User talk:North Atlanticist Usonian

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, I just check the Recent Changes very often. Not sure what I was thinking with that marriage change. I didn't read something properly. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

What was that about? - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

In UK law, thee is a passgae that says "his person" which refers to his penis. Check the 11th paragraph here Pass a Method (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here's my overall explanation for reverts: disruptive editing. Specifically, you have made edits like person-->penis, which needs to be cited (3 durably archived citations [that means anything printed and Google Groups] spanning over a year). Without citations, it is very reasonable to delete an entry which only says "penis" for its definition. Moreover, you have deleted tags like {{context|US|lang=und}} which provide valuable information about word usage. Your deletion of the tag for vulgarity is an opinion on the word; keeping the tag makes categrization more effective on Wiktionary. Finally, as far as I can tell, cameltoe refers not to visibility (which is how visible something is), but to the presence of visibility (but I'm willing to be corrected on this one). If anything is unclear to you, just ask. I'm not trying to bite your head off or anything, but we have very specific requirements here. By the way, if you just stop deleting tags and make sure to cite your definitions, you should be fine, and you have made good contributions. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think these are synonyms. From Google Books, erotophobe/genophobe is one who fears sex. Antisexualist is a prudish person who wants to forbid sex. Something like that? Equinox ◑ 13:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The definition of synonym can be " nearly the same meaning". In that context i think they are synonymous. Pass a Method (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, exhibitionists are people who do it for thrills, while nudists and naturists do it as a lifestyle, not to shock or amaze. Please be careful with synonyms: they need to be accurate (same meaning). Equinox ◑ 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Synonyms dont have to mean exactly the same thing. They can be loosely similar. Pass a Method (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

They need to have the same implications, e.g. someone who flashes for sexy fun isn't interchangeable with someone who quietly prefers to live naked. We must not confuse readers this way. Dogs resemble foxes but they are no synonym. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why not use the "See also" header? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The definition of synonym is "nearly" the same. I thnk that applies in this case. Maybe we need input from other editors? Pass a Method (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have put up a Tea Room discussion. The actual purpose of synonyms is usually to allow the writer to choose another word, without changing the basic sense of the sentence. The "synonyms" you've been adding would radically change their meaning. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Equinox, these words are not synonymous, and should be in ===See also=== sections, not ====Synonyms==== sections. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Equinox and -sche. Pass a Method is right that a synonyms-list can include near-synonyms, but in the cases listed here, I think the similarity of meaning is too remote. As Equinox says, the main criterion is whether one can generally be substituted for the other without affecting semantic meaning. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Cheat" is often used of boyfriends, girlfriends. Need not be a spouse. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would call a boyfriend or a girlfriend a spouse, just not in the legal sense. —CodeCat 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

These are not separate senses of (deprecated template usage) man, (deprecated template usage) girl etc. The whole point of "self-identifying as a man" is precisely that you identify as one of the existing sense of (deprecated template usage) man, not as a new sense. Ƿidsiþ 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but we need a definition on gender identity though right? There are many such definitions avaiable in reliable sources on request. Pass a Method (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not a gloss we use. Seems like putting "((green))" on leaf and tree. Not contextual or lexicographically relevant. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because we only define words. That sort of information is extraneous to the definition. For example, when a committed Christian says "I believe in God" they're not talking about a hypothetical being, for them, he is real. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

So I suppose for accuracy it should be {{context|hypothetical|_|or|_|not}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

How about using (mythology) instead? Pass a Method (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

{{hypothetical}} would be a tag of very broad application, covering elementary particles, abstract nouns that name theories, and many other items, even proverbs (Does "a stitch in time save nine" really?) The ideology of science would make all testable scientific propositions essentially hypothetical, always subject to being disproven by facts. It is simply PoV pushing to put this tag on items you don't happen to believe in. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

If I talked about my dog, well I don't have a dog so that would be hypothetical, but I suggest adding a {{hypothetical}} tag to dog would be unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

How about using the tag (mythology) instead? Pass a Method (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that would be good. You and I might not believe in gods and souls, but religion involving them is still rather mainstream. "Mythology" is not generally used to refer to current religion. Equinox ◑ 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are using {{sense}} where you should use {{context}}. Read their documentation for a good explanation. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You must add headword lines to entries. See this edit. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

When you move a page, please remember to tag the leftover redirect with {{delete}}.

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also — I've deleted [[Neo-druidism]], [[Druidry]], and [[Neo-Druidry]] as copyright violations. Remember that Wiktionary entries are copyrighted, and copying content from them is copyright violation unless you conform to their license, which requires attribution. —Ruakh_TALK 20:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

"scissorchick" to which you have moved "scissor sister" appears unattested, so I have sent it to RFV. See also WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Mistake 1: “remove original research”. Please read WT:NOT, especially the second item under “Differences in content” in the “Wiktionary is not Wikipedia” section.
• Mistake 2: Removing a lot of content without explanation. Most of what you removed should indeed be removed, but you should at least have commented here. I doubt you even read it, because you removed the definition “A detestable person or animal.” which got comments opposing deletion from two users (me and WikiTiki).
• Mistake 3: Removing a Biblical quotation and replacing it with a quotation from the Quran, also without explanation. Completely inappropriate. You should have added the Quranic quotation without removing the Biblical one.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nones Pass a Method (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reply with two possible solutions on my Talk page. If neither option would achieve your goal, or if you are uncertain how to implement the one you wish to use, please post another reply to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Druidic Pass a Method (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

As you probably saw, I corrected the formatting of the first two quotations at [[Nones]]. I'd appreciate it if you could fix the third one to match. (See Wiktionary:Quotations for more information on formatting of quotations.) In particular, I'd appreciate it if you could linkify the page numbers, so that others can easily check the accuracy of what you've added.

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK
21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, and i appreciate that u guys are verifying whether or not i am truthful. Pass a Method (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! And — "truthful" isn't the word I'd use: if someone isn't "truthful", that implies that they're dishonest, i.e., that they're intentionally being deceptive. No one here is verifying whether you're honest or not. But we do check accuracy, because people do get things wrong. (For example, you originally attributed one quotation to the wrong authors, which hid the fact that two of your quotations were actually by the same authors. I am quite confident that this was not intentional on your part; you just took the names that Google Books gave you, without noticing that they were wrong or inapplicable. But the effect was the same.) —Ruakh_TALK 11:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was only kidding. :) Pass a Method (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you please add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

done, did u want me to do anything? Pass a Method (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please, do not remove definitions that haven’t failed RFD or RFV (unless you are merging multiple definitions), like you did at Satan, Christian and sodomy. It doesn’t matter that they are biased, what matters is whether they are accurate or not. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

These are not appropriate as hypernyms and you are misusing them. Please stop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are they inappropriate? I suppose Calvinism et al could be argued to be "denominations" rather than "religions", but if the second sense of "religionist" is attested (which a quick look at Google books suggests is the case), it seems to be indeed a hypernym of Calvinist et al, even if the rare term "denominationist" could be regarded as an intermediate hypernym. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with sche. Pass a Method (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did a google books search too. Pass a Method (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

To me it feels like "religionist" is a hyperhypernym or hyperhyperhypernym of terms like "Calivinist" and "Anglican". The immediate hypernym of those terms is Protestant, which is a hyponym of Christian, which is a hyponym of religionist. Similarly, I would list canid, but not animal, as a hypernym of dog. —Angr 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re religion: I agree with Angr.

Re religionist: Should never be used as a hypernym. It's misleading, because of the two senses that the word has are quite different. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In that case i will only use them when they are immediate hypernyms from now on. Pass a Method (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The fact that "religionist" has two senses doesn't stop it from being a valid hypernym. We can quibble over whether it should be a hypernym of Calvinist, or only of Christian (or even only of monotheist or only of theist), but polysemy doesn't invalidate it. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, especially because the principal sense is not the one being used. In a touchy case like this, adding unclear hypernyms is worse than no hypernyms at all IMO. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

We disagree, then. I think that, Wiktionary being a dictionary, it's reasonable to expect that people will look up words; upon looking up "religionist" (which is wikilinked in hypernyms sections to make that very simple), they'll see its several definitions. Is there a substitute available? "religionary#Noun" unfortunately has the same "objectionable" sense (and is very dated, possibly obsolete). - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The wikipedia definition of hypernym as well as that of various online dictionaries give a broad sense of hypernym. Pass a Method (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

So? We mean "hypernym" as in WT:ELE. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In response to Angr, there are many religious offshoots who are depicted in various sources as being religions. Its especially easy to find sources for Catholicism and Protestantism, for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. In these specific cases the association "hypernym" would be correct. Pass a Method (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

And there are no doubt plenty of sources that describe dogs as animals, but canid is still the better hypernym for dog. To escalate to the ridiculous, why not add hypernyms like human being, primate, mammal, or animal to "Calvinist"? —Angr 21:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Its not ridiculous when u consider various recent censuses have also depicted denominations as religions, often interchangeably. Therefore it is pretty mainstream. I agree Calvinism might be a stretch, but Catholicism and Protestantism are certainly not. Pass a Method (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone object to me adding "religion" as a hypernym to Catholicism and Protestantism? Pass a Method (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do. I'd use Christianity for that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whats wrong with multiple hypernyms? For instance iron, wolf, water, cook all have multiple hypernyms. I have given sources above where they are used superordinately to religion. I could easily find hundreds more such sources. Pass a Method (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

As it stands now, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Sikh and Christian have religionist as a hypernym, Muslim doesn't anymore, Jew (and probably many others) apparently never did... they should be standardised one way or the other. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sche, i would have preferred if you did not remove "religionist" from Catholic Sunni and Protestant, since there are multiple sources where they are used superordinately to religion (including on official government websites), thus meeting the criteria for a hypernym. Pass a Method (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you object to me adding "religionist" to the above linked pages? Pass a Method (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think "religionist" should be added to those entries, because it isn't an immediate hypernym of those words. Since there's debate over whether it should be used at all, I don't think it should be used in places where it isn't strictly appropriate. (Sure, some authorities might laxly label Catholicism a religion, but some people believe unicorns are real, too: we still know better, and define Catholicism as a denomination and unicorns as mythical beasts.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Look, you're misusing headers that you clearly don't understand and aren't in WT:ELE. Please stop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Where did you see this word? It sounds plausible but I can't find it in Google Books, though it does seem to be an old-fashioned form of Tripitaka (the book): [7]. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean a lower-case version? I can see some links there in the upper-case version. Maybe i should move it back to upper-case? Pass a Method (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can use template lists instead of maintaining various identical lists across multiple entries. For example, see Template:list:Greek mythology Olympian gods/en. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. You might like to read the "example sentences" section of Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. Consider especially the goal of the examples. A random sentence that includes the word is no help to our users. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Takfiri

--Æ&Œ (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

) I don't think so. Pass a Method (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don’t desynchronise entries. Neither spelling is significantly more common than the other. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Aren’t Faery Wicca, Gardnerian Wicca, etc. proper nouns? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

DONE!!! Pass a Method (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, all patrolled. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What about Sunnism, Bakriyyah, Bakrism and Sufism? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No those are not proper nouns Pass a Method (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

In diff, you have added unattested terms to Wikisaurus:

• butter beaner
• button stitcher
• carpet muncher
• double tucker
• dovefucker
• mirror polisher
• mound masher
• taco bumper
• tuna bumper

For attestation criteria, see WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have sent "mirror polisher" created by you to WT:RFV#mirror polisher. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In diff, you added a sense that seems unattested. Ditto for diff. Continuing to add unattested material and showing no effort to attest it after it is sent to RFV is a poor behavior, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, i have been busy in real life. When i'm less busy i promise to try attest. Pass a Method (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Next time around, you would do well to check for attestation before you add content absent in other dictionaries, unless it is trivially easy to attest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I will do so from now. Pass a Method (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You keep adding citations without the cited text (e.g. [8]). If your purpose is to provide a source proving that the definition is correct (instead of proving that the term is used), you add list the sources as references. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 08:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

diff is wrong: religious martyrs are captured in the sense 1. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

To me, you seem to be adding excessive Islam-related references to definitions and usage examples. I'd like you to stop; disclaimer: I do not know the scope of consensus on the issue. For instance, in diff you did this: "A city in the Middle East destroyed in the Quran and Bible by the Hebrew God for the sins of its inhabitants." While this may look less biased toward Bible from a certain standpoint, the reference to Bible is entirely sufficient for the purpose of identification and definition, and Bible is closer to the cultural background of an average native English speaker than Quran. In diff, you added "The largest city in Europe is Istanbul, in terms of population" as an example sentence to "Europe" entry, which does a rather poor job of illustrating the meaning of the word "Europe"; the purpose of the sentence seems to be to increase the number of references to Islam-related entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, English is an international language and Islam is the second-largest religion on Earth, so it appears to have due weight to me. Nonetheless, I will try to adhere to your wish and limit such references to when it appears necessary. I did it because i was somewhat shocked at the repeated focus on a biblical viewpoint on wiktionary. Pass a Method (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's probably because English, the language we are documenting, historically has more Bible in it than Quran. Your new entries of today, Quran thumper and of quranic proportions, do not appear in a Google Books search at all. It feels like you are just trying to equalise the Bible/Quran playing-field without actually checking whether the Quran versions are used sufficiently widely to meet WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quranic proportions and koranic proportions have 143 and 324 google search returns respectively. Quran thumper has 610. Books are not the only permitted sources. Pass a Method (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure who you think you're kidding. You can't just string together a bunch of not-actually-related sentences and hope we'll fall for the resulting implication. —Ruakh_TALK 08:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure he can, he's been doing it for years. The fact that nobody falls for it is entirely irrelevant, apparently. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have just added citations to both entries. Pass a Method (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you plan on answering your critics by using evidence... fantastic frankly, I couldn't be happier. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the citations are any good? Pass a Method (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, they're not citations for the actual headwords, which certainly puts an upper bound on their possible good-ness. ("Quran" ≠ "Koran",) —Ruakh_TALK 20:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You initially created this entry which I've nominated for deletion. You may wish to express your opinion in its RFD discussion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Google web search is generally insufficient for attestation, as per WT:ATTEST, whose most salient item is "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages)", boldface mine. Thus, for instance, while google:"Quran thumper" finds a couple of hits, these are insufficient for attestation, since they are not in permanently recorded media. The search fitting the safe accepted core of "permanently recorded media" is this: google books:"Quran thumper", google groups:"Quran thumper", “Quran thumper”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Furthermore, the quotations must be independent. Thus, for instance, sentence "and defending muslims does dot make him a Quran thumper" appears three times in the Google groups search above and counts as one instance only. From looking at the Google groups, there do not appear to be three independent uses of "Quran thumper".

So please, next time around, stick to Google books and Usenet (part of Google groups) when looking for attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just added some citations to Quran thumper. Quran seems to have several transliterations, thus skewing the results Pass a Method (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

From looking at your pattern of editing, I think you should find another hobby, since there is too much of your editing that needs clean-up or is plain wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

butter beaner, which you created as "A lesbian", is now at WT:RFV, since it appears unattested: google books:"butter beaner", google groups:"butter beaner", “butter beaner”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did not know exactly what permanently recorded media implied before. I'll keep comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc and talk in mind from now. Pass a Method (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't see this term used with a capital P in "Peninsula". I should also think that the lowercase usage was sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You know that WT:ATTEST requires three quotations, right? What makes you think gaplapper is attested? google books:"gaplapper", google groups:"gaplapper", “gaplapper”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., google books:"gaplappers", google groups:"gaplappers", “gaplappers”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It currently has 5 quotations Pass a Method (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The quotations need to be in use to covey meaning, not mentions, as per WT:ATTEST ("use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in ...", detailed at WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. Thus, in diff, I removed quotations that are not in use but rather are only defined in a dictionary. Ditto for sentence "Variations of this term, such as bulldagger, boondagger, and bulldiker, ...", which mentions terms rather than using them to convey meanings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think fatherfucker, brotherfucker, motherfucker, sisterfucker are synonyms of inbreeder? Do you think the listed terms are synonyms of each other? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

An inbreeder has sex with their relatives. The above terms have a similar definition. Pass a Method (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the listed terms are synonyms of each other? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not of each other, but they are synonyms of inbreeder. Pass a Method (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, that would make them hyponyms: they are specific kinds of inbreeder, but not all inbreeders are (e.g.) a fatherfucker. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, i'll rename to "hypernyms" then. Pass a Method (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I unfortunately get influenced by faulty dictionaries such as dictionary.com who regard hyponym, hypernym and synonym as the same thing. Pass a Method (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are still getting this wrong: not all excommunication is takfirism (e.g. in Christianity it isn't) - so they are not synonyms. Please be careful! Equinox ◑ 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What makes you think "masjid-goer" can be attested by occurrences of "masjid goer" (diff)?

Please keep permanently recorded media in mind as per #Attestation and Google web search above, so avoid adding quotes like the third one from diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pay attention to headwords, will you? Currently these entries link to forms like "burp the worming", "rolling the pilling".

Also, you added quran-believer with a hyphen and an initial lowercase, but no citation with that spelling. Never mind that the citations you gave do not really show that the phrase is actually used in the meaning of "Muslim who believes in the inerrancy of the Quran, and might as well be for the sum-of-parts phrase Quran + believer (= "any Muslim"). Keφr 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've made a page move but i think the 2004 and 2010 cites are clearer towards that definition, especially when you read it in the wider context. Pass a Method (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Include the wider context then. You still have not fixed rolling the pill. (I have fixed the others for you.) Keφr 11:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quran believer looks kind of okay now. But you keep adding erroneous entries. Putting attestations aside, why does kegel balls contain a plural form "kegel ballss"? (Similarly orgasm balls.) Would it make sense to make "kegel ball" the lemma? I heard somewhere that this term is an eponym, maybe it should be "Kegel balls"? And so on. Keφr 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Such balls are usually are connected together, so the plural form seems the lemma. As for the plural kegel; it has no current entry, so i don't think the head word is an issue. Pass a Method (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If incorrect information is being displayed, it's an issue. I've changed the template so that kegel balls and orgasm balls are displayed as pluralia tantum. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is the present participle. The lemma would be roll the pill. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

done Pass a Method (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

kitty puncher, which you have just entered, does not appear attested. Thus, I sent it to WT:RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the following that you have created are sum of parts, and thus to be excluded, as per WT:CFI#General_rule and WT:Idiomaticity: evening prayer, sunset prayer, dawn prayer, noon prayer.

The cited regulations are as follows:

• "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic."
• "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components."

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

...and not also add American? bd2412 T 17:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was going to, but I thought that demonym was already well known, but i don't mind adding it if you think its a good idea. Pass a Method (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just for the sake of completeness, I do think so. bd2412 T 19:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Relatedly, this is incorrect use of the -nyms again: [9]. Is Delaware a particular kind of Usonia — like a guitar is a particular kind of musical instrument? No. So it's not a hyponym/hypernym situation. In this case it is a meronym (word for a thing that is a part of another thing). Equinox ◑ 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought there was some overlap, but apparently i'll have to re-work it. Pass a Method (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Camel case in an ordinary English word, which has nothing to do with either programming or brand names, with no hyphen even? Really? Any citations for this spelling? Keφr 11:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

i just added some cites.Pass a Method (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This (and some basic understanding of how these things work in English) suggests that the lemma spelling should be "anti-Sunni", however. Ditto for antiShia, antiShi'ite, etc. Just change them to {{alternative spelling of}}. Keφr 17:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You did it again at unPalestinian. Are you unable to learn from mistakes or do you have real citations this time? Keφr 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I added some cites. Pass a Method (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is incorrect [10] because a Hawaiian is not part of an American (even though Hawaii is part of America). Maybe you should stop adding these -nyms until you've definitely got it straight. Equinox ◑ 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a borderline case of falling under WT:BRAND and failing it. Also, what is "Usonia"? And before you point me to Usonia, why did you choose to use such an obscure word in a definition? {{context|US}} is clear and precise enough. Keφr 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I used another adjective on another page but it didn't tag/link correctly. I was late to fix it but did it now. Pass a Method (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please include links if possible when you add quotations to entries - this makes them a lot easier to verify. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

WT:RFD#traditional African religionist. Keφr 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You forgot to add "Earth" and "Milky Way". Also, I think terms like "Usonia" (so obscure that my browser treats it as a spelling error) should rather be at Wikisaurus:United States instead of being added to every single entry having anything to do with the country. Keφr 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Ah! You got there before me. I was going to suggest Western Hemisphere, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way, local galactic cluster, universe. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. Please mark these incredibly rare forms as NONSTANDARD. We do NOT want to mislead casual users into thinking they are everyday, well-understood words. 2. Where did you find this anyway? Remember, we need uses, not mentions. I hope you're not just copying from this QI book: "Some (not all serious) suggestions for a specific English word meaning 'citizen of the US' have included: Americanite; Colonican; Columbard; Columbian; Fredonian; Statesider; Uessian..." Equinox ◑ 13:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done Pass a Method (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems you are awfully careless when creating entries. Check your spelling - it's harder to verify a quotation when you spell "Louise Pound" as "Lousi Pound". And don't include scannos as citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The definition you wrote at false flag is overly broad (compare w:false flag). Also, for some reason I think "a bunch of Fakestinians" and "a bunch of epithets used by conspiracy theorists to denote Palestinians or to deny the Nakba" are not synonymous. (That is, you should write the definition as "A Palestinian", or preferably something more unambiguous, prepend {{label|en|derogatory}} to it, and add background information in a Usage notes section, if necessary — though I would argue that a "derogatory" label suffices) — Keφr 15:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done; by the way, i'm gonna go on a holiday soon, so i may not respond then. Pass a Method (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This entry lists mahram as a singular noun whose plural is mahrams, but the definition is in the plural ("family members"). Which is correct? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

...is NOT a synonym of Somali because Puntland is just one district of Somali. Not all Somalis are from Puntland. Seriously just stop adding synonyms and other-nyms. You've been warned about this a zillion times. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that word has two definitions; it also has a medieval meaning which would cover "the Land of Punt". Pass a Method (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Any citations for this one? Also, you did not use {{sense}} in the synonyms section, and I think it is wrong to mark "patriotization" as a synonym of this sense anyway. — Keφr 06:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done Pass a Method (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I have created WT:RFV#nakba for an item you have created. Maybe you will be able to find proper attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you feeling happy now? Pass a Method (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The quotations you have provided are not in use, it seems. Take 'While a "nakba" referred to an invasion by an alien (non-Muslim) power, often accompanied by mass looting, destruction, and ...'. When I look it up, I find this as a larger passage: 'The Arabic political vocabulary referred to "fitna" as sharp internal strife, usually accompanied by armed conflict. While a "nakba" referred to an invasion by an alien (non-Muslim) power, often accompanied by mass looting, destruction, and ...' From the larger passage, it is clear that the sentence refers to an Arabic word, albeit in romanization. So the word is not being used as an English words, and is not used to convey meaning; rather, it is being talked about. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It still leaves 3 other ones. Pass a Method (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will do one more, and leave the rest to someone else, since this is quite tiring. As for "At the ceremony to donate the funds, Rafik Husseini, an aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, referred to what happened in New Orleans as a nakba.": A quotation of the form "X referred to Y as Z" is a mention of Z, not a use of it. When the person doing the referring is a Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and when Z is "nakba", having the appearance of a romanization of an Arabic word, it is even more clear that "nakba" is a mention of the word, not its use to convey meaning. Note that "nakba" is in italics in the original; in English, italics is often used where Czech uses quotation marks; the use of italics reinforces the notion that it is a mention of a word rather than a use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The 1994 quote is using OPT, not oPt. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you experiencing the mental state of contentment right now? Pass a Method (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why would you bring nocturnal malagasies into this? Pass a Method (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

e.g. antiMuslimism in its various forms. Where no plural exists, please use ((en-noun|-)) and not ((en-noun)). Equinox ◑ 18:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you experiencing mental gratification right now? Pass a Method (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with you? This isn't about how anyone feels. It's about whether you are making up words just to get off on your Muslim kick. Prove it exists or it will be deleted. Equinox ◑ 05:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

FYI: WT:RFV#apikorosim on apikorosim, which you have created. Maybe you have the attesting quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Don't add North Atlantican as a hypernym. For outsiders, check the revision history of this user page, showing plentiful evidence of a long track record of incompetent editing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Reply