User talk:Casicastiel

Equinox ◑ 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! E | talk 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Online references
You might like the online availability of, which includes most of MW Online. Also Century Dictionary c. 1914. If you have some particular interests there are other sources, either more specialized or less open to access via intermediaries like OneLook, ask. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've used OneLook in the past, but haven't seen the Century one before. Thanks! And here I was thinking this was going to be a casual commitment ... — E | talk 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

timestamp
Welcome to Wiktionary! Thanks for your edits. I think you may be assuming too much etymological intuition of readers. For example, at, you (if I understand correctly) said it's intuitive that the verb derives from the noun: even if it's intuitive to you, it may not be to many readers. For me, for example, it was intuitive, but I know not to trust my etymological intuition, so I'd like to see confirmation in a dictionary entry. If that is true in fact of timestamp:, could you edit it in to the entry? And if you're not sure, can you replace the, please? (Same for any other entries you may have similarly edited, though I don't know what those might be.) Thanks very much, and sorry for the hassle. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: See also (including the edit summary explaining why I undid your edit there). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess it might not be. How would you suggest I add that? A note under the =Etymology= header? I assume it's not worth adding it as a second etymology. Also, re root beer — better? — E | talk 00:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a single Etymology header would suffice, and I think that's our general practice here, at least for English entries. Yeah, a note would do. Just "The verb derives from the noun." is informative; dates would be even better, if possible, of course.
 * Re root beer: much better! Thanks! &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks, I'll go ahead and put that in for timestamp. — E | talk 10:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there.
Hi there!

My resignation from sysophood was certainly not your fault. I deleted your first attempt at a userpage because it had nothing useful in it and you had made no other edits. When you added a new one quickly I deleted it without really looking at it, and gave you a quick block. For that human error I was myself blocked.

That was, indeed, the straw that broke the camel's back. It is inappropriate to block someone for making an honest mistake (but I have probably done the same myself), but blocking a sysop is totally pointless - they can just unblock themselves. But for some time I had thought that the lunatics had taken over the asylum and the action of this inmate was just enough to tip the balance (too many metaphors in this rant).

I see that you now have a good userpage, and I hope that you continue to make decent contributions to this wiki. The fact that I think all etymology is total guesswork is irrelevant (as is much of my thoughts on this project).

Cheers Jeff (SB) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message. I'll admit my first attempt at a userpage was ... well, pretty unhelpful, and probably deserved deleting. And it's not like I didn't have plenty of other stuff to do with my life for a day.
 * And, well, it's all guesswork, but I like to think we can make pretty good guesses. ;) See you around. — E | talk 10:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)