User talk:24.5.143.190

Pop quiz: can you give an example of something done in an "epithelial manner"? What does that even mean?

It's nice that you're finding terms that we don't have, but a cookie-cutter, meaningless definition is worse than no definition at all. For one thing, a meaningless definition gives the illusion that the entry is ok, while a missing definition will show up in cleanup categories so it can be fixed. We have over 5 million entries, and once they've been checked to make sure they're not vandalism, your entries may not be looked at by editors for a long, long time. In the meanwhile, users will be frustrated at not being able to figure out what the definition means, or worse, they may be misinformed.

If you have no idea what something means, or even have only a vague idea, please leave rfdef rather than trying to guess or making stuff up. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but when I was adding rfdef Equinox said to never add them, or they will be deleted. 24.5.143.190 04:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If the entire entry is just going to be rfdef then yes, it's useless. We have WT:REE where you can request entries for words if you don't know the meaning. Equinox ◑ 04:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

fixing proper nouns
Thanks! Dunno why people would think Yorkie is a proper noun, unless they are under the impression there's just one Yorkshire terrier out there somewhere, like the Sphinx. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! 24.5.143.190 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops!
Sorry about reverting your revert- I must have been confused, Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem! 24.5.143.190 06:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

premarriage
Sure about plural? Equinox ◑ 22:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw an example, will add a citation. 24.5.143.190 22:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

armagnac
We've had problems with random IPs removing whole sections for no reason, so I added an abuse filter to prevent this. Your attempts to remove the English section are the first case where there's no clear vandalism involved. Is there a reason you're trying to remove it? I realize it's usually capitalized, but there are examples of usage in lower-case in running English text, so it would probably survive rfv. I've converted it to an alternative-capitalization entry.

I don't really want to disable or water down the filter, so let me know when something like this comes up again, and I'll see what we can do about it. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I accidentally added it in all lowercase and later found that it is only spelled as Armagnac. I realized that the filter had a false positive. 24.5.143.190 04:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)