User:Thisis0

<!--

-Norwegian "dass"
 * Appendix:Euphemism
 * Appendix:Dysphemism (or section of euph.)
 * Appendix:Name-calling_words (differences - nerd, geek, dweeb, gimp, freak, punk, loser, bitch, asshole, dick, scum, weenie, bastard, butthead, gumph, gump)

Interesting: genie, genius (gens) --- jinni, jinn (JNN)

Noun Adjunct fix: Beltway, dairy

"belayed rope" -- attributive past-tense verbs "trouser snake" "pant leg" "eyeglass perscription" "eyeglasses case?" -- attributive form of plurale tantum is only time it's singular. "walk-on role" walk-on is already attributive use of a verb phrase to form a noun. And then, that precarious noun is being used as a noun adjunct in phrases like "walk-on part" or "walk-on role", dipping into adjective territory.

"This is a happening place!" "atom bomb", "apple pie", "chicken soup", "class reunion", "child prodigy", "shotgun wedding", "comfort food", "woman president", "body weight", "insurance policy", "telephone wires", "home repairs", "family problems", "grammar school", "executive suite",

Are any of these adjectives, meaning (womanly): "woman talk", "woman clothes" (female) "a woman doctor", "woman students", "woman suffrage", "memorable woman characters of world literature -- Tomorrow" (maybe because it stands in for an adjective [female] that "chicken" doesn't)

-- Yes, and the other side of this (and, partly, what makes it possible), is that, in spite of foreign learners' agonised protests about phrasal verbs (and superfluous subordinate clauses, of course), English, largely through its Germanic roots, has also dispensed with a shed-load of prepositions and therefore revels in the multiple noun shunt.

Where does the tram stop? At the tram stop, of course: is 'tram' an adjective here?' German, being both more fussy and more Swiss Army knife (noun or adjective?), has 'Straßenbahnhaltestelle' (it's a noun), whereas Italian has "fermata dell'autobus". -

say "attributive form" after: "back-alley" at back alley,

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WT:ID

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Etymology

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Angie_Y.

portmanteau word quotations gaggle - wedge late better definitions idioms grateful euphemisms (dadgummit, consarnit) harsh mistress silent but deadly

Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/August#Discussion_of_specific_users

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Point_of_view_pushing


 * Using en.wiktionary.org as forum for promoting bizarre personal theories of the English language
 * This is a page to announce blatant acts of vandalism. Please indicate which of his contributions are vandalous. Volume of contribution does not meet that claim. DAVilla 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, the etymology. Right. I'll write him a note. DAVilla 20:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Requests_for_verification. --Connel MacKenzie 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you meant enmilden, which is again an issue of etymological correctness? I have checked all edits to Requests_for_verification going back a few days ("cases older than 2 to 3 hours" are not supposed to be listed here) and can find no acts of vandalism. DAVilla 05:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you seriously object to this listing, then go ahead and create a page for subtle long-term abuse and move it there. The POV pushing is increasing in volume as the direct result of not being dealt with.  Confer cf. and the nonsense he's now pushing on that front.  His goal seems to be to enter common misspellings and common misconstructions (especially plurals) as valid.  Exploiting loopholes in WT:CFI does not seem helpful at all.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm gonna remember this. "His goal seems to be to enter common misspellings and common misconstructions (especially plurals) as valid."  Sounds a lot like what you did on for all intensive purposes. -- Thisis0 04:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure which examples you're talking about. Don't see any in history of cf., in redirects (Cf. and c.f.) thereto, in his recent contributions, or notes on talk page. Could you please link to an example? Maybe something you'd already deleted? Thanks. DAVilla 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be serious.,  (note the error upon error with those - POV pushing for UK conventions for the entries themselves, in addition to the "confer" nonsense,) after being reminded that is directly against our conventions last week.  Looking further at his Special:Contributions, I don't see any genuine non-disruptive edits in recent history.  He's even deciding singlehandedly to redefine "r" in IPA for English, to now be the upside-down and backwards thing.  (DAVilla, you yourself participated in that year-long debate with Hippetrail, no?)  --Connel MacKenzie 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Vandalism_in_progress


 *  - Absurd personal attacks, revealing (thankfully, incorrect) personal information, POV pushing, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accelerating; targeting Judaism (bogus encyclopedic POV etymologies), spamming Klingon, hunting for any controversial topic it seems, and entering more bad redirects. --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In his defence: the personal attacks are hardly surprising, considering your typically unreasonable treatment of him (not that that excuses them, it just makes them understandable). I like the veiled accusation that he is a neo-Nazi in response though (which isn’t borne out by the evidence — his additions of the etymology and usage note to anti-Semitism are more or less a summary of Antisemitism (to which he links); they nonetheless require referencing — I have added a reference for one of the three statements, and have added requests for citations to the Wikipedia article). His revision of Klingon is not spamming, but rather the addition of relevant information (it now states who Gene Roddenberry is, and corrects the implication that there is only one police department). You know that our policy on redirects can be confusing (especially to those editors more used to Wikipedia) — his good intentions are clear from this conversation with EncycloPetey. I don’t suppose I need to remind other administrators not to believe these kinds of accusation on the strength of Connel’s say-so, and to check his claims thoroughly against the evidence. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed any vandalism on this User's part. While his/her edits may focus more on potentially controversial words with strong emotional connotations, I have found the user receptive to constructive criticism and gentle guidance. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Doremítzwr's statement is completely false. I gave this vandal a two line, neutral explanation of his errors (in that Feminazi link above,) yet he ranted and raved about some hallucination of abuse, sprinkled with numerous personal attacks.  Doremítzwr verbosely misrepresented what transpired in perfect collaboration.  --Connel MacKenzie 11:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And many more personal attacks at User_talk:Doremítzwr. --Connel MacKenzie 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote “Do not remove discussion tags for your own dubious entries. Listing a popularizer as an etymology [is] not acceptable on Wiktionary; that is spam” — for one, that is flatly untrue (for some etymologies, it is appropriate to specify the term’s “popularised”), and secondly, his actions did not warrant your aggravated imperative (his efforts in researching and verifying the etymology were outstanding — far more thorough and professional than the standard) — the editor who added the entry for a term or a sense of one is perfectly allowed to remove an RFV tag if noöne has objected to the verification within one week. I consider your “two line, neutral explanation” to be woefully unappreciative of his efforts — your criticism was not at all constructive; and that obviously bugged him, considering what he wrote in reply: “I really thought I was trying to do this right, even thinking na[ï]vely to myself over the last few days, I’ll try do it all so right, even Connel would not disagree”. You have also been unnecessarily hostile towards him elsewhere. Of course, I have already granted that he has hardly been the beau idéal of wiki-civility, but your behaviour has hardly been whiter-than-white; concerning the inexcusable personal attacks on my talk page, I shall have words with him about that — I don’t like to see that kind of conflict, particularly not on my talk page. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

j

Special:Contributions/63.231.107.202

-->