Talk:wifty

RFV discussion: May–June 2014
"eccentric, silly, scatterbrained". Joke entry? The one citation given appears to be a typo/scanno for witty. Equinox ◑ 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the cite is bad, but I think we can replace it with other valid ones. ( I'm tempted to replace it with "Female minds on the other hand are wifty, vague, jumbled, erratic — hence illogical and irrational" from a female author! ) Presumably it comes from the dialect verb wift "To move lightly to and fro, or along; to waver; to drift." (OED) from the obsolete meaning "To turn aside or go astray" (do we need an entry?) Does anyone know the connection with wiffy? (I don't mean whiffy or wifey.)  Is wifty the same word as wiffy?    D b f  i  r  s   08:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Citation links added to citations page including some for the compound wifty-wafty. This is easily citable from gbooks. Spinning Spark  10:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Spinningspark — Thanks for digging up some cites, but please remember to format cites when adding them to citations pages. I also went ahead and created a new entry for wifty-wafty. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a failure of memory at all. I might format citations; if I feel like it, and if I find it interesting, and if the page isn't in danger of being deleted and my work wasted, and if I have time, but I'm not obliged to do it.  As I'm a volunteer, you have no authority over determining my workload so if you don't like it you can go hang.  I find it especially objectionable to be asked to do work on verifying entries that a simple google search easily confirms as CFI compliant.  I am not anybodies handmaid here. Spinning Spark  15:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your hostility is uncalled-for and completely unacceptable. It's fine to post unformatted links here at RfV, but citations pages have formatting guidelines. Placing a string of unformatted links on a citations page is not in keeping with those guidelines. If you are unfamiliar with citation formatting procedures, or don't have the time or inclination to do the formatting yourself, you can post the Google Books links you find here, and someone else can take it from there. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed them on the citation page because I have repeatedly been requested to do that in the past when I have posted here on previous occasions, so my comment was completely called for. Finding cites when no one else could be bothered is useful and better than having no cites at all.  Perhaps the person who requested the cites would care to format them.  On the other hand, if someone wants to revert me for not being properly formatted or delete the page even after they now know full well that it is citable then I can't say I really give a flying ##*!  Spinning Spark  15:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Equinox — Regarding the movie review citation, from what I remember of the film in question (), Kirsten Dunst plays a silly, scatterbrained character, so I don't think this is a typo/scanno of witty.
 * @Dbfirs — In the sentence you quoted, the author isn't espousing this view herself, but discussing differing cultural perceptions of men and women. But, when the sentence is presented out of context, it looks as though she might be, and thus I chose two other citations to add to bring the number of in-entry cites up to three. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you were right to do so. Thank you for finding the cites, and for checking the original one that turned out not to be bad after all.  I got sidetracked into looking at similar words.    D b f  i  r  s   21:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 15:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)