Talk:kılgan

RFV
Turkish. Supposedly meaning organ. -- Curious (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At this language purism forum, people are discussing: "So, what could we use instead of the word organ?" There, our IP user suggests "kılgan" , because in Old Turkish, kılgan means [something that] does/makes a lot; he's suggesting kılgan based on the idea that organs work continuously, and based on the etymology of the word organ, originating from Old Greek *ἔργειν (ergein, "to work").
 * Then, our IP user just spreads his newly invented kılgan, at different places on the internet:, , , , claiming that it means organ.
 * (Can't find anything else, other Google results show other Turkic languages and Old Turkish.) -- Curious (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prove that all of them was written by me or shut up. --85.102.181.45 20:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the edit pattern of these users, I have no doubt that all of them is you. In fact, besides these ones, I've found some "other users" on the internet who also follow your edit pattern, all with the same goal of spreading your words. If the community wants me to, I can give more details.
 * On topic, about kılgan, you entered a nonsense word, and it will be deleted soon. -- Curious (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit pattern? Wiktionary has many users that use the same patterns, so do you think that all of them is the same person? The forum "türkçesivarken" has many users that use this kind of words. See the "Ortak Türkçe Çalışmaları" section. When you search İngilizce -Türkçe sözlük [] on Google, ingilizce.g3n.in is on the top of Google, so anyone may find it and see these words and then use them. They are purist or not. Is this a criterion for publishing words on the dictionaries? Can you say "we can not put the word '...' on the dictionary, because it is used by communists"? (I am not so good at speaking English, i tried to tell my thoughts as i could.) --85.102.181.45 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. We need evidence of use in printed material, on Google Books, or on Usenet. Specifically, three quotes which use the word are required. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the word püskevit was not removed then? There may be a double standard? --88.238.156.112 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no jurisdiction over the Turkish Wiktionary! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Different Wiktionaries have different rules. The English Wiktionary requires that terms be attested. The German Wiktionary, for example, does not: it allows words like massolieren which only appear in other dictionaries. The Turkish Wiktionary may similarly allow unused words; that is their choice, the English Wiktionary has made a different choice. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because of political reasons. Devlet Bahçeli (general president of a political party in Turkey) said 'püskevit' instead of "bisküvi". According to Turkish wiktionary it is used in Adana city dialect but there is no proof (there is no word 'püskevit' in Derleme Sözlüğü / Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü -Dictionary of City Dialects of Turkey Turkish- which was prepared by TDK -Turkish Language Association-) Despite of some warnings, Sabri76 didn't want to remove this word or rename it to 'pisgevit' the real form which is used in Adana. --88.238.172.236 12:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)