciem metri ornatusve causa from this book
• Dicitur autem metaplasmus, quasi transformado, vel deformado, eo quod quasi a jure suo from this one

also I have seen it in a few etymologies for metaplasm Dictionary.com and Webster's 1913 among them. - TheDaveRoss 06:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in my Latin dictionary either, but rfvpassed.Andrew massyn 12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both the examples use "turn south". Needs formatting anyway. SemperBlotto 06:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrm...should this be here, or at south, as an adverb indicating decline or failure? It would definitely require a target verb indicating movement, but not necessarily anything in particular. Compare the following:

• After his marriage went south, he spent a lot of time down at the pub.
• When the luck of the unit started heading south, the private decided to go AWOL.
• The quality of life at the startup really started flying south once the venture capital dried up.
• Afterward, when company profits had ventured a bit too far southward, the CFO began to get nervous.

Thoughts? --Jeffqyzt 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a noun sense at south#Noun now corresponding to this. Directions always throw me off as to whether they're adverbs or nouns, or both. --Jeffqyzt 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatted - very common idiom. RFV should just be removed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added an entry at go south and moved the usage examples (which, as SB pointed out, were both "turn south", not "head south") there (with the last example I had above thrown in for good measure.) At go south, I have listed move south, turn south, and head south as alternative forms, with a usage note indicating that this idiom may be constructed alternatively. At head south, the definitions have been combined, with a pointer to go south. No cites have been added at any of these locations (yet). --Jeffqyzt 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It does exist, but I think the def is wrong. Looks like it means to be adventurous in sex, willing to try anything once, etc.--Dmol 09:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well until someone can define it correctly and provide 3 citations on the article page, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 12:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The description is really bad. I have added a comment on the discussion page. See Orang_Utan.

As far as I am aware, the word is derived from the Inonesian/Malay orang (man, person) and hutan {forest), meaning man of the forest, as these apes live in the joungle of Kalimantan and Sumatra. See also the wikipedia entry.

It’s not capitalized. Moved to orang utan. —Stephen 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to unambiguosly find the etymology of the Romanian pădure. Most Romanian books give it as derived from the latin padule, yet I could not find this word on an internet dictionary. However, this word seems to exist in Italian and Portugese. Please read the discussion, too.

If somebody speaks Italian well, it would be great to confirm this.

• OK. I have added an Italian entry for padule - it appears to be a local Tuscan equivalent of palude. Doesn't seem to mean anything like "forest" though. SemperBlotto 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Ganges River.
2. A very common name in India.

An "Indian" word, but it doesn't say which of the more than 200 languages of India the word comes from. --EncycloPetey 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Ah well. Until someone comes up with a language header, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Needs formatting and moving to uncapitalized anyway. SemperBlotto 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like just a researcher working as a contractor to me.. at least with that definition. --Versageek 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As a job title, it does not appear to exist in either the U.S. or Britain. Even if it did, it would be lowercase. Besides, I don’t believe the definition is accurate...the definition is that of researcher. I would understand "virtual researcher" to mean either a person who does research using the Internet, or a computer program or applet that performs essential research tasks. —Stephen 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? See prev. SemperBlotto 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 14:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? See previous two. SemperBlotto 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) One who has work experience, training and skills in the areas of Administration, Office manager or Executive Assistant. This person/persons contracts themselves out to an individual or company for an income. The Virtual Assistant usually has prior corporate experience and uses the skills learned from that environment to use as a platform for their business as a Virtual Assistant. Pay for a Virtual Assistant can be by the hour or on retainer.

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Phrontistery has this word, but it does not say it is "a happy dance". Most print uses would suggest a meaning more like "thingamabob" or at least "contrivance", where it's not a made-up name or nonsense word (the enchanted land of Jigamaree, etc.). Is there evidence for the dance sense? If not, could/should we clean up and correct the article? —Dvortygirl 23:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have replaced it with a proper entry, using the OED and Google print. SemperBlotto 08:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant a corroboree? --Jeffqyzt 01:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In the sense "an inhospitable person" - claimed to be a new sense due to reinterpretation of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Any evidence it is actually used in this way? I'd be loath to call someone inhospitable a sodomite... — Paul G 05:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly for sodomy. — Paul G 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The exact definition for this new sense would be "an inhospitable man who attempts to get intimate with his male guest by force or coercion." For verification see Genesis. Dart evader 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dart Evader, I presume you're being tongue in cheek? (A quick look at the s:Bible (King James)/Genesis makes it seem that way.)

Depends which cheek.

There's definitely a discussion on various blogs (try googling "sodomite inhospitable") about what sodomite should mean...things along of the lines of "so and so called me a sodomist...but I see here that this Biblical translation focuses more on inhospitableness than buggering...so he just called me inhospitable; he's the one who started it, which is inhospitable, ergo he's really the sodomist here!!" I'm not sure that this kind of citation passes the WT:CFI use vs. mention distinction.

I added an rfv-sense for the "An immoral person." definition as well. A quick look did not show instances where it was not being used to mean (often as an insult, whether substantiated or not) one who engages in anal sex or homosexuality in general. I also added a specific definition as "one who practices sodomy" as this probably be there somewhere :-) --Jeffqyzt 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeffqyzt, I was deadly grave. I daresay that what we are dealing with is nothing more than just another example of the Newspeak. The easiest way to stuff an old word with new meaning is to put that new sense on some authoritative dictionary. Then, if someone questions the legitimacy of the new usage, he or she would be referred to the dictionary definition. Voilà! --Dart evader 15:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dart evader. The discussion is merely a discussion without verification. I am removing the senses. it is purile sophistry. Unless we are directed to the "new interpretation" mentioned it goes. Andrew massyn 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Caps? Needs formatting anyway. SemperBlotto 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

An idividual or 'Office' responsible (usually within a private or Public company), for receiving and investigating complaints, such complaints being of an ethical or compliance nature

There are exactly three Google Books hits, only two of which are in English. Both of the English hits are congressional hearings, proposing specific job titles for functions that need to be performed. While this may correspond to actual job titles in a number of places (straight Google search would seem to back this up) there doesn't appear to be a standard definition for their role or position is (unlike, say, CEO or CFO.) --Jeffqyzt 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The meta-syntactic meaning. Is this British? --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it isn't American as far as I know. I haven't heard it in any British humour either. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor me. Perhaps New York, 200 years ago, cf recent discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room#Etymology_for_.22pig.22_.28derogatory_slang.29 ;-P --Engingreen">inear 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Like 42"... maybe they meant pi? It doesn't seem like it should be a separate definition, regardless. DAVilla 09:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a valid usage is spoken :) It's saying: "The answer is 3.14159 ...", i.e. the speaker is giving a nonsense answer for humourous effect. It is certainly listed under the wrong headword (should be 'pi'). Moglex 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing dispute sense for reasons stated above. Andrew massyn 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? The article needs wikification and a language statement. --EncycloPetey 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as you'd make a pitch for anything, you could be making a pitch for woo. Said a different way: delete as nonsense. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not capitalized, but it’s certainly a well-known expression. To pitch woo means to woo, but with a sense of urgency and dedication. When a father counsels his young son on the art and technique of meeting and winning over the opposite sex, he’s teaching his son to pitch woo. —Stephen 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to pitch woo. —Stephen 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster lists it as meaning simpleton, but only as an English dialect. --Dmol 09:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OED says "originally in northern and midland dialects" and doubts the Icelandic etymology since "the dial. forms hardly favour this". It cites it from 1796 - 1885. I thought I'd heard it in the 1970s in Scotland or maybe Cumbria, but I'm not at all certain. --Engingreen">inear 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've heard my Scottish grandmother use it. I will mark it as dialectical and remove the rfv, but not rfvpassed.

1. Fear of Samhain (or of Halloween).
   • 2005, D. Harlan Wilson, Pseudo-city

     Look to your left, point to your right, throw a dart out the window and you will no doubt strike a follicle with ataxophobia (fear of disorder or untidiness), or trichophobia (fear of hair), or samhainophobia

Only other existence of the term seems to be dictionary.com (perhaps placed as a bogus entry to find copyvios?)

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.

--Connel MacKenzie 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I heard this expression at a university lecture when the lecturer said that "your results will head south if you don't manage your time".I think he meant "your results will become bad ".English language is a second language for me and I could be mistaken.

Not sure if the previous anonymous comment was intended for this word's RFV...anyway, Google Books has 4 hits, all of which are lists of phobias . There are 64 Google Groups hits , all but one of which are discussions of the word (not use of it) or lists of phobias. Based on this, I would say this does not meet CFI. (The one instance that "uses" it is as follows):

• 2000: dawnems, WoooooooooooHooooooooo! in alt.games.final-fantasy

  At least you don't have.."Samhainophobia"

--Jeffqyzt 19:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I seached several online medical dictionaries and they all came up blank. Although there are a lot of mentions of the word, they all seem to fall under urban dictionaries, lists of unusual facts, or lists of phobias. Strictly speaking, you could add -phobia to any word and claim it exists. Can't see any reason to pass CFI. --Dmol 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't a word, a lot of people seem to think it is. I think it should be kept, with a usage note explaining it is not a real medical term. --Ptcamn 13:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ptcamn, can you support it with evidence meeting WT:CFI? That is the primary reason for this page and process. --Jeffqyzt 14:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed for reasons above. Andrew massyn 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this regional? --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's standard in UK (and, I suspect, some Commonwealth countries) for a second degree in a science subject (Master of Science), after a BSc (Batchelor of Science), see W:MSc#Taught_postgraduate_master.27s. --Engingreen">inear 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In OED as M.Sc.

As far as I know, it is M.Sc. Two Periods. I will mark it as sub-standard spelling and leave it as it is commonly used. Andrew massyn 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fat and squat. --Connel MacKenzie 21:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites; no interest; Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The second definition (Mexican) is correct. I have never heard of the first definition, "an excellent example of its kind". —Stephen 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Def2. To fail to follow suit in cards.

I didn't want to rfv this on the page, as it is the word of the day today, but isn't the second definition to revoke? Andrew massyn 14:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, renege is the word we use in games such as bridge or pinochle when someone does not follow suit when he has to. If deliberate, it’s the worst kind of cheating, but usually it’s an oversight. The team caught reneging forfeits the hand, and possibly the rubber or even the game. The wording in the definition, "to break one’s commitment", seems a very polite way to put it, considering the ire that it produces. —Stephen 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I play bridge and occasionally revoke. I don't know it as reneging. Is this a UK / US thing? Andrew massyn 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In my US usage, I've heard/used it both for 1) failure to follow suit, and 2) failure to make a bid contract (e.g. in Spades.) Not that that's citable or anything... --Jeffqyzt 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll check Hoyle tonight to see if I can spot a citation. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia, so I guess they are both correct. Andrew massyn 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• revoke (also called a renege) is a violation of important rules regarding the play of tricks in trick-taking card games serious enough to render the round invalid. A revoke is a violation ranked in seriousness somewhat below overt cheating, with the status of a more minor offense only because, when it happens, it is usually accidental.

pimp slap-noun (slang), a publicly delivered, full swing slap from a pimp to a disrespectful prostitute with the back of his hand to her face as punishment and/or humiliation.

I have asked the creator of the entry to provide verifiable citations and to tidy the article.

Suprisingly, lots of Google hits. Jonathan Webley 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See also w:bitch-slap SemperBlotto (Seems to have been deleted! but is still to be seen on Answers.com) 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While pimp slap is astronomically rare (secondary sources, joke "slang" dictionaries only,) bitch slap is common jocular vernacular in the US. (Albeit with the opposite meaning...to slap as a "bitch" would slap, or to slap like a girl who is sorely offended. Pretty much the opposite of the definition currently given.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The majority of instances in which I've heard its usage are in rap songs; on his album Paid tha Cost to Be da Bo$$, for example, Snoop Dogg included a song entitled "Pimp Slapp'd." Medellia 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to delete. It is astronomically rare. To Rfd. Andrew massyn 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be a question mark. Doesn't look like that on my browser. SemperBlotto 10:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok on mine, (Firefox browser). Do you have a US/UK keyboard layout or computer OS. That could make a difference. --Dmol 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT, this is U+A5D8, which isn't a character. It's just that some browsers replace undisplayable characters with question marks (others use boxes, or the � symbol). --Ptcamn 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A5D8 is not in an assigned code range. Doesn't exist. (Yes, Firefox displays ?)Robert Ullmann 16:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted (square box in MS Internet Explorer) SemperBlotto 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it's not a character is a useful piece of information. We should consider this if ever building a front end that hashes out all the funny characters. Is it worth redirecting to a common page for now? How many such codes are there? DAVilla 12:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In Unicode, there are a few thousand unassigned characters. In UTF-8 (which is what we use) around 2 billion. Robert Ullmann 00:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple unlikely entries from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I am removing the unlikely entries. What is the difference between an initialism and an acronym? Andrew massyn 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

According to initialism (eg MSc) and acronym (eg NATO), the difference is in the pronunciation. So, in the line from Yellow Submarine, the initialism PhD is mispronounced as an acronym. --Engingreen">inear 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This was entered as a Danish word, so I'm not convinced the person entered the correct translation of "killer, murderer". --EncycloPetey 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Verified, cleaned up. —Stephen 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some google hits, possibly a proto? Jonathan Webley 06:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfv-sense for the definition: "Any of the 5 basic groups of giant reptiles."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what are the five basic groups of giant reptiles? I'd say it's rubbish, but since there are definitely distinct mythological creatures from various cultures that have been labeled "dragon" over the years, I'm not positive.

Additionally, the remaining definitions could probably use some cleanup; if we don't resolve it via the RFV, it can go to RFC for the rest. --Jeffqyzt 17:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I took it to be literal and real when on patrol. There are a number of reptiles called dragons besides the Komodo. Looking into it some though there doesn't seem to be any systematic naming. It could use some touch-up regardless. DAVilla 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed sense. In that sense, a dragon is a lizard.

Revived and cited. Okay to remove rfv? Also added two defs from google hits. DAVilla 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Intriguing. I can't understand the 2nd def. Does anyone else? I was about to suggest that the first two senses were non-UK, but I see the OED has two UK cites for sense 1 from 1897 & 1906, so perhaps it's my ignorance. --Engingreen">inear 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't researched it and I've never heard it used in this way, but having worked in emergency services for many years, I think it's talking about being 'on-call' or in this case, 'on-firecall' - where one would respond to the scene of the fire if a firecall was issued. --Versageek 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant-ed. Please do change or delete it if incorrect. DAVilla 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 03:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were funny, I'd suggest WT:BJAODN. To WT:LOP? --Connel MacKenzie 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were used in London, I would surely have heard it on the Tube, where we sit without speaking and presumably this occasionally makes people uncomfortable. So, not even a neologism in my region! --Engingreen">inear 19:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored and cited. Of the Ames and eXile quotes, only the first need be kept. There are two other independent cites. Okay to remove rfv? DAVilla 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

sure. Rfvpassed Andrew massyn 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really spelled without the apostrophe? Is this another green-grocer's apostrophe? Or is it a common misspelling/miss-punctuation? --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• You can't make Google take apostrophes seriously, but a quick look finds more entries without the apostrophe than with, even though that is "wrong". I haven't found a "shepherds' pie" yet though. SemperBlotto 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • p.s. I also removed tomatoes from the definition, though a minority of the web recipes use it (sarilege!) SemperBlotto 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've always wanted to spell it with the apostrophe but sadly I felt I would be swimming against an extremely strong tide,
  • Defo agree about the tomatoes. Good grief! Moglex 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • One of the advantages of books.google's Advanced Search is that when you search for "Exact Phrase" it does seem to consider apostrophes (and ampersands, though I haven't checked for other odd characters/punctuation). Although it isn't foolproof, it gets it right most of the time. And it shows 2470 hits with an apostrophe and only 91 without. So get published, and may the tide be with you! (BTW, this has Shepherds' Pie.) (Google Books also has 5760 hits for the London district of Shepherd's Bush, compared with only 1380 for Shepherds Bush, in spite of the several greengrocers, butchers, etc who have shops there.) --Engingreen">inear 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the people who do the traffic signs around that area (Shepherd's Bush) seem to omit the apostrophe so how the local children are supposed to learn I don't know. I'm going there tomorrow. Perhaps with a pot of paint?

Marked as substandard. Andrew massyn 01:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"adkective pertaining to conforming" but not to be found in any other dictionary? --Connel MacKenzie 05:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a real word. Added definition (from Googling) and moved to uncapitalized. SemperBlotto 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this word used. Seems to be just a rather pompous way of saying "conforming".

730 distinct pages (the claim is 31,600 total Google hits; I've never accounted for the disparity) only 27 of which are not verifiably English. Does that constitute "clearly widespread use"? DAVilla 15:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The improper construction "conformative" needs to be labelled as illiterate, considering the two existing adjectives conformity and conforming already suffice for any intended "pompus" use. If valid print citations are found for it, that is. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, conformity is a noun :-)

There are 733 Google Books hits. I'm not sure this is just a substitution for the above two words. There appears to be an additional meaning (the sense == conforming is definitely there) more along the lines of "causing one to conform", with the emphasis on the causation. However, a lot of these are quite dense with jargon (these are largely, though by no means exclusively, "psychology of"-type texts) so perhaps this is too context specific? Anyway, here's a few less jargonish cites to support that:

• 1999: Phillip K. Wilson, Surgery, Skin And Syphilis: Daniel Turner's London (1667-1741)

  ...the impressed immaterial ‘species' from the mother's imagination became expressed as a result of the imagination's conformative power.

• 2000: Martha Joynt Kumar (ed.), Lawrence R. Jacobs (ed.), Robert Y. Shapiro, Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-first Century

  The immediate prospects for transformational (or conformative) leadership in the presidency do not at present appear auspicious.

• 2004: Paul Spencer, The Samburu: A Study in Geocentracy

  The social structure of the two conformative societies is more clearly defined: individual enterprise and competition are more discernible in the other two...

--Jeffqyzt 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a complicated one.. it appears to be an English variant of a Yiddish term for pig, and pig is slang for cop, and because the term got wide exposure in the movie Scarface, which was about crooked cops - it has somehow come to represent a crooked cop. I researched it a bit & put some reference links on the definition, but I'm not sure what to do with it beyond this point.. --Versageek 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just insert a semi-colon. Andrew massyn 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has already been verified, but I've struggled to confirm the meaning. Jonathan Webley 07:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought wenis was a combination of wienie and penis, and used as a euphemism for same. —Stephen 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

• 18:20, July 18, 2005 Eclecticology (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "wenis" (content was: 'A wenis is a word used when you don't want to say weener or penis - it's a combo of both words. Little kids use it to help them potty train.{{rfd}}')

Recreated without three print citations. Entry deleted procedurally. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the deletion log you quoted was well over a year ago. By our criteria for inclusion, it would have been possible for the word to have been a brand spanking new protologism at that time but completely legitimate by now. More generally I don't think it's a good idea to set such decisions in stone, and by most wiki standards a year is enough time to turn a new leaf. For instance a one year ban for disruptive behavior is considered extremely harsh.

Furthermore I doubt the current verification process was completely defined at that time, and even if it were, the discussion is not archived. In fact EC makes no claim that the word actually failed, which is a necessary condition to make a procedural deletion. Then even as now questionable entries are often deleted when an admin believes there could be no claim, without giving them the full run. So I strongly suggest that your deletion be reversed, and that rfv run its course. DAVilla 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, look at the entry. It was silly vandalism then, seems to still be now. This wasn't proffered as slang or anything - it was submitted as if it were an ordinary part of formal language...the next board meeting you are in, try and work "wenis" in. Would you still be employed at the end of the meeting?

The reason for treating previously rejected entries harshly is to not waste your time. The processes in place back then (as you may well recall) were much more laid back, both in what was accepted and the "due process" for such a thing. For something like this to have been deleted then, it had to be obvious nonsense, not a fledgling neologism. Why do you think we require three print citations for nonsense that has been previously deleted? --Connel MacKenzie 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What I remember from back then are terms repeatedly deleted that are cited today. Anyways my point is not that this is not nonsense, either then or now. My objection is to using a deletion more than a year old (which I draw from the "spanning a year" requirement) as the basis for a procedural deletion. I would not have cared as much if you said "tosh, deleted" as SB still continues to do, and which I noted EC may have done in this case anyway. A procedural deletion requires that the term actually failed the RfV process, not that it was deleted at the whim of a sysop, and in my opinion that it failed within the last year. DAVilla 07:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry: you're saying that the content: The skin on one's elbow. is not nonsense? You're prepared to find three citations showing use of that definition? --Connel MacKenzie 09:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not not, I said. DAVilla 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly a "proper name" - male, female, place ? SemperBlotto 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper noun could be a given name for a cartoon character (a clown?) but I forget which, when, where. --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be Pippy Longstocking. --Jeffqyzt 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is a derivative of Philippa. bd2412 T 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A brief analysis of the entries by the contributor of this article seems to indicate that he is the chap who used to contribute such rubbish from Maine, and may have moved to New Hampshire. They include foreign language entries created from red links in translation sections. Deleted SemperBlotto 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously leet, which we don't include on en.wiktionary.org. Any real print citations? The entry was errantly marked as "rfvpassed" with no discussion? --Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't include leet? Why not?

It's pretty obvious that this is real and in wide use on the internet, which is what verification is supposed to prove. It would be nice to find some print citations somewhere, but I don't think it should be required in this case. --Ptcamn 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what Connel means is that we don't keep it if it has not passed into general use, with reference to WT:CFI#Attestation's guideline that use be widespread. However, I'm not sure that this doesn't meet that standard. See the 3440 hits in Google's USENET archive in a wide variety of newsgroups. I can't add these at the moment but if someone else wants to trawl through these for decent cites... --Jeffqyzt 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I retagged it as I didn't see any discussion for or about it anywhere. Obviously, (or maybe not so obviously?) the entry can use a fair bit more cleanup and more citations if we are going to keep it. --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved talk to talk page. Andrew massyn 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted SemperBlotto 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Skeezin is indeed a word meaning "Cool"

This term is completly valid and is used to describe "cool" things. For example, a boy would say, "Oh man, that car is skeezin!!" — This unsigned comment was added by Aaron4peace58 (talk • contribs).

A quick look at Google Books and Google Groups hits on "skeezin" do not seem to support this use. There would perhaps be support for a meaning "to act skeezy", i.e. "skeezing" corrupted by dropping the final "g". --Jeffqyzt 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have noted that other forms have been RFD in the distant past. Therefore, without three reputable print citations, this nonsense deserves the harshest review possible. I submitted it to RFV for proper review, so that it can be shot on sight in the future, once it fails RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two senses, allegedly in the OED (not.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed both in the online version of the OED! SemperBlotto 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In Wiktionary:

1. a kitten
2. (Scottish colloquial) a sister or girl

Both nonsense. Looking at the OED results below, I don't see either. (9, 10 and 11 are just bizarre search results, but unrelated, anyhow.)

 	
Displaying 12 of 12 results
Search level: All search terms in entry headings 
Subjects searched: All
	
1. titty n.
( pl. titties ) another term for tit 2 .
(From The Concise Oxford English Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
2. titty n.
= tit 3 .
(From The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
3. titty n.
= tit 3 (esp. as a child's term).
(From The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
4. titty n.
another term for tit 2 .
(From The New Oxford American Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
5. titty noun
( pl. titties ) another term for tit 2 .
(From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
6. titty n.
= tit 3 (especially as a child's term).
(From The Australian Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
7. titty noun
= tit 2 .
(From The Canadian Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
8. titty
see TIT 1 .
(From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology in English Language Reference)
	
9. tough adjective
(of a substance or object) strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough handling: tough rucksacks for climbers. • (of food, especially meat) difficult to cut or chew.
(From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
10. tough luck interjection
informal → noun bad luck, misfortune.
(From The Canadian Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries & Thesauruses)
	
11. foxhole
n. a hole in the ground used by troops as a shelter against enemy fire or as a firing point. Also called fighting hole, hasty pit, slit trench (especially in World War II), titty-deep, and Individual Fighting Position.
(From The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military in Military History)
	
12. tit1
(dial. and vulgar) TEAT . OE. tit , corr. to (M)LG. titte , Du. tit , (M)HG. zitze .
(From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology in English Language Reference)

So, where in the OED are these? The bogus entries need to be removed, not the correct RFV tags! --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From Oxford English Dictionary - -

Sc. colloq.

   A sister; a young woman or girl. Cf. KITTY1. 
 tittie and billie, sister and brother (cf. BILLY1 3); hence to be tittie-billie, to be closely associated as brother and sister, or as brothers or sisters. 

1725 RAMSAY Gentle Sheph. III. ii, That clattern Madge, my titty. 1790 BURNS Tam Glen i, My heart is a-breaking, dear Tittie! Some counsel unto me come len'. 1818 SCOTT Hrt. Midl. v, ‘Has she not a sister?’ ‘In troth has shepuir Jeanie Deans..; she was here greeting a wee while syne about her tittie’. 1825 JAMIESON s.v., Tam's a great thief, but Will's tittie-billie wi' him. 1896 J. LUMSDEN Poems 18 A band of billies And frisky titties.

   A kitten, a cat; pussy. 

1821 CLARE Vill. Minstr., etc. (1823) I. 165 Now she wails o'er Titty's bones With anguish deep. 1828 Craven Gloss., Titty-pussy, a cat. c1880 Northampt. Dial., Oh, mother, mother! titty is drinking the milk.

— This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) at 15:46, October 27, 2006.

Um, could you supply the "cite this entry" link please? My library subscription shows no such thing. --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, I can't see a "cite this entry" link. Are we talking about the same Oxford English Dictionary? The one I'm looking at says Second Edition 1989. There is a "Mail" button that I can use to email you a link - I'll try that. 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not talking of the same dictionaries. Connel is talking about the Oxford Reference Online site which uses, I think, the Concise OED and various other Oxford works, while SemperBlotto is talking about the Oxford English Dictionary Online site which contains the full OED 2nd edition as modified by additions researched since. Note that the full OED page claims only to work if accessed via a subscribing library's website. --Engingreen">inear 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence doesn't quite match what you said in the previous sentences. I certainly was/do access through a library site. The en.wikt: entry for titty is still broken, identifying the (as OED2? asserts, without attestation,) Scottish definitions as English. These should not be in the ==English== section, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I intended my last sentence to warn that the site might not let in people reading this, if they tried to access it direct from the link I provided.

The first language of nearly all Scots is English rather than Scots. The OED, unlike us, lists only English (and possibly Middle English) entries, so the def is in the right place. I'll add citing it to my to-do list, but I suspect it will be a pain, so it may stay there a while. --Engingreen">inear 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sense of a fictional substance containing machines built on a nanoscale. Jonathan Webley 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The online OED has it to mean nanotechnology. Other online dictionaries have it meaning any nanotechnology product, as does the OED's citations. SemperBlotto 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at nano- (which already exists, BTW?) I don't think you'd speak of "a nano" or "our nano" unless it's meant to be slang...probably not that common; a quick look at Google Books hits seems to indicate that uses are either adjectival or as a combining form. --Jeffqyzt 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Removind disputed sense. Andrew massyn 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In the sense of generic object or thing, both English and Scots. Jonathan Webley 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Particularly Scots. Andrew massyn 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And definitely UK English too, though probably more common in the north than the south. --Engingreen">inear 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

look at these jobbies: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-44%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=jobbie+hack+day — This unsigned comment was added by 72.5.142.136 (talk) at 15:28, October 27, 2006.

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)}}

A pathetic of pitiable person

Poor wee soul

Surely the phrase itself given as an example of its usage is idomatic to some extent and that this sense for soul is not really valid?--Williamsayers79 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be valid if you took out the "pathetic or pitiable" part.

• A crowd of 10,000 souls had gathered in the park to hear the speech.
• I and half a dozen other likeminded souls decided to clean up the park.
• I was just a wandering soul on the road, like countless others fleeing the war's devastation.

There is perhaps a sense of facelessness or lack of identity that comes with this usage. But I don't think it necessarily implies that the person is pitiable or pathetic. --Jeffqyzt 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the definition to be "A person, especially as one among many", and added a cite from The Federalist Papers. If someone feels this isn't well known enough, I can easily add more. I left the rfv-sense. --Jeffqyzt 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see the pathetic person as valid. I am removing that sense. Andrew massyn 06:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Noun sense - a nonce, unusable outside of a too-specific context. --Connel MacKenzie 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added note that this is only used in Australia. I thought it was more wide-spread. Note that it is usually spelt without the space in the middle, both for a noun and for the adjective.
Cites below, all from Australia ...
he fathered children through his defacto, Bettina, while still married to his wife,
South Australian court papers. - Alderson drove with his brother-in-law, and others, including the victim, his defacto of some weeks,
and again crashed into the carport of his defacto’s house causing the carport roof to collapse, (Link is too long to work properly, on West Australian police website.)
He assaulted his defacto and the owner.
colluded in the production of fraudulent statements with his defacto and their daughter.
and a letter sent by the woman and her defacto demanding money (A US website, but quoting an Australian case).
but that she and her defacto had arrived in Ceduna on 22 August 1997.
A young mother and her defacto were jailed for killing eighteen months old Beanca
--Dmol 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I should add that Australia seems to use both de facto and defacto, and does not differentiate between the noun and adjective sense. I even found one paragraph with both spellings.--Dmol 12:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of it before. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 06:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A handful of books.google.com hits, but all secondary sources (of the "list of phobias" variety.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All the journal cites I could find were by the same author (and the definition he gives doesn't match the etymology or the definition given elsewhere). This may yet turn out to be a highly specialized word, or it could be limited to this one author. --Ptcamn 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup - rfv removed. --Connel MacKenzie 23:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Coined by Eddie Murphy in 1983." And died in 1983, apparently. --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A stupendous zero Google Books hits, and only 3 distinct in Google Groups, two of which refer to the Eddie Murphy routine, and one of which is a (possibly humorous corruption of) name. Only 238 hits on a Google web search, of which most seem to refer to actual restaurants (which would seem to negate the def :-) or again, the Eddie Murphy routine. No support found. --Jeffqyzt 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Def =

1. (slang) A hamburger served on flat white bread instead of a hamburger bun; cooked at one's own home using the cheapest ingredients instead of originating from McDonalds or Burger King. Coined by Eddie Murphy in 1983.

A market tax? --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is listed as archaic; it's certainly not current. There are four Google Books hits, none of which support the use. There are a dozen Google Groups hits, apparently stemming from user names or a band name (which don't support.) The top hits on Google web are Wikt. pages; the first few pages of hits after that are all user/blog names or the band again. No support from Google, but since it's archaic, perhaps another search venue would suit better? --Jeffqyzt 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The full OED has definitions (for love-cup) only as a loving cup or a love (or other) potion, so nothing to do with any normal market! --Engingreen">inear 17:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed Andrew massyn 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the name of a single one, in which case this is spam. --Connel MacKenzie 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it was a well known term for a brothel. SemperBlotto 07:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh. Perhaps regional? --Connel MacKenzie 07:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a well known term for a brothel. I don't think it is regional. It has certainly been used in the US and if I recall correctly John Steinbek has used it more than once in his writings.
    • The online big OED has this for cat-house (The OED is very fluid with spelling and hyphenation) -

(a) (see 6 above); (b) a house for cats; (c) slang, a brothel

(see 6 above) => A movable pent-house used in early times by besiegers to protect themselves in approaching fortifications, also called cat-house

I think I first heard it in a ?70s US film/musical -- I forget the title, but it included the song "I was born under a Wand'rin' Star". I thought it was more US than UK but perhaps I've just led a sheltered life. --Engingreen">inear 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cited. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 03:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

sense #2 To embody or have a good sense of taste and stylistic proportion. only less than 500 google hits for this word at all, none seem to be for this usage --Versageek 02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Absolute tosh. How can an adjective be defined as if it were a verb. The whole rant doesn't make any sense. SemperBlotto 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I got a similar plea for mercy for my block, replete with citations of Urbandictionary. Therefore, I will not unblock. You can, if you like. We do still explicitly prohibit UD in our criteria, right? --Connel MacKenzie 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding UD, no, we do not. However, we implicitly prohibit it via our WT:CFI#Conveying meaning criterion. --Jeffqyzt 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • No, I shall revert the entry to a more starkish one! SemperBlotto 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The External represenation of a person's soul. Usually projected in an animal form. ? Andrew massyn 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten and added quotes. --Ptcamn 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

rfv passed DAVilla 05:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

estimated number of unreported cases ? Andrew massyn 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There were 1100 Google Books hits for "dark figure" + crime. I've added cites to the article page. I didn't add an etymology, but this Google snippet seems to indicate that the use derives from a work by authors Biderman and Reiss in 1967, if anyone wants to track that down. --Jeffqyzt 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Picked a better second quotation from the same page. The third I'll take your word for. RFV passed. DAVilla 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

of, related to, or marked by racialism? Andrew massyn 06:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Merriam Webster lists it as a noun and adjective under main heading of racialism. Also, racialistic. I disagree with the first def, racialist is not a misspelling, it is a synonym, but I'll let it all go through the RFV process.--Dmol 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've frequently heard it in UK, and the full OED lists it just as M-W, with cites from 1917 for the noun and from 1946 for the adjective, from Canada, UK and SA. Unfortunately, it also cites racialistic. I suppose these forms are useful for people with quick speech but slow brains. --Engingreen">inear 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as I am loth to do so, rfvpassed. It offends. Andrew massyn 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be an English male given name derived from Latin. Well there certainly was a Roman statesman named Cato, but I don't think it is an English given name. SemperBlotto 21:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly Tiberius, Claudius and Scipio.

• Most of the Project Gutenberg texts that talk about "Cato" mean the/a Roman, but there are also several where it is clearly an English given name. From the context, many of the Catos seem to be African-American slaves or ex-slaves, but there are also a few popping up in Australia and elsewhere. Most of the texts are 19th century, but that's probably just PG for you -- it doesn't mean the name is dead. For example, typing "Cato" in IMDB's search box will get you a few obvious English-speakers with Cato as their first name (though even more with the surname). Keffy 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a common English given name in recent times, but I used to know someone called Cato, born in London to (I think) English parents in the mid-1960s. His brothers' names were from legendary figures too. --Engingreen">inear 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The poor benighted sods. Rfvpassed on the basis that if Horatio can be an English name, then so can Cato. Andrew massyn 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A male given name? SemperBlotto 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again, IMDB it. Keffy 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. I know someone whose middle name is Prescott. I always thought it was given from the mother's side, to keep the link going. Andrew massyn 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfv-sense for the noun sense, listed as "the meek", with the biblical quote "Blessed are the meek"...etc.

My contention is that this use is adjectival, and is not used as a distinct noun entity enough to deserve a seperate noun entry. --Jeffqyzt 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That’s right, meek in "Blessed are the meek" is an adjective, not a noun. It is equivalent to "Blessed are the gentle, blessed are the kind." —Stephen 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify; the full definition listed is "People who are meek.", with the biblical quote as example. However, people who are meek are merely meek people, and collectively may be referred to as "the meek", just as people who are weak may be collectively referred to as "the weak". In this, I am suggesting that it's not a case like homeless, where the collective entity has additional shades of meaning. Just so discussion doesn't revolve around the cite :-) --Jeffqyzt 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree its an adjective. Changed header. Andrew massyn 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged for speedy deletion but brought in here as it seems that the mentioned equipment does exist , . Any opinions? --Tohru 02:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, I was the one who tagged it for speedy deletion, as it was added on the heels of 'Jesusstick' and a few other nonsense entries. Noting these sources , it seems to meet our criteria for inclusion. Do keep it. Beobach972 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this request has been withdrawn. Cited nonetheless. DAVilla 06:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RfVpassed (or withdrawn ;-) may be a very recent term but as it is used in serious technical literature ... Robert Ullmann 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It really is too bad it isn't tunameter though ... Robert Ullmann 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrib from an OP deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In the sense of necrophilia. Jonathan Webley 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a very obscene definition from Urban Dictionary, with no reference not sourced from there. Trust me, you don't want to look at it. Was already reverted. Robert Ullmann 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV-Sense is for definition: "A pirate". Also, if this sense is citable, is it specifically a pirate, or just any seaman? --Jeffqyzt 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside of spongebob squarepants, I can't see it. Rfvfailed? --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed disputed sense. Andrew massyn 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this Yiddish? Jonathan Webley 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can this be verified in proper sources? I'm sure there's no lack of Slashdot web forum references, but any from "proper" sources? --Windofir 14:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-"proper" language use is just as worthy of documentation. However, I question whether this is idiomatic enough and non-sum-of-its-parts enough to warrant inclusion. --Ptcamn 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added comment that it is chiefly newsgroup, but I don't think this is reason for exclusion. There are dozens of newsgroup terms on wiktionary, and this particular one enjoys widespread use. As for the sum of its part, there is not any word teh so that can't be the case. The misspelling is part of it.--Dmol 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On the internet, there is indeed a word teh, and it can be combined with words besides "gay". UrbanDictionary lists "teh cool", "teh hawt", "teh hotness", "teh intarweb", "teh own", "teh r0x0rrz", "teh suck", and "teh win", among others. --Ptcamn 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. (Actually I sit corrected). Still feel that the amount of usage justifies inclusion, but life's too short to worry about it. BTW, do we accept urban dictionaries?? I thought not.--Dmol 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. If it is teh + ... then it doesnt deserve its own entry. Perhaps teh does. Andrew massyn 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Def =

1. (chiefly newsgroups) homosexuality, but parodying the viewpoint of those who believe homosexuality is not only evil, but is contagious or caused by a liberal environment. The misspelling of "the" is deliberately used to imply ignorance.

   The only people who seem worried about "catching" teh gay are apparently people who are pulled toward such desires already. (Newsgroup quote, 2006)

   I always liked the decidedly non-Pc term 'catching teh gay' myself. (Newsgroup quote, 2004)

--Connel MacKenzie 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rubbish - deleted. SemperBlotto 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Protologism - added to list and then deleted. SemperBlotto 07:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• No useful content - deleted. SemperBlotto 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Until someone fixes it up, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 14:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is a deliberate attempt to get a non-existant word into dictionaries. See , I shall therefore delete it. SemperBlotto 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Be thou not so hasty! Well, be hasty to delete this nonsense definition, but it gets enough Google books hits to show that it means... well... something, apparently in Czech or Slovak (or both, given the frequency of crossover words). Any Slavic authorities care to explain? bd2412 T 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In Slavic languages, texty will be the plural of text. —Stephen 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I note that text has no entries for any Slavic languages, only for English and Kurdish. So what does "text" mean in Slavic languages? bd2412 T 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fear of chopsticks"? --EncycloPetey 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Protologism. Added to list and deleted. SemperBlotto 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

most Google entries seem to be misspellings of chat & names, two circular references in the entry - the print reference is about the UrbanDictionary entry. --Versageek 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

no cites, no interest, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Sweedish. Apparently a group of powerful women. Andrew massyn 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be real. Unfortunately it would take someone who speaks Swedish to actually verify it. But:

• 2001, Janeen Baxter and Mark Western, Reconfigurations of Class and Gender, page 2, Stanford University Press

  The concept “Fittstim” was later used as a title of a book written by young female journalists in Sweden, arguing that it is time to revitalize the feminist movement, thereby twisting the originally negative loading of this concept.

RFV is not clear in the case of foreign entries. I suggest we defer to Swedish Wiktionary, which currently has no entry. DAVilla 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While it is used, it has very few cites. The ones I found don't match the senses given, which are basically an attack on Jeff Kennet. One sense of to be jeffed was to be the subjet of a speech by him. Needs real defs if to be kept. Robert Ullmann 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

def given is An acronym meaning front upper pussy area. Only a few urb dict listings. Couldn't find any credible cites.--Dmol 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Defined as "A devil identified in Harsnett's Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures". --EncycloPetey 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See SemperBlotto 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Adjective - Alternative spelling of chubby.
• a type of rug
• Urban word for bitch
• Noun - pet name for a mouse originating in Australia.
• Boy's name
• place in Zambia

a brief google search didn't turn up anything matching these meanings --Versageek 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a spelling of chubby, it’s illiterate. For the mouse, I suppose it means that the term originates in Australia, not the mouse. It cannot be an Asian name because it doesn’t give the language, and almost all Asian languages are written in scripts other than Roman. Can’t be a place in Zambia, because that requires capitalization. Too many serious problems, too little of any value, delete. —Stephen 08:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is a place in Zambia (non-capitalization was a mistake): Place in Zambia:

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/ZA/4/Chubi.html http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ir-v-16-d-m4290266.htm http://www.multimap.com/wi/293837.htm

Name:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1066950/ (an actor's name)

Urban word for bitch:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chubi — This unsigned comment was added by 211.28.201.64 (talk).

The entry certainly needs to be cleaned at this point, it didn't have all of these meanings when I initially rfv'd it. I think there is enough to support a proper noun entry for Chubi (Upper case), for the two name senses & possibly the rug as a derivitave of the place name. The urban dictionary entry is tosh, and I'm still not sure about the original two.. --Versageek 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To rfc. Perhaps to come back later. Andrew massyn 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The first few pages of Google hits seem to refer to sailing in the nude. SemperBlotto 10:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked several "sailing definitions" and "sailing glossary" entries and naked did not show up on any of them. Not seen in any of several sailing magazines I have. But (purely in the interests of research) I will continue to look into naked sailing, just to make sure.--Dmol 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Def = To "sail naked" is to navigate a sailing vessel without access to a motor. It is a verb phrase with "sail" being the verb and is modified by the adverb "naked." Students of grammar will correctly note that "naked" is normally an adjective but, in this case, because it modifies the verb "sail," it is properly reclassified as an adverb. Strict adherance to grammar is probably unnecessary because the phrase itself is slang.

There are comments within the edit view of this article challenging the existance of the term day as an adjective. The comment pretty much states that day is a noun and is not an adjective - maybe a pronoun?--Williamsayers79 12:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, day is a noun and a noun modifier but not an adjective. In some dialects, it can also be a pronoun and a possessive determiner, although these dialects are not usually written. —Stephen 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that in a set phrase such as day laborer, that day is being used as an adjective. I do agree though that the examples currently given in the definition function as function more as nouns of modification rather than as true adjectives. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Day" in day laborer is a noun. Sometimes when people are not accustomed to distinguishing between compound nouns and nouns with adjectives can benefit by applying the stress rule. With compound nouns, the first noun usually bears the main stress for the compound; when dealing with adjectives, the adjective usually is not stressed. For example, a GERMAN teacher (a teacher of German) versus a German TEACHER (a teacher from Germany). A GREENhouse versus a green HOUSE. A BOOK report versus a bookish REPORT. It is quite unnatural to say "day LABOROR", and we say "DAY laboror" instead, and this is a strong indication that you’ve got a compound noun. —Stephen 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I confess that I am confused by this distinction quite often. Stephen, that is an excellent summary (reference?), that should be mentioned somewhere here - but I can't think of quite the right place for it. Appendix: English rules? It doesn't seem exactly applicable to WT:CFI or WT:ELE. --Connel MacKenzie 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed to the articles' talkpage.--Williamsayers79 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a Dutch entry. Its POS is Adjective, but it's deined as "anger". Which is correct, the POS or the definition? --EncycloPetey 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s a noun. Cleaned up. —Stephen 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Skeezin is an English slang that is an adjective used to describe something "cool." However, because it's slang, it can also be changed to other forms, such as skeezery.

Because that does not meet Wiktionary's criteria, it should only be added to our list of made-up terms. --Connel MacKenzie 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Added by known retrotranslation person - may be wrong. SemperBlotto 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He had it partly right. Fixed. —Stephen 08:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this be flibbertigibbet? SemperBlotto 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes --Engingreen">inear 13:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be an English verb. But that is not how it is defined. SemperBlotto 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, entsagen is a german verb meaning to renounce. The text looks like lecture notes to me and does not seem to be really relevant. — Xavier, 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 08:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Might have valid print citations, but not many. Enough? --Connel MacKenzie 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Over 91,000 google hits, including some respectable technical sites. One example: http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/inspire.html . Keep. —Stephen 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Added cites at the article. I'm a little unclear as to whether the senses should be further broken to seperate the normal plural of sferic and the pluralia tantum construction; both are evident in the quotes available from Google Books. I've left a usage note indicating that both are found, but if anyone with a better feel for that could step in, that might help. --Jeffqyzt 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFV passed, although breakdown of senses is unresolved, and as it pertains to RFV the distinction of plural form of sferic from other meanings. DAVilla 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagged by Ec a while ago, not listed here. --Connel MacKenzie 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia thinks this exists, similar to lolicon. These words may not have entered mainstream English, but among anime aficionados (I'm married to one!), they're quite common. Google has 32,400 hits for this term. I'd say keep and remove the tag. —Dvortygirl 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. On such a ridiculous term, citations make or break it. Perhaps that's why this can't be found in any other dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This was passed last month. See talk page of the article. — This comment was unsigned.

Apparently it was an invalid "pass" as there are no citations. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Doublechecking the talk page, it seems the unsigned comment was just a blatant lie. --Connel MacKenzie 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was in fact brought up on RFV before, by EC. I would have to agree that passing would have been invalid, or at least a moderator's judgement call, as Andrew feels he has to make on occasion, much like speedy deletion is a judgement call. DAVilla 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 63 600 hits for the term out there. no book hits, but the vast majority of the hits do not relate to wiki at all. they mostly seem to be links to various porn sites. However, if creampie, lolicon etc have pasased, my inclination is to pass it. I will send to rfd for a decision. Andrew massyn 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cases like this, for instance when long-time contributors vouche for a term like whore bath while it is never documented on the page, in my opinion should have other terminology besides "passed". Eventually the citations need to be found, so why not just say the verification is deferred, while it has been agreed that the article should not be deleted (in this instance by actually taking it to RFD as you did)? DAVilla 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

English references urbandict, therefore delete? --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that a UD reference in and of itself would be grounds for deletion, just for suspicion. It's hard to search on this one because of the Spanish/Italian use. In any case, Google books searches on "had a preso", "made a preso", "did a preso", "have a preso", "do a preso", "show a preso" don't turn up any hits. --Jeffqyzt 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a book hit here but only that gibberish stream of text is viewable online, so it's impossible to tell how it's used. DAVilla 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Revived and cited. DAVilla 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would label this as computing jargon, although I ran across this unusual cite as well:

• 2002 February 12, Surma Bhopali, “Matthew Hayden comes to SRW's rescue (Allan Border Medal preso)”, rec.sport.cricket, Usenet

  Matthew Hayden was all praise for his skipper during the presentation of Allan Border medal.

DAVilla 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, now rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect capitalization (edit: corrected DAVilla), no attributive use. --Connel MacKenzie 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now the original definition was for the character. For the game itself (or games themselves), there's no doubt to the non-attributive use, which qualifies as a shortened form, IMO. Would it be okay to remove the rfv then?DAVilla 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering Keffey's inclusionist's manifesto, I am inclined to leave it. However, objectively Since we don't keep Moby Dick as a short form of Moby Dick or the White Whale or The Decline and Fall as a short form of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Why should we keep Zelda? Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: wikified above with apologies. DAVilla 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, or if it is I absolutely disagree with it. Short forms are kept, or should be kept, since they substitute for the full form without introduction. DAVilla 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"To rfd. Andrew massyn 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Def = Originating from the environment, caused by environmental factors.

Not many b.g.c hits, and those are in double quotes (admitting it is a nonce for each.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There were more Google book quotes last night, what happened? The one book and a scholar search reveal:

• 1999 December, Jeffrey A. Sluka, Death Squad: the anthropology of state terror, page 123, University of Pennsylvania Press

  The de profundis community, while born out of misery and despair, does not exist to wallow in its collective victimization. Its raison d’être is to combat and defeat the envirogenic conditions which have brought about, and continue to propogate, the death-squad-led misery and sorrow which have served as their organizational rallying points.

• 1992 January, Daniel Stokols, “Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments: Toward a Social Ecology of Health Promotion”, American Psychologist, volume 47, no. 1, page 12

  What has been omitted from much earlier research on psychological and behavioral factors in health are structural features of the sociophysical environment that affect individual and collective well-being, either directly or interactively in conjuction with biopsychobehavioral factors. These envirogenic processes in health and illness subsume geographic, architectural, and technological features of the physcial environment and sociogenic qualities of the social and cultural environment that influence the etiology of health and illness.

This one is a possible OCR error:

• 1936, Roderick MacDonald, “A Study of Symmetry in the Centrechinoidea, Based on Behavior, with Special Reference to Lytechinus Variegatus; Including a Short Discussion of Linguistic Difficulties in Describing Biological Phenomena”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, volume 76, no. 1

  Some reactions on the part of the organism, correlated as they are with the latter's irritability to envirogenic influences, ...

— This comment was unsigned.

Perhaps these will help at some point in the future. For now, it does not meet our criteria. Rfvfailed. --Connel MacKenzie 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Def =a very keen Amway person. portmanteau of Amway and robot.

Hm? -- Beobach972 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a good bit of support for this. Searching for Ambot + Amway finds about 1000 on websites and about 200 on newsgroups.

in the wild pursuit of this goal, the hapless AmBot spends huge amounts of time and money on Amway functions and materials.
(several uses on the same page, I have quoted two different articles).
What's the best way to corner an Ambot when they start touting false figures?
I looked back at my time in the business and I could see how I evolved into an ambot.
I came across the expression Ambot, now that I know what it mean, I thought it could be fun to make a small award called the; Ambot Oscar
... No, it seems that you and the rest of the Ambots have your Amway blinders on to the truth again,
--Dmol 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is too specific to a company and large though Amway is, I think this differs from microserf or macjob which can be universally understood. Rfvfailed. PS if you feel really aggrieved, talk to me. Andrew massyn 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Andrew massyn 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Where do these arbitrary merits that you're raising in objection to this cited word originate? This should be RFV passed and then RFD'd if you think it doesn't deserve inclusion. DAVilla 07:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK Andrew massyn 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Verb senses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are all sorts of book hits for inflected forms, more than six hundred before 1970! DAVilla 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add the citations to the article page. Moving to December. Andrew massyn 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, removing senses. --Connel MacKenzie 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sense Venusian, relating to the planet. Jonathan Webley 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not for venusian but related to venus, as the name given by alchemists to copper. See http://freefactfinder.com/definition.jsp?ref=venereal (4) and http://freefactfinder.com/definition.jsp?ref=venus (3) — Xavier, 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have come across Venerean with this meaning, but not Venereal. This appears to be consistant with Martian rather than Martial, Jovian rather than Jovial, and so forth. In all three cases, the form with l has an alternative meaning. 194.82.100.71 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfvfailed, right? --Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I've corrected the definition and removed the tag. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, sense removed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfv-sense for the definition: "To disgorge filth, as a hawk." --Jeffqyzt 19:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This definition (old ? falconry jargon) is taken from the Webster 1913. — Xavier, 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OED has two cites for the verb (1575 & 1704) and one for the noun "the substance thrown up after casting gorge", and believes it may be obsolete. --Engingreen">inear 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So, mark as obsolete and remove rfv? --Connel MacKenzie 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and done. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)