This is not a common word or a common phrase. It is a collection of common words strung together. Google hits .cn. Literally translated, this means an animal which has been domesticated. This is not idiomatic Mandarin, it is a definition in Mandarin of domesticated animal. The idiomatic Mandarin word for domesticated animal is 家畜 (jiāchù). A-cai 07:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be because this is straight from AltaVista Babelfish. Delete. Sum of (Mandarin) parts. bd2412 T 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 01:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there really such a word? Would it be an adverb (if it existed)? Παρατηρητής

I added the one books.google cite which was worth a damn to the cites page, it doesn't describe the definition well, no dicts list it, (other than urbandict, which gives a close def to ours) so I am unsure. It certainly may be a word, but it doesn't look too likely. If that cite is a scan-o someone can delete it. - TheDaveRoss 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd delete, maybe ask the user that added it for a source or if they are thinking of another language. The definition is bascially that for arrogance or conceit. Might have misheard snotty or pomposity.--Halliburton Shill 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• saditty is in the OED (but not Websters). However, sadity has far more Google hits (17,000 v 789). Both are in Urban Dictionary. SemperBlotto 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  "Black"?? DAVilla 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  saditty at books.google gets 35 legit hits, sadity gets one or two relatively sketchy ones. I would say toss the single t version and call it a day. - TheDaveRoss 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a happy resolution. I've put it on speedy delete. The original adder added saditty and wants the 1 t version deleted: User_talk:Halliburton_Shill#sadity--Halliburton Shill 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

only a few google hits, no google book hits. I'm pretty sure this has been deleted before, as the original author had put an entry on RFV on 08/31 (but I can't find it now). --Versageek 02:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the original author put it here before he ever created an article - perhaps to test the waters. They're cold. Delete. bd2412 T 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like tosh, but what do I know? SemperBlotto 07:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted (no Google hits). Widsith 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Linked from Appendix:Manias. --Connel MacKenzie 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to see some attestations for these myself. Do they ever see use outside of lists of manias? --Ptcamn 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have very little currency - also, not crazy about the defs - the reciprocation of math and music? To compose (sounds like a verb, no?). bd2412 T 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be the name of a website. Deleted. SemperBlotto 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology 2 – a medicine to be licked. Widsith 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not in OED or Websters. Probable joke. Deleted. SemperBlotto 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Contested sense deleted. Struck. bd2412 T 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like nonsense to me, but it’s a rather old page. —Stephen 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Skull-fucking refs are b.s. Only contributions of User:Andy christ if that helps... most Google books hits are either onomatopoeia or typo's involving "quick" (i.e. "the poet'squick-eyed glance". Three interesting book refs, tho, suggest that the unease def may be legit:

• Jo Leigh, Scent of a Woman (2002 - not the Pacino film) p. 82: "One man's turn-on is another's squick. But, if she chickened out now, the whole plan would fall apart."
• Ken MacLeod, Newton's Wake: A Space Opera (2004) p.88: "We maintain, as you did in your time, the cultural squick about internal interfaces with networked machinery, and about data capture, for obvious reasons."
• Maxim Jakubowski The Mammoth Book of Sex Diaries: Online Confessions and Call-Girl Adventures (2005) p.27: "He likes intense sensation (pain, for those of you not up on this lingo) and we did play with sounds. I'll now explain what "sounds" are, but if you squick easily, you should skip this next paragraph ."
• Also appears in the index of Rites of Pleasure: Sexuality in Wicca and Neo-Paganism by Jennifer Hunter (2004) under "Squick factor, BDSM and" - couldn't see any more of that book.

Apparently means unease. bd2412 T 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this in use around a few fannish circles online. It generally is used to denote an act or practice the thought of which causes enough discomfort, unease, or disgust in someone to discourage him from (in the form of "X squicks one"). Google on "squick factor" to see more examples of the term (730 hits; not sure if this merits an entry in and of itself); also Usenet archives: 427 hits. Also in above references, note noun usage (something that squicks someone) and intransitive verb (to be squicked by something). Other searches of potential interest are "squick the mundanes" in Google and Usenet (to do something as part of a cultural subgroup to cause people not in that subgroup psychological distress). --Dajagr 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the skull-fuck senses - they are not attested in print. I believe the remaining definition is legit. bd2412 T 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Remaining sense is verified. Struck. bd2412 T 07:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to talk page. Andrew massyn 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be out there, but I dont speak tagalog. To rfc. Andrew massyn 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Def is: Sexual intercourse in the dorsal or "dog style" position (see http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_215.html).

Is this in actual use, or just linkspam? Zero Google books hits. Jeffqyzt 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

retrocopulation is in Webster 1913 SemperBlotto 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

True, and it's much attested because of that. But the verb backformation? There's only a single USENET usage archived in Google Groups:

• 1996: thehand, Hotline News (Jan 23) in rec.sport.pro-wrestling

  I hope Roddy Piper is somewhere watching!") from McMahon when the first retrocopulating wrestler pulls out his jimmy and, er, "initiates" the poor jobber.

Anyone have another citable instance? Or does a related form lessen the attestation burden? Jeffqyzt 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If retrocopulating is a verb form, then retrocopulate fairly must be the verb root. bd2412 T 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is the singular instance of "retrocopulate", "retrocopulated", "retrocopulating", and "retrocopulates" put together, among books and USENET available via Google. One instance would not meet CFI, unless it's felt that the much-attested "retrocopulation" (as listed in Websters 1913) lends it credibility. It should at least be marked "rare" in any case. There's 7 straight Google hits, two of which are not in English, most of which are pointing back to a single usage on the straightdope site, and one of which is a Wiktionarian's hotlink. Vanishingly rare. Jeffqyzt 02:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To WT:LOP & Deleted. Andrew massyn 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sense: To give street drugs for free. (Slang)

— This unsigned comment was added by Andrew massyn (talk • contribs) at 13:31, September 10, 2006.

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 08:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Is aerophobia countable? SemperBlotto 21:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, you can pluralize just about anything, if you set your mind to it. (See here for a very nice explanation and example of this.) Diseases and other syndromes are classically uncountable, but if I can say "The flus of 1918 and 1957 were particularly virulent", it's not much more of a stretch to do so for aerophobia.

Imagine two doctors leaving the psychiatric clinic for the evening. One says "What a day! I had three schizophrenias, two aerophobias, and a manic-depressive paranoid triskadekaphobia. What about you?" The other perks up and says, "Oh, are those aerophobias yours? We're going to have to keep them under wraps, or something. My Vernephobic hallucinogenic cephalomania saw them in their wetsuits and diving helmets in the waiting room and became convinced they were both Captain Nemo, and she spent her entire session tucked into a little crevice in the wall of my office shooting out clouds of camouflaging ink."

But I don't think these contrived examples prove much. If we're going to retain a countable/uncountable distinction (which I have no problem with, as it is a useful distinction) we need to say that "uncountable" means "has no plural in everyday use", which aerophobia surely doesn't. —scs 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Utterly disagree. If it is potentially countable, it has a plural which should be included. bd2412 T 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we can get rid of the countable/uncountable distinction entirely, because every noun is potentially countable. —scs 23:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be different types of aerophobia, in which case there are aerophobias. bd2412 T 00:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a count noun or mass noun (why waste syllables on the longer terms?) is not a property of the noun itself, it's a property of a particular sense of it. For pretty much any mass-noun sense you can construct an auxiliary count-noun sense; that doesn't mean the distinction is useless. 66.96.28.244 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there may be different types. The question is, how speculative do we want to be about this possibility, or about the ways people will choose to talk about the types when (or if) there are interesting distinctions to talk about? For example, we already know there are different types of beer, whiskey, wine, gin, vodka, and milk. But for myself, I find that my tongue, while it's fine saying "beers", "whiskeys", "wines", and "vodkas", does not want to say "gins" or "milks"; I would want to say "different brands of gin" or "different densities of milk".

As usual, if we're going to be descriptive, we don't sit around inventing word forms in case the world finds a use for them later; we wait for the world to say them first, then write them down. —scs 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not inventing word forms - the words are what they are, even if they have never actually been used. Someone invented a thing called a spork. After introducing the thing to enough people, it came to be known that the thing was called a spork, and it became a word suitable for inclusion in the dictionary. At that point, even if no one has ever thought of what to call a multiple of this thing, the plural was "sporks" by default.

Same case with verb forms or adverb forms. Consider cosmopolitanism - what adverb would you use to say that a system operated in a manner consistant with cosmopolitanism? It operates cosmopolitanistically. The word gets two google hits and no google books hits, but it is already a word by dint of its being the proper adverb form of an -ism. In the 1980s, politicians "borked" a Supreme Court candidate - you already know the present participle of that verb before anyone writes it down.

Now, back to aerophobia. Say you have a mild aerophobia, and I have a cripplingly strong aerophobia - we have the same general affliction, but two different types of it. Hence, we have aerophobias, even if the plural form of the word has never been used. The plural form came into being the moment the singular existed. bd2412 T 03:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you don't need to try to convince me by constructing examples like that, because I'm the one who started this thread by constructing examples! So if my own too-cute examples haven't convinced me that aerophobias is a word worthy of inclusion in our dictionary, I'm not sure yours will, either! :-)

I do also understand how humans construct regular plurals, and that they can easily do so even for words they've never heard. Even small children and computer programs can work out that the plural of wug is wugs. So if we presume to list hypothetical plurals for words whose plurals have not yet, for whatever reason, ever been uttered or written by an actual human, it seems to me we're suggesting that the eventual human who may eventually first have occasion to utter that plural might not be able to without our help. We're also presuming (predictively, and prescriptively, and perhaps a couple other pre words in there as well) that the first pluralizers of this term won't, for whatever reason, adopt an irregular one.

My point is that I don't believe that mechanically-generated plurals have any utility; listing them explicitly adds no value to the dictionary. If and when a new plural is first needed, that first speaker can apply the pluralization algorithm just as well as we can.

(Why, then, do we list the regular plurals for all the existing nouns that do have them? Because among the set of existing nouns that do have plurals, not all of them are regular, so there is utility in distinguishing those that are from those that aren't. Even so, it would also be possible to list plurals explicilty only for those that are irregular, and indeed some real dictionaries -- for example my American Heritage -- use this more minimal strategy.)

Finally, with respect to your point (below) about redlinks generated by the current {en-noun} template, I'm not sure it's such a good idea for that template to create them, and this is one of the reasons. (I'm also not at all sure that every declined form, especially when perfectly regular, deserves its own entry, but that's a different issue.) At any rate, if aerophobia had simply used (or been edited to use) {{en-noun-unc}} in the first place, as it arguably should have been, the question or the temptation to create aerophobias wouldn't have come up.

—scs 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the same effect can be achieved by using {{en-noun|-}} - but that merely labels the word as uncountable, which may not be the case. What do we do with a noun that is clearly countable, but for which no plural form is attested? Just today, someone discovered a new bird species in India, and named it Liocichla bugunorum. Honestly, I have no idea how that should be pluralized, but is it uncountable? If it is countable, then we must adjust the template to indicate that it is countable, but no plural is attested. bd2412 T 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would say aerophobia (plural not attested) or perhaps, since we did find a few examples, though not enough to satisfy CFI (plural not attested, probably aerophobias) --Enginear 19:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we set up the template to have that as an option, perhaps coded by writing something like {{en-noun|n}}? bd2412 T 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this "plural not attested" or "no plural attested" idea. I'm still wondering, though, what the difference is between "plural not attested" and "uncountable". —scs 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Aerophobia might not be the best example. Earlier today, I added an entry for the rather obscure area of doctrinal study called pantheology, and the corresponding term for one versed in that are of study, a pantheologist. I also put in entries for the respective plurals of these nouns, pantheologies and pantheologists. Now, strictly speaking, pantheology is well attested by our standards, pantheologist is barely attested, and pantheologists is not attested, with only a handful of Google hits and no Google books hits. However, a pantheologist is not an abstract concept like happiness or Italy, but is a type of person, like an economist or an optometrist. If we agree that more than one person can be a pantheologist, then the word is definitely "countable", but the plural - although obvious - has not been used in print enough to be properly attested. bd2412 T 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with scs We don't sit around inventing word forms in case the world finds a use for them later; we wait for the world to say them first, then write them down. Plurals should be subject to the normal CFI. In this case: 0 hits on books.google, 1 non-dictionary/word list hit on Google (people's aeophobias), 2 hits on MSNSearch, 0 hits on any of the other search engines used by Metacrawler. Not, strictly speaking, as far as I can see, the three permanently archived hits required by CFI, but might sneak through. (For comparison aerophobia gets 250 books.google hits.) We can therefore say "has no plural in everyday use". --Enginear 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to revisit quite a few of my plural entries, then - although many were made from redlinks generated by the templates... bd2412 T 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

These word forms aren’t inherent as such, but they are certainly valid logical inferences based upon the rules of English grammar. However, to make logical inferences is to prescribe, which seems to be the cardinal sin here on Wiktionary, regardless of the common sense involved in making such inferences, and irrespective of how correct they are. Surely being correct is superior to being incorrect. I would define “superiority” in a linguistic sense (something that many descriptivists refuse to accept exists) as possessing the trial optima of “logical consistency”, “greatest functionality”, and “historical congruence”. Consequently, I consider words such as irregardless to be just plain wrong (although ain’t is fine as long as it doesn’t bring about a double negative and is used only as a synonym of aren’t); having brother, sister, and sibling is better than having either only the first two or only the latter; dilemma’s second definition and decimate’s fifth definition are incorrect due to being more vague, and thus less functional; “historical congruence” means that full scale phoneticization of English is out of the question. I believe that this stance is much more sensible than either extreme descriptivism or extreme prescriptivism; the folly of the latter has already been made evident — so, soon, shall the former’s. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• aerophobia is not countable - even I can see that. Παρατηρητής
  • There are countable constructions of the word, particularly if there are different kinds of aerophobia. Consider claustrophobia by analogy - for which a plural, claustrophobias, is attested in literature. similar attestation is available for agoraphobias as a plural of agoraphobia. How do we deal with an entry for a term that is countable, but for which the plural is unattested? bd2412 T 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We put a usage note on the page to say countable but unattested. This talk will also go to the singular word. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

May or may not be in the title mentioned as a reference (text not available on linked site).

None of the Google hits for this spelling seem to bear any relationship to this meaning.

--Versageek 05:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rubbish - protologism at best. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Protologism? Will godgreatgrandfather be next? SemperBlotto 07:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Godbrother gets 110 Google Books hits , while godsister gets 56 . Godgreatgrandfather gets a big goose egg, but interestingly godgrandfather gets 3 hits, and godgrandmother gets 2 . Goduncle and godaunt each get a couple of hits as nonce words. Didn't see any other relations popping up with god-. Jeffqyzt 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

'Godbrother' and 'Godsister' are quite common relationships in many cultures especially in Europe and Asia. In some cultures and religions the role of a godparent is more sacred than others and the relationships between families can be as strong as those with blood relatives. The bond is often considered so sacred that in most of these cultures there are strict rules that forbid marriage between godsisters and godbrothers. In a multicultural country like Australia, the english terms 'Godbrother' and 'Godsister' are commonly used to describe these relationships within these families, especially by migrants and their decendants. J Bar 05:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"In June 2005 the word 'godbrother' was submitted to the Collins appeal system but as far as I know has not been accepted there, either. Most of the internet sites seem to use it in the sense of0 a 'brother' in God's love, and not the relationship as understood from godfather. It seems that the relationship is known in other cultures / languages, but I don't think in English. To WT:LOP & deleted. Andrew massyn 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like rubbish to me. Παρατηρητής

• 0 Google groups hits would not appear to exist. MGSpiller 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(section added out of chron. seq. so as to keep it with previous)

This word does not appear in the reference, when one think it would. Robert Ullmann 14:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) I was unable to find it when I researched munik above. Accordingly rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The books.google.com references I found seemed to all be other uses (e.g. pertaining to stick-figure drawings of a child.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

French? Typo from 1913? - TheDaveRoss 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct, a common and regular plural. 596000 hits on books.google, of which the first three were French running text, and I didn't bother to look any further. (Also a valid English plural in the borrowed phrase objets d'art (plural of objet d'art).) --Enginear 21:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - sorry. I corrected it and then had to do things in real life. SemperBlotto 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Purported to mean hated, loathesome. Oh really? bd2412 T 21:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so. Deleted (but wlatsome seems to have existed according to Chaucer) SemperBlotto 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But probably just a pre-standardized-spelling version of loathesome. bd2412 T 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    OED has wlat as noun till 13th C, as adjective till 14th C, and wlatsome as adjective till 17th C, with meanings similar to loath(e) and loathesome, so probably as BD suggests. --Enginear 09:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    • The above is partially correct. It comes from the Old English: wlǽtta m (-n/-n) loathing, nauseas, eructation, heartburn; an object of loathing; disfigurement.

It does have rare useage, and a number of derivitives (see http://www.takeourword.com/TOW138/page1.html) which is why I added it. Loath comes from láð.

"A Jehovah's Witness"? Dvortygirl 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly. But it was a Wonderfool entry, so I deleted it. SemperBlotto 07:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamvertising? (Needs formatting anyway) SemperBlotto 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the spam link... don't know if it is a legit entry. bd2412 T 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All the Google Books and Google Groups hits only show the meaning of wine produced by a corporation. No support found. --Jeffqyzt 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Its iffy. I found a few sites advertising customised labeling for wine, which use the term, and I can understand the concept. But I don't think it is embedded in the language yet. To WT:LOP & Deleted. Andrew massyn 05:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sent to RfD. bd2412 T 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

similar to the above, only wiktionary on onelook. - TheDaveRoss 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The one Google Books hit is actually a misreading by the Google software (should read attenti); some Google hits are actually a proper name (Atheall). bd2412 T 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

really? - TheDaveRoss 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all Google hits (and all Google Books hits) are mis-spells of working. bd2412 T 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 06:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Crude slang for female genitals, or for a prostitute. --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think def 1 (prostitute) was the original meaning for def 2, but at best it is obsolete now.--Dmol 06:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related to moot#Etymology 2? --Ptcamn 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely used (or was used) to mean ‘girl, woman’ and also ‘prostitute’, not sure about specifically the genitals though. You sometimes see it spelt mot. Widsith 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

O'Byrne Files Dublin slang dictionary ] only lists the girlfriend/wife def, with both spellings of mot or mott.--Dmol 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Adds a whole new meaning to bon-mot. Yeesh! I have removed the genital definition. Andrew massyn 06:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch for survivor like TV series... seems contrived to me - TheDaveRoss 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We have several Dutch speakers and none of them have supported the def. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 06:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

http //tservcsc. bizh osting.com/comba tology.html — This comment was unsigned.

Linkspam? For us? Why thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

French is missing. Can't find any English texts with it. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OED only has it as plural of ancona. SemperBlotto 07:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think someone is getting confused by ancones, which is the plural not of *ancone (I don't think the word exists, except per SB above) but of ancon. Widsith 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? {Needs formatting and slimming down) SemperBlotto 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up and moved to lower case...can't help with verification, though. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Created acronym; i.e. when words are chosen to fit something that is already in use. ABEND is old IBMese for an ABnormal END; had some frequency among computer professionals; the newbies tried to figure out what it was supposed to stand for ... (hey, that link is blue, does it have the right def? Yup! Very nice. ;-) So, toss this. Lots of mention, no use. Robert Ullmann 13:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone suggesting a direct link between IBM 360 error messages and the internet has a credibility gap to fill from the start! Nearly all entries in books.google for abend are either German or relate to a personal name or pen name. Of the remaining half dozen in the top 300 entries record (or define) the use as abnormal end. Ditto the top 60 Metacrawler entries. Absent by enforced net deprivation has NO books.google entries, and of the top 60 Metacrawler entries, there is only one example of use, with all the others being definitions. So not enough to satisfy CFI. --Enginear 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Provide citations; format. — Paul G 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to list of protologisms and deleted. SemperBlotto 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

skunk was derived from this word - but references for it's actual meaning are absent. --Versageek 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I believe skunk comes from the Abnaki word seganku, meaning "he who squirts". —Stephen 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We should probably fix skunk too.. --Versageek 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 07:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked the etym for skunk and agree with Stephen. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 06:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A far step on latinization. bd2412 T 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rubbish deleted. (Primetime?) SemperBlotto 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Plural of "thingy"? Now that's just wrong. bd2412 T 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rubbish deleted. SemperBlotto 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See also: w:Enema bandit. Amusing, isn't it? :-) Dart evader 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are 4030 Google books hits. I've never studied sociology, so I can't sort out what the differences between the middle three meanings are supposed to be; in looking at some of the texts that return, the usage seems to be highly context specific. However, there definitely does seem to be much use as a word. They should be tagged as being sociology or philosophy specific senses though.

As far as sense 1 goes, agentic + chemistry or + catalyst doesn't turn up any hits that support that use. I don't recall such use from 100 level university chemistry; I think that a chemist would be much more likely to describe such an "agentic" component as a catalyst (if it was one) or in terms of the nature of the reaction, if it's just a component of the reaction.

The fifth sense would be linguistic, as described. Surely someone on Wiktionary has formal linguistic training and would have heard of it? Jeffqyzt 19:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not in OED or Websters. SemperBlotto 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From talk page. I will come back to this at the end of the month and make any changes. It has pissed me off royally.Andrew massyn 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a draft. I havent moved any of the senses yet, and will await comment. Andrew massyn 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Causing as of a catalyst. Unable to find. Removed sense.
2. Some guy called Bandura has written the biggest lot of bilge imaginable. however it has been taken up and accordingly rfvpassed. I have put the synopsis of his waffle in. It makes me want to puke all over sociologists. If they cant write, they should go and get a job as a streetsweeper, rather than inflict this sort of crap on the general public. So sue me.
   • Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective Albert BanduraThis article presents the basic tenets of social cognitive theory. It is founded on a causal model of triadic reciprocal causation in which personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective and biological events, behavioral patterns, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally. Within this theory, human agency is embedded in a self theory encompassing self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective and self-regulative mechanisms. Human agency can be exercised through direct personal agency; through proxy agency relying on the efforts of intermediaries; and by collective agency operating through shared beliefs of efficacy, pooled understandings, group aspirations and incentive systems, and collective action. Personal agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems. Growing transnational imbeddedness and interdependence of societies are creating new social realities in which global forces increasingly interact with national ones to shape the nature of cultural life.
3. Self determination linked to human agency. Seems to be a sub-species of no. 2 above. It is a nice big word like marmalade. this is what some idiot feminist has to say. i am removing the sense.
   • According to the researchers' model, when individuals are placed in work contexts characterized by decision-making discretion, broad information sharing and a climate of trust and respect, they are more likely to experience work as self-determined, and are more apt to engage in active, purposeful—i.e., "agentic"—behaviors that contribute to thriving.
4. Milagram's theory. Seems to be OK and is at least clear.
5. Internal force. Seems to relate to human behaviour only forces like passion, love, self worth and drive. are agentic forces. I am removing the sense.

— This comment was unsigned.

• The "independence" criteria means that because all uses of the "sociologist" meaning can be traced back to a single individual, this does not pass our criteria. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately its out there. Moe it to rfd if you want. I am making the changes suggested above. 155.239.124.137 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Common enough use to merit an entry? bd2412 T 04:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but it doesnt have to be capitalised. There are 220 000 google hits. Also, it seems to be an acronym used on T shirts and things, but (at least in the first 6 google pages, I didn't see it being used as text. I will leave it for now, and revert at the end of the month. More comments please. Andrew massyn 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"As there are no more comments, and the capitalisation is all wrong, deleting. Andrew massyn 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's common enough if your in the right circles. You see it on biker's vests, in biker publications and anywhere bikers congregate. It's aimed at the straight citizens. It's an anagram that means: Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck.

Bikerindallas

This page has been on WT:RFC for two years. Time to clean it up. I think it is an adjective as it would describe for e.g. a battery or electricity itself. Regrettably I failed science at school, and that was a 30 years ago! So would someone with more nous than me please help. Ta Andrew massyn 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

1. (Chem.) # (Chem.) <-- this is a duplicate of the noun sense.
   • Electro-positive. Having more protons than electrons.
   • {Positive electricity} (Elec), the kind of electricity which is developed when glass is rubbed with silk, or which appears at that pole of a voltaic battery attached to the plate that is not attacked by the exciting liquid; -- formerly called vitreous electricity; -- opposed to negative electricity.
   • Hence, basic; metallic; not acid; -- opposed to negative, and said of metals, bases, and basic radicals.

• The noun sense is:

1. Denoting an excess of protons; alkaline; charged. Not negative or neutral.

• Well, a cation is a "positive ion" - because it has more protons than electrons and therefore has a positive electric charge. "electropositive" has a different chemical meaning (tending to become positively charged). Rubbing with silk - I know nothing about! Hence, basic etc - this just seems wrong. The last line is either wrong, or adds nothing. SemperBlotto 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the definition to physics rather than chemistry, put positive electricity as a ""see also"" to be developed later and struck the last nonsense base metals and basic radicals section for now. Thanks for the feedback.

Andrew massyn 07:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The next question is # (Vehicles) Designating a method of steering or turning in which the steering wheels move so that they describe concentric arcs in making a turn, to insure freedom from side slip or harmful resistance. <-- this is a specific application of the fourth sense in the article. The fourth sense is # Progressing in a circular manner; motion similar to that of a clock. Andrew massyn 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the vehicular def is a bit wide of the mark: if a car is described as having positive steering, it means that it feels responsive and precise rather than soggy or indefinite. As such, it is an extension of sense 7, or it may be worth adding a new sense, for mechanisms etc: appropriate, definite, effective. I'll look for some cites, but not today.

Positive steering does not mean that the wheels are all pointing exactly in the right direction. In fact it usually feels best when the outer wheels are set to point in a slightly tighter circle than is actually required. Also, it is not the steering system which makes the wheels describe concentric arcs. Euclidean geometry ensures that any wheels attached to a rigid chassis must do so. They may or may not side slip to achieve this, but while they are attached to the chassis, the arcs must be concentric!

Positive is used in a number of expressions related to steering geometry, in particular, positive camber, positive caster, positive toe (or toe in) and perhaps positive lock or positive steer (more commonly oversteer). However, the camber and caster give no information re whether the wheels are being steered to follow concentric arcs, while positive toe, and arguably positive lock, imply that the wheels are actually being steered to deviate from the intended route, so that they can only follow the arcs which the rigid chassis actually constrains them to follow by side slipping and/or flexing their rubber tyres.

Also, positive feedback, occasionally suffered in front wheel drive cars when accelerating in reverse, or if there is a fault in power-assisted steering or there is negative caster, actually tries to pull the steering wheel to tighten the turn, so cannot be what is defined.

As for the more general sense 4 Progressing in a circular manner, I have never heard it. If an object is circulating, then in many cases, eg clocks, compass bearings, clockwise would be taken as the positive direction, and anticlockwise as the negative, but that is far from universal (eg it is not relevant to the defs of the angles for positive camber, etc above). OED does not mention any sense of progressing in a circular manner, so unless someone else can find it used, I would omit it. --Enginear 17:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I will delete the 4th sense for cars and the clock sense.(for now). Perhaps if you are feeling strong, you can add a vehicular def at a later stage? This really helped. Andrew massyn 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Third (& last) question Are the below-mentioned not derivitive and therefore needing their own entries?

• Positive eyepiece. See under Eyepiece.
• Positive motion (Mach.), motion which is derived from a driver through unyielding intermediate pieces, or by direct contact, and not through elastic connections, nor by means of friction, gravity, etc.; definite motion.
• Positive philosophy. See w:Positivism.
• Positive electricity The pole of a battery or pile which yields positive or vitreous electricity; -- opposed to negative pole.

I have added this as a "see also" as per discussion with SB above. Andrew massyn 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• positive pole
  • (Magnetism) The north pole.

I personally dont think so. Andrew massyn 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• • In bateries and things. ?
• Positive quantity (Alg.), an affirmative quantity, or one affected by the sign plus .
• Positive sign (Math.), the sign denoting plus, or more, or addition.
• Positive rotation (Mech.), left-handed rotation.

I've expanded and cleaned this quite a bit. Widsith 16:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk moved to article. Andrew massyn 07:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A swear word that is like halfway to FUCK but twice as strong as DAMN. So how about SHIT? Also, what Castlevania 2 is made from.

Added by SB but it didnt make it to the rfvpage before. Andrew massyn 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sort of is a "swear word" - literally this means "your mother" (nǐ niángde), but by far the more common way of referring to another person's mother in Chinese would be 你的妈妈 (nǐ dí māma). The term contested here, on the other hand, is more common as part of a traditional curse that would be quite familiar to Westerners, and standing alone it does imply that curse. bd2412 T 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The entry is indeed a Mandarin swear word. I prefer to not work on swear word entries (call me square). However, judging by the single most heavily edited word on wiktionary, I don't think it will take long for someone else to come along and fix this.

A-cai 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

HT tagged this today. As I just said on its talk page, I pretty much agree with the page's existing characterizations. The adjective senses, though somewhat obscure or unusual, are real and current. (For example, you might speak of "the caloric content of food".) The noun sense is, yes, obsolete; it refers to the now-outdated w:Caloric theory. So, Hippie, you want some actual cites for the adjectives? —scs 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this rescuable? SemperBlotto 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There. It’s in better order now. The noun phrase itself sounds plausible enough. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• A body of unwritten social mores and conventions which serve to maintain societal order

Well done. SemperBlotto 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate it. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a reasonable definition. However, I have not been able to find references that support the def. Regretfully to rfd. Andrew massyn 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

sense 3, about the fecal matter. - TheDaveRoss 04:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am an Australian, and I can verify that it is used here. It isn't the most common word, but it is certainly used.User:Wally 09:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I googled "dunny nard" "crapper nard" and "nard shit" and came up with nard. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's back. DAVilla 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly a Bantu language of Tanzania. I don’t know of any language with a somewhat similar name in Tanzania or in the entire Bantu family. Evidence? —Stephen 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Kisi. See . According to the web site, there are 33million Tanzanians, and between them they speak 120 languages, which seems a bit profligate, if you ask me. Andrew massyn 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see any evidence that it is another name for Kisi. I can find almost nothing about Kiseri, but the little I see gives me the impression that it’s a name for one of the dialects of Chaga. I’ll note this in the article and hope it is correct. —Stephen 08:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To Talk page. Andrew massyn 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposed to be another Bantu language of Tanzania. I know of nothing similar spoken in Tanzania. Evidence? —Stephen 20:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably Kinga See . Andrew massyn 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. It’s the Vinza word for Vinza. —Stephen 08:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

to article talk page. Andrew massyn 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Google seems to indicate this is something specific to construction? --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• It may well need updating, but what's in there now is directly out of Webster 1913. Dvortygirl 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have expanded it, using the OED and the web. SemperBlotto 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I intended to deal with this over the last week, but sidetracked myself. There are some additional meanings relevant to modern construction (particularly with curtain walling, where a spandrel panel is the opaque panel between the window on one floor and that on the next, and a spandrel beam runs behind it). The relevant sense of spandrel is on my to do list. It is intriguing that this meaning fits the etymology better than the ones listed (which pre-dated it), but at present, I think that is coincidental. --Enginear 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk to rfv. Andrew massyn 05:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

looks neologistic, anyone have info? - TheDaveRoss 03:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• More like neoconistic - the word appears to have been manufactured for the purpose of criticizing a left-wing columnist. That said, it briefly gained some currency on the internet (but not enough to land any Google Books hits). bd2412 T 13:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've not heard it in London. In view of the definition, is it US only? --Enginear 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To rfd. Andrew massyn 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One single web hit. Is that one a typo? --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If 'Tecnopathogenia' and 'Technopathogenologie',the Spanish and German version of the expression, are included in the search, there are several web hits. Don't you think, that this is reason enough to have it in the English section?

--User:Elisabeth Bücking 10:25, 13 October 2006

• Each word is tested on its own merits. Are the German and Spanish words in the German and Spanish Wiktionary yet? The English version of the word is a protologism at best and is not yet easily verifiable. SemperBlotto 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• OED - (Obs) A kind of courier: see quot.

14.. Direct. Travellers in Eng. Stud. VIII. 278 Who-so woll ride faste and with-oute hevy cariage, good were to fynde atte Brigges suche a scarceler as bereth marchauntes lettres; which will fayne ride with men for fyndyng of hym and his hors, wtoute eny other wages.

referred to Widsith. Andrew massyn 07:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• OED - (Obs) A kind of courier: see quot.

14.. Direct. Travellers in Eng. Stud. VIII. 278 Who-so woll ride faste and with-oute hevy cariage, good were to fynde atte Brigges suche a scarceler as bereth marchauntes lettres; which will fayne ride with men for fyndyng of hym and his hors, wtoute eny other wages.

This has been on Rfv for a while. Any idea whether it is an actual word, or just an oddity? Andrew massyn 07:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. If that's the only quote on the OED, it may be a nonce word. I'll check it tomorrow at work (where I have access to the OED). Widsith 08:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's only been recorded once. Not easy to verify the meaning..it could have been a typo or anything. Widsith 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is supposedly a Wookiee term... bd2412 T 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a contribution of User:Tedius Zanarukando, who apparently has a thing for Star Wars. See his contribs list Special:Contributions/Tedius Zanarukando for a great many Star Wars specific contributions. Considering that all the references are going to be either Star Wars novels or video games (unless Chewbacca says it in the movies, and further unless someone can actually understand him) even if this is "citable", I don't think that a fictional term "translated" from the fictional language of a fictional species relating to the particular ethos of that fictional species is ever going to be widespread enough to merit inclusion without some much more widespread breakout usage. </rant>

Oh, and zero Google books hits , nine Google groups hits , none of which support the def as given. --Jeffqyzt 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition given:

1. A human we recognize as part of our same species, yet from another world or planet. This definition is found in Orson Scott Card's "The Speaker For the Dead," which is a sequel to "Ender's Game."

Rod (A. Smith) 07:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All the Google Books hits were either 1) A scandinavian word, 2) Placenames, 3) Surnames, or 4) Text from Card's novels or works referring to them. Interestingly, Card's book seems to indicate that his term is actually taken from the Scandinavian word (don't know if the meaning is shaded by the book.) So...perhaps there should be an entry there, but probably not in English. Anyone who speaks a Nordic language care to have a look? --Jeffqyzt 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, främling in Swedish means foreigner or stranger. (No trace of being extra-terrestrial, though ;) \Mike 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this sad little protologism graduated to full-fledged word-dom.

1. frozen yoghurt

Rod (A. Smith) 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Urban dictionary has it as froyo Παρατηρητής

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of "jiggy jiggy" with the same meaning and it seems to have some credible cites if you can find them under all the lyric websites.--Dmol 21:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please add cites to the page. Moving to September for decision in October. Andrew massyn 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up and addded cites. I'm pretty sure I've heard this in a standard English context, but all the examples I've found so far are various kinds of pidgin English, or at least non-native English. --Ptcamn 10:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was propositioned once and asked (by a non native speaker) if I wanted to jig-jig. I passed then and am passing now. Andrew massyn 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist. (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be a protologism. I have asked the contributor to add a brief entry to the list. Deleted. SemperBlotto 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputing noun sense A hangman. See Jack Ketch. There apparently was a hangman of that name, but I don't think the word is in use for any hangman.

Secondly, verb to catch. --Dmol 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC) From the OED.

• The hangman. Hence ketch v.1 trans., to hang; ketchcraft, the hangman's craft.

• • 1681 T. FLATMAN Heraclitus Ridens No. 14 'Squire Ketch rejoices as much to hear of a new Vox, as an old Sexton does to hear of a new Delight. Ibid. No. 18 Well! If he has a mind to be Ketch'd, speed him say I. 1706 Wooden World Diss. (1708) 80 For a running Noose, this new Ketch is but a Fool to him. 1840 Fraser's Mag. XXI. 210 Ignorant of many of the secrets of ketchcraft. 1859 MATSELL Vocab. s.v. (Farmer), I'll ketch you; I'll hang you.

• Dial. var. (pa. tense ketched) of CATCH v.

• • 1815 D. HUMPHREYS Yankey in England I. 21, I guess, he is trying to ketch mebut it won't du. I'm tu old a bird to be ketch'd with chaff. 1865 DICKENS Mut. Fr. II. IV. xv. 287 Wot is it, lambs, as they ketches in seas, rivers, lakes, and ponds? a1883 . 1911 E. WHARTON Ethan Frome ii. 60 You'll ketch your death. The fire's out long ago. 1916 W. O. BRADLEY Stories & Speeches 18 You'll never ketch me hollerin' at no Republican gatherin'. 1929 H. W. ODUM in A. Dundes Mother Wit (1973) 184 If so you gonna ketch hell. 1967 Atlantic Monthly Apr. 103/1 You heard about that joke a dollar down and a dollar when you ketch me? 1968 S. STUCKEY in A. Chapman New Black Voices (1972) 445 Run, nigger, run, de patrollers will ketch you.

• SemperBlotto 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... those citations could also relay a colloquial spelling of "catch". bd2412 T 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Moved citations to article page. Andrew massyn 04:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a basic entry of 'hello' in Turkish based on what-links-here, +rfv since I don't speak Turkish & original entry was 'goodbye'. --Versageek 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. —Stephen 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole term needs some research, there is presently an edit war going on there and I haven't been able to make heads or tails of it, so perhaps some community research will set it straight. - TheDaveRoss 16:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove my source? It was the only secondary source?

• Article on the word’s origins and political impact of using the term in a speech

You now have 2 primary sources supporting the least verified sense. And to repeat my references on the talk page:

• http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=256&Itemid=33
• http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4368451

Until this is adequately resolved, the least verified sense should be the last sense. None of the secondary sources use embarrassment as a possible definition. On top of that, you're suggesting that Allen said "Let's give a welcome to , here."--Halliburton Shill 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems equally likely that Webb used the phrase "macaca payback" in a directly referential sense, i.e. 'this is the payback I am getting for the macaca controversy raised against my opponent'. Maybe someone can ask him? ;) Seriously, though, is there any real controversy that 'macaca' is phonetically a fair equivalent to a word that means 'monkey' in a number of languages? If I were dining at a restaurant and were to turn to a waiter with whom I did not have any kind of relationship, and I were to say, "hey, monkey, could you bring me another glass of water?" I think it would reasonably be read as an insult from the context. bd2412 T 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the phontetics, yes its been used this way on TV and you can find the Allen use on youtube. You can also see it in comics. Here's an example http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/macaca.gif from Slowpoke - winner of three Association of Alternative Newsweeklies awards, including First Place in 2005.--Halliburton Shill 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, here's how we do this. Find book citations, like these:

France Winddance Twine, Racism in a Racial Democracy: The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil (1997) p. 70

• While Miguel reported that in the past he had been called derogatory names such as macaca (monkey), he continued to frame his failure to win public office exclusively in terms of his socioeconomic status.

Michael Hanchard, Racial Politics in Contemporary Brazil (1999) p. 211.

• ...rounding apartments said “Macaca”; they insulted Benedita. We did not win anything with this gesture.

So we have two references, both from Brazil, showing "macaca" used as an epithet. Note that most Google Book refs are to scientific texts referring to actual monkeys. bd2412 T 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The OED as referenced by the Salon article had no suggestion of it ever being used to mean embarrassment. Same goes for onelook. The references are either scientific in reference to a type of animal or as an ethnic insult.--Halliburton Shill 23:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that macaca means "embarrassing moment"...that’s probably a confusion with macock-up. Also I doubt that it necessarily implies dark skin or African or Middle-Eastern features. I’ve heard Laotians refer to Anglos as monkeys. Originally it was French colonians insulting their African neighbors, but now I’d say it’s a general term of abuse that anybody can use against anybody. —Stephen 01:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning that we should check sources for the term in other languages. The obvious place to start for Spanish is the Real Academia Española: macaco, macaca. This defines both as either:

1. macaque
2. (Cuba) ugly, deformed person
3. (Uruguay) someone that is difficult to please, especially said of picky eaters

So there are a few other senses Wiktionary defines that RAE doesn't list. Of course that's not to say they aren't used that way... Maybe it would be nice to have sources for them? –Andyluciano 06:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reworeded sense 1, to mean a general racial slur and removed sense 3. Andrew massyn 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Was deleted from Wikipedia as non-existent w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requel. bd2412 T 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Without researching, I've never read/heard it (or midquel) used.--Halliburton Shill 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Only seems to appear in urban dictionaries.--Dmol 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "interquel" has been used in several websites, and some which no longer exist. It was protect-deleted from Wikipedia. It is either a stable or diffused neologism, not a protologism. Tedius Zanarukando 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the part where you provide evidence... - TheDaveRoss

Now cited. Edit: including newspaper quote. There is also a Google scholar hit, although it is mention and not use. DAVilla 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

See interquel, above. bd2412 T 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

19200 g hits, many independent citations with meaning defined (don't sk me to add them. Unfortunately rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Questioned sense is:

1. A message. This meaning is common among the fans of the Harry Potter book series in which owls are used to deliver mail.

   He received an urgent owl from the Ministry of Magic.

In the first place, aren't the message sent by actual owls (which would make the use non-idiomatic)? In the second place, is this used outside of fanfic references? --Jeffqyzt 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems best left to the discussion page until somebody provides non-fanfic references for it.--Halliburton Shill 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but you beat me to it. Similar to Trekkie terminology, not in general use.--Dmol 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Remove this is only used in Harry Potter and I've actually heard it used outside of the Books or Films. I agree, it should be moved to the talk page.--Williamsayers79 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion onto talk:owl per the dicussion above.--Williamsayers79 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers. (I especially like the "Entomology"!) SemperBlotto 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not in an extensive computer dictionary that I have. Sounds like garbage to me.--Dmol 07:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage notes

• Beginning in the 1950's, the term communism was used to describe something negative. This usage is very similar to the way the word gay is used. This practice is derived from the fact that people, during the Red Scare, accused those they disliked of being communists for ludicrous reasons. For example, when a test is difficult or unfair, one can say, "That's communism." This colloquial usage is restricted primarily to American English.

This usage is really not common enough to merit its inclusion.

— This unsigned comment was added by 69.154.224.77 (talk) at 20:17, September 25, 2006.

It is the most common usage of the word. --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing it alone in that sense ever, though there are some here in London who clearly assume it will be understood with a negative connotation, just as there are others who assume negative connotations for American. I think that "restricted primarily to American English" is probably true. --Enginear 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

From the place and time that gave us "commie pinko bastard."  :-) I would refine the usage note to indicate conditions that are perceived as oppressive, overly arbitrary, or totalitarian, rather than just negative. You wouldn't, for example, use the term to describe your bad luck at the races, e.g. "I just lost $100! That's Communism!" Perhaps this should even be an additional (US specific) def? --Jeffqyzt 14:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this sense is US ONLY. Παρατηρητής

Speaking as a lifelong US citizen, I have never heard the phrase "That's communism" used as a way to say something is unfair. It gets used very negatively. More like the word terrorism or terrorists or Islam are used in a collective sense now.--Halliburton Shill 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

<JOKE> I think you've perhaps led a sheltered life then.  :-) </JOKE> Seriously though, how could you have not heard this? The term is still tossed about in exactly this manner. --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. So there's no question, I've never heard/read/seen via any media communism used as "that's communism" or communism used in any way that would suggest it's being used to say something is unfair and only unfair. It could be taken as a connotation in other uses, but never the primary meaning. I did not, however, live during the 50s. Besides, the point of verification is for the claimer to produce evidence of the claimed usage, not for everyone else to recite their life history. With all the supposed tossing, I'm sure few quotes can be cought and referenced.--Halliburton Shill 05:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a new, US specific, sense (but not removed the usage note) at the article. Cites added there. All cites were from the first page of Google Books hits for "that's communism" ; there may be better ones out there if someone wants to go digging. --Jeffqyzt 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on perspective, ideologically speaking. In South Africa, pre 1994, communism, was regarded as a political evil. In Afrikaans the red scare has an equivilent rooi gevaar. In Thacherist England, communism was perceived by many as a wicked ideology. Times have changed. I don't think it is only or even primarily American (although the US trumpets itself as the bastion of Capitalism). It is merely a dated political perspective. Communism is now a (mostly) a dead ideology. China, Russia and its satelites have moved to a capitalist based economy. With the fall of the Wall and the end of the cold war communism has largely ceased to be the monster under Capital's bed. I am however leaving the usage note unchanged, and directing the reader to the talk page. Andrew massyn 05:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sense: A tin can containing beer (or other beverage?) --Connel MacKenzie 06:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it used this way, but woundn't say it was common.--Dmol 07:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The OED has this definition: - A bottle or can of beer. Austral. colloq. SemperBlotto 07:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are enough Aussies in London pubs that we know the word here -- though I don't recall hearing any non-Aussie use it -- except when imitating Strine. --Enginear 13:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Australian and I've never heard of it. Possibly obsolete or regional. --Ptcamn 00:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Melbourne, or perhaps no more typical of normal Australian use than Steve Irwin's Crikey!. I've just cited it -- very difficult to find cites until I remembered hearing it in a long running Foster's ad -- and was disturbed to find (on books.google) only use by Barry Humphries' Barry McKenzie, the Foster's usage, + notes in two guide books to Australia! But it's certainly now known in London and assumed by many here to be as Australian as a Waltzing Matilda. --Enginear 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. Why the quotation note? DAVilla 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cos it represents the etymology of that sense, ie claimed first and second use, and I couldn't think where best to put it. Of course, on the Talk page and nowhere are both options. --Enginear 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the movie. Notwithstanding the use of the supposed parent phrase, as queer as a clockwork orange Since moved, see below. --Enginear 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC), is there attestable evidence of clockwork orange as per the page's definition, except in discussion of the book or the movie? --Jeffqyzt 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A little, though hard to find among the items relating to the book or film. A scan of the top 200 results from a books.google search for 'clockwork orange' -book -film -kubrick -burgess still had about 190 items where CO was capitalised, presumably referring either to the book/film or to robots, bands, etc named after them. Of the remaining few, the following used the phrase as described: ] & ] and perhaps more could be found by someone appropriately programmed. Incidentally, I've only heard queer as a clockwork orange used in the homosexual sense, rather than the odd sense we give, so perhaps that should be RFVed too. --Enginear 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems I am that programmed maybe it's now time to jump out the window!...4 cites added. Also sexual sense and one cite per sense added to queer as a clockwork orange (moved from as queer... since shortened form is found almost as often). --Enginear 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? (Needs moving to uncapitalized) SemperBlotto 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

close relative of dowdification which is also listed on rfv., I also doubt it's status as a common misspelling of bowdlerize --Versageek 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard it (as a misprint or otherwise) in London. In view of the definition, is it US only? --Enginear 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stated to be Liverpudlian for "fool" - citations, please. — Paul G 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've update the article, the spelling seems to be meff so I've also moved it too. I've added a reference and I'm also looking for cites or further refs. I know this is a word since all the Scousers at work say it.--Williamsayers79 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 09:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a quote for this one to verify it? --EncycloPetey 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was strange rubbish - I have replaced it with a proper definition. SemperBlotto 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this idiomatic? Is this the same as a strip tease? --Connel MacKenzie 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, like all of Wonderfool's contributions, it is reasonable. In the UK we would "strip off" at the doctors or to change into football gear etc. It seems to mean exactly the same as undress. SemperBlotto 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Idiomatic but not the same as strip tease. We strip off (intransitive) before having a bath or skinny-dipping. (It's also sometimes used non-idiomatically and transitively for removal of particular items, but usually I use take off for that.) --Enginear 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Stripping off doesn't necessarily imply nudity. You can just strip off your shirt, tie and trousers if you want. --80.47.112.2 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You like the way a bit of smut was sneakily added in there? —This unsigned comment was added by 80.47.112.2 (talk • contribs).

Added etymology + intransitive sense To be removed by stripping, and cites for all senses. --Enginear 14:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A Wonderfool typo of PMS? --Connel MacKenzie 13:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, PMT is pretty common in the UK. --Enginear 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Common here in Ireland also, both PMT and PMS are used. --Dmol 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cites added. 62.188.4.199 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) That was me --Enginear 14:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RfV passed. DAVilla 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Any takers? Capitalization is wrong and some spelling is questionable. SemperBlotto 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no discussion, no interest. Rfvfailed.Andrew massyn 09:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps merits an entry as something a preschooler might say? Or just another Wonderfoolism? --Connel MacKenzie 14:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. Maybe Wonderfool is a preeschooler.

Added cites. --Ptcamn 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, British. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a polite version of pain in the ass. --Dmol 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Entry predates the RFV process; entry is slang used by one, possibly two individuals? --Connel MacKenzie 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 09:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Only books.google.com hits seem to be scan-o's of carriage. --Connel MacKenzie 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No cites, no interest, sexist & discriminatory. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 10:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can find a very few instances of this, but generally of it being proposed, not of use, , & . I suggest WT:LOP MGSpiller 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See above. Both were on WT:LOP already. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I use this expression often, and I am sure it is common in Australia also. --Dmol 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cites added --Enginear 14:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely used in Australia. I've even seen it in magazine headlines and heard it on TV shows too. J Bar 09:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done with the cites. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maltese slang for small penis? - TheDaveRoss 00:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No interest, no cites. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an rfv-sense for definition 3: "On the British stage, reputedly the word mumbled repetitively by actors supposed to be talking together inaudibly (as the word does not have any harsh-sounding consonants)".

I'm not disputing that this is the case (I have no idea, actually) but even if it is, this is encyclopedic information and not a definition of rhubarb, and hence does not meet CFI. --Jeffqyzt 02:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and think it should be kept. By extension, the words "rhubarb, rhubarb" are often said to people (not actors) who are mumbling when they talk to you, as a parody of this practice. --Dmol 06:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The OED has it :- 4. a. The word ‘rhubarb’ as repeated by actors to give the impression of murmurous hubbub or conversation. Hence allusively. SemperBlotto 07:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It has a verifiable meaning, namely no meaning. Zero is still a number, and the empty set is still a set.

# Such and such plant (when used in the context of plants, implied).
# Its root (when used in the context of food, implied).
# No actual meaning, when used in such and such context.

I think we even have a few words entirely like that. DAVilla 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm...ok, but should it be a noun, then? Would you say, "Don't speak in a rhubarb?" (== mumble/whisper) Or would it be more like "What's he saying? Oh, it's just rhubarb." (== nonsense/nothing) I just don't have any idea how it would be used from the definition (other than on an actual stage, in which case it's not idiomatic.) The definition as given is etymologically descriptive of use, not of meaning. Does anyone have a cite or a usage example they could insert? --Jeffqyzt 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It should be an interjection, not a noun. None of the examples you gave are legit since they imply the meanings you gave, when the word has no meaning, as implied if not explicitly stated by our definition. I don't like the OED definition because any word can mean an instance of that word. For instance, in this explanation should appears four times, twice in italics for clarity. That doesn't mean should should be listed as a noun, even if it is possible to use it as such, as demonstrated here. DAVilla 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems more like a usage note than a definition - that it's used in this sense does not mean that it is referring to anything othr than the vegetable with each murmer. bd2412 T 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cites added to all senses, and most of sense three definition moved to a usage note. Since rhubarb, rhubarb... is normally said for about a minute or more, purposely said in a quiet voice so it the words are unintelligible, I think it qualifies as a noun rather than an interjection. There may also be a verb use, but I've steered clear of adding that. --Enginear 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is a method of acting, which is what the definition seems to imply at present. I am changing the def to say (Acting) A word repeated softly to emulate background conversation. I am removing the RFV sense, as it is well known and attested, but am not putting rfvpassed. This conversation is being moved to the talk page. Andrew massyn 13:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

is this used? - TheDaveRoss 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin V: the sildenafil craze.(Article Heading)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
There were 1 or 2 other sites that needed a login to get in, but it looks like it is in use.--Dmol 16:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Names- Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide, NAD

Deficiency- Developmental problems in chicks

Discussion- Vitamin V was also used of PABA This is what I found - though it would deem to me to relate to developmental problems in guys. Andrew massyn 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

26 hits for the above, and 13400 linking Vitamin V to Viagra. Accordingly RFVpassed.

Second sense. --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The OED has this sense (and a third), but doesn't have any good cites for it. --Ptcamn 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense, but in the absence of citations, rfvfailed. To Rfd. Andrew massyn 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem with losing the second noun sense as suggested above, but what about the sense of "my boyhood home". (better cites can be provided) . Is this an adjective or a noun modifier?--Dmol 14:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold it Andrew, this was RfV only on the second sense. The entry and the first sense are not in dispute. Doesn't belong in RfD. Tag changed back to RfV. Robert Ullmann 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I only rfd' it for the second sense. I fully agree that the first sense should stay. Sorry for the miscommunication. However, we need a community descision on the second sense which is why I put it at rfd for that sense only. Now that that is cleared up, can we have a vote on the second sense? Thanks. Andrew massyn 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the senses listed, are listed as modern meanings but are probably remants from Old English or Middle English. Others are simply redundant. --Connel MacKenzie 08:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Suggested as a word for WT:COW. Andrew massyn 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In the sense "money" - can anyone provide citations? And is it "vulgar" or just informal? — Paul G 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It’s a very old slang term for money, and the word "vulgar" that describes it is likewise an old sense of the word, meaning "the vulgar tongue", colloquial, and has nothing to do with dirty language. —Stephen 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid use of vulgar, but our category "Vulgarities" is for the offensive sort. From the category: "Terms in this category are considered vulgar. They are likely to cause offense in polite company or formal situations due to their tone, even if they carry no insult directly." I've changed the entry to colloquial; it's probably also obsolete, but I haven't gone digging. Incidentally, this def is a copy/paste from the "Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue", published in several editions; the 1811 version is available on Gutenberg . We've had a few contributors that have added entries from that as "vulgar". --Jeffqyzt 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read it once as far as I can recall. O'Henry? However, no cites, and I am not looking for them. Rfvfailed for now. Andrew massyn 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The person who added this asked whether it means the glasses rather than glasses Andrew massyn 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The ’e means "the" but it’s a necessary part of the term, and the English equivalent is simply glasses. —Stephen 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed RfV, the TR-style question having been resolved. DAVilla 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Abreviation of fat lump. Verb To become a fat lump? I know where I would put it. Andrew massyn 14:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Replaced with a proper entry. SemperBlotto 07:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A type of spear? Andrew massyn 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is in the OED - tagged obsolete. SemperBlotto 07:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)