User talk:Cloudcuckoolander/Archive 2

WiFier
Thank you for creating (and sourcing) WiFier from its alternative form wifier. I believe that one of the sources which you listed *SPRING* has *SPRUNG* [end of WW M3 ] refers to the second definition of the second etymology of wifier: An entry level player of Nintendo's on-line video games. I will therefore add this definition to WiFier and relocate the quotation there Axelode (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing
Thanks for citing ZOMG and other entries! (I especially appreciated the legwork you did for to thine own self be true.) Small request: could you add a comment to [[WT:RFV]] like "cited ~ " when you've cited a particular term or sense? That'll let me and other tenders of RFV know to look at the citations and close the RFV. Otherwise, terms that look valid sometimes sit on RFV for a long time, because people don't want to delete them but don't want to cite them themselves, either, and don't realise they've already been cited. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) I've been assuming that people watchlist pages they send to RfV like I do. From now on I'll make sure to post a notice on the RfV page whenever I cite something. Astral (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

adminship proposal
Hullo again. You seem like a very competent, very helpful user, and I was wondering if you have any desire to become an administrator here. Would you like that? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm honoured that you think I'm qualified, but personally, I think I'm a still a bit green as to the ins-and-outs of this site, and to linguistics in general. There's more that I'd have to learn before I'd feel comfortable assuming the level of responsibility involved in being an admin. Thanks, though. :) Astral (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Thank you for scheduling Streisand effect for Word_of_the_day/Archive/2012/November. :) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Metaknowledge
Any ideas? I'm really out of inspiration, so I thought maybe you'd have something good, perhaps something that encourages both wordplay and citing terms at RFV or something. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

trolltard
Monsieur, je voudrais cette entrée, s’il te plaît. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Or I should say, "C'est fait." Je suis une Canadienne, mais je parle français très mal. :( Astral (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Not sure if you know this, but this change shows the formatting to use for affix etymologies. The documentation is at, , and. Cheers! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do know about this, but when someone else has already added an etymology, I'm hesitant to alter it. Some of the -monger words, like, use . So manually adding a suffix category allows such entries to appear in Category:English words suffixed with -monger, without changing the etymology. It's a trivial consideration, I know. Astral (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, bother. Just be bold, 'n' all that. Well, thanks for the entries anyway. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any entries in particular that've given cause for thanks? I'm a little lost. Astral (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The slangy stuff, mostly. I've been trying to cite stuff from 4chan, but it's not easy (should there be a category for that?). Currently wondering about triforce, both as a noun and a verb ("newfags can't triforce"). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like citing slang because it's fun. It's a reminder that Wiktionary, like language, isn't all srs bsns. And, personally, I think it's doing people a service by providing them with a grown-up alternative to UD -- no completely made-up stuff and jokey definitions of real terms.
 * You could create Citations:triforce and slowly collect what you find there. Citations pages for words that don't have entries appear in Category:Citations of undefined terms. I've been going through this category and trying to gather enough cites for words to go live.
 * User:Robin Lionheart is also good at citing slang. Astral (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Usenet would help... how can I tell if something is Usenet or not when I search it on ggc? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First tip: revert to the old Google Groups interface. To do so, click the drop-down menu with the gear icon and scroll to the bottom. This makes it easier to browse through entries based on your search term.
 * Usenet groups always have lowercase names, with the components being separated by periods (alt.games.nintendo.pokemon), rather than spaces or underscores. They also often start with "alt" or "rec." Astral (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Armed thus, I managed the noun, but not the verb. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that the "newfags can't triforce" cites wouldn't count, because they are just quoting the meme and not using the word on their own (especially the Stryker verb cite). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they shouldn't count. In both of the cited snippets, the phrase appears as a quotation of something people say online, so it strikes me as more use-y. Unlike "'Newfags can't triforce' is a meme that began..." (also from Stryker), in which the phrase is used as a name/description for the meme itself, which is definitely mention-y. Astral (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An additional piece of advice when looking for cites: try searching Issuu.com and Scribd.com through Google. Lots of magazines are published on those sites, so they're handy resources for attesting new words and phrases as they emerge. I was able to attest thanks to magazines on Scribd and Issuu. Astral (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, thankee. I see you got oldfag as well. Next up is ... should I use Category:English 4chan slang? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Astral (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a citable definition to ? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a description of the meme: "a cartoon bear portrayed as pedophilic, typically featured in darkly humorous image macros." Astral (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I love this, but it probably would be a bad WOTD: . Awesome. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm a bit more charitable. I love when scientific terms are nominated, especially when they're the kind with which an average person is likely to be unfamiliar, but not so technical or obscure that one would need to take a course to comprehend their meaning. Strikes me as the epitome of "exotically useful." Astral (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations format
Hi. I noticed you are changing the comma after the year to a spaced em dash. For consistency, it might be better to stick to the comma, as given I the examples in Quotations, or to update the guideline before making a mass change.

I don’t object to a dash, but the huge gap of the spaced em dash looks downright Victorian. May I suggest using a spaced en dash, which is much more common in modern typography, or an unspaced em dash, which at least decreases the gap and reduces the amount of typing and clutter in the wikitext? —Michael Z. 2013-01-23 15:40 z 
 * I always use the comma format when adding cites to entries. I started using the dash format on citations pages because it is the one used on Citations:parrot, which is linked from Citations. I've also seen the comma format used on citations pages. I generally won't switch the format on a citations page if it's already been established; i.e., when I add cites to an existing citations page that uses the comma format, I'll adhere to that format. But I do prefer to use the dash format on new citations pages I create. I think it looks cleaner and more uniform, and I find that by setting the year apart from the other publication data, it's easier for me to pinpoint cites from a particular period on longer lists. Which is handy if, say, I've got a page full of cites spanning the 20th century, and I want to quickly find the ones from the 1990s so I can slot in another I've found that's from 1995.
 * Using an en dash over an em dash is a good idea, though. Thanks for the suggestion. Astral (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, since I've probably created hundreds of citations pages using the spaced em dash format, it would be prohibitively time-consuming for me to go back and change them all. But I will use the spaced en dash format from now on. Astral (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think quotations on citations pages should be formatted differently from quotations in entries, whether that means using commas everywhere or dashes everywhere; I've started Beer_parlour/2013/January. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish someone would've pointed out that the dash format on Citations:parrot was nonstandard sooner, because I could've avoided using it so extensively then. I feel kind of bad now. Astral (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad; you were following a policy. The fact that there are two conflicting policies is... well, par for the course for Wiktionary. And if the BP discussion does reach a consensus to change the dashes to commas or the commas to dashes, I imagine a bot can do a lot of the work, finding and fixing any instance of four digits in a row following by ''' followed by whichever format we decide is nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don’t feel bad. It’s a work in progress. We find these inconsistencies, decide what to do moving forward, improve the guidelines, and we literally have all the time in the world to change. We also have some automation that can be useful for these kinds of things. —Michael Z. 2013-01-25 14:53 z 

jill of all trades
Red link. You know what to do. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Astral (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnumbered pages
You never need to link to an "unnumbered page" in a citation. BGC will always tell you what page you're on in the URL, after the string PT. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the string "PT" doesn't always accurately reflect pagination, which is why I avoid using it. "PT" is used for e-texts, which often don't have numbered pages. "PG," which is used for print books, is generally accurate, but sometimes it can be off by a few pages (e.g., the URL can say "PG230" while the page number in the book itself is 235, presumably because the book isn't counting title pages, etc., while Google is). Astral (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure PT isn't accurate? It usually counts from a different point, but I think it's more useful than not giving a page # at all and I've never seen it be way off, although doubtless your experience vastly exceeds mine. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that "PT" is inaccurate. It's more that it's used to break up texts on Google Books which don't have numbered pages. And I consider it problematic to assign page numbers where none are specified (such as at the bottom of a page in a print book). Though I didn't come up with the "unnumbered page" idea — pretty sure I got it from Pingku. Astral (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trekky
Excellent work! bd2412 T 02:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Astral (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

religitard
--Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've exercised my powers of creation. :) Astral (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of fan fiction terms
They use a lot of good words here, more than my fanfiction writer friend does. Or maybe she just didn't want to list them. But if you ever have time... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've encountered some of these before on sites like TV Tropes. I'll slowly see if I can fill some of the gaps in our coverage. Astral (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

fivehead
Tyra Banks not only self-identifies with the word, she sold a show about her childhood to ABC titled "Fivehead". But I agree that Marie Antoinette was a better choice. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think it's fine to use photos of identifiable living public figures to illustrate general physical characteristics (for example, hair color, texture, or style), but when dealing with a more specific trait, especially a jocular or pejorative term, I think caution is warranted. Even if Tyra self-identifies with the word fivehead, I'm not sure that including a picture of her in the entry is entirely in keeping with the tone for which Wiktionary is aiming, and it calls to mind the old joke about looking up a word in a dictionary and finding someone's picture next to it. An image caption that quoted Tyra referring to herself as having a "fivehead" might be another possibility, because then it wouldn't be us labelling her in such a manner, which is what I find problematic. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha. I agree caution was warranted. I'll bear your wise thoughts on captioning pictures of living public figures in mind should it come up again. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

songvid etc.
Hi. Glad you didn't leave. I admire your tenacity in citing slang, even the occasional word that have I given up on after dredging the depths of Usenet! Equinox ◑ 00:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've been trying to make some progress toward improving our coverage of fandom slang (see Metaknowledge's request above).


 * The trick to digging up enough cites is to not always limit the search to Google Books, Google News, and Google Groups/Usenet. There's Google Scholar, which indexes academic journals that don't always turn up on Google Books, and Issuu and Scribd are great for magazines. I've found that Google is much more useful for searching Issuu and Scribd than either site's search functions (site:issuu.com "brony"). Searching for .pdfs through Google is another way to find magazines and newsletters (filetype:pdf "brony"). You've got to be careful when using advanced search operators on Google, though, because doing a lot of searches containing them in quick succession or browsing through the pages of hits you get very fast can lead the Google software to temporarily flag your IP as a potential bot. Which means having to complete a Captcha with pretty much every other search you do for a few hours until your IP is unflagged.


 * A lot of words that seem like lost causes can be cited with patience and creative searching. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

titter
I think that an additional sense could be added here. What do you think, sir? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What sense do you have in mind? I confess I'm drawing a blank here, sorry. :( More information would be helpful in terms of gathering cites (I'd need to be able to structure my Google searches to filter out cites which use the word in the giggle/laugh sense). Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought it might be something along those lines. XD Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the second one is an example of the laughing sense, though, i.e. the character is turning away to conceal the fact that she's giggling. Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

boobers also exists, if you want it. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Whilst we’re on this lovely, lovely topic, you can also hit in mammalingus (which appears to be rarely used. mammilingus also barely exists). --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ottery
I was wondering if this could also be a noun (plural "otteries"), but it is difficult to search for. By the way, "otterish" also seems to exist. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What would "ottery" as a noun mean? A farm where otters are raised for their pelts? Most of the Google Books hits for "otteries" seem to be scannos of "lotteries." -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Attestation magic
I know that you are semi-retired, but the redlinked pages in Wikisaurus:testicles would benefit from your diligent and appreciated attestation effort if you would feel like it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal circumstances that I thought were going to take up most of my wiki-time have turned out to be less demanding than I predicted they would be. So I'm probably more on a wikibreak right now than semi-retired. Anyway, I'll try to gather cites when I'm able. :) Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cited coin purse, giggle berries, and love spuds; jacobs already existed at Jacobs, but I rounded up some cites anyway; haven't been able to cite back wheels, boys in the basement, and movaries. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have sent the three apparently uncitable terms to RFV, to give them a generous chance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel like going for more, there are quite many redlinks at Wikisaurus:perineum. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is going to be more intensive. It seems that many of the bluelinks don't include this sense yet, so there's a lot more citing that needs to be done than meets the eye. Here's my progress so far:
 * baker street - majority of hits are related to the actual London street or Sherlock Holmes, will try to find applicable cites when I'm feeling more ambitious
 * baunch - couldn't cite
 * beaner - couldn't cite
 * bifkin - only found two cites (see Citations:bifkin)
 * biffon - couldn't cite, though I had some luck with the similar Citations:biffin and Citations:biffin bridge
 * bonch - cited
 * bungus - cited under sense "anus"
 * -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have removed some from WS:perineum. In future, I may choose the WT:RFV venue, as it gives opportunity for more people to try to cite. What do you think of using WT:RFV to request attestations for Wikisaurus items? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me. Couldn't cite burl, and chin rest/chinrest returns mostly violin-related hits, so it may be citable but it'll require more time. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More ones I couldn't cite or gave up on because it proved too difficult to try to filter out the primary meanings of the words: CJ, crossroad, DMZ, link, nacho, nether, no man's land, pez, SBAB, scrum, skid row, all the "T" ones except taint (which was already cited) UA, void. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

admin
Hi there CCL, can I please nominate you for adminship? --Shegashega (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to have to decline. As I'm currently semi-retired/on a wikibreak, I don't think I would be able to commit the time necessary to be effective as an admin. More generally, though, I'm monolingual and not very familiar with the technical side of this site (things like advanced templates), which I think would limit my usefulness as an admin. I do appreciate your wish to nominate me, though. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and it seems the above user is a sock of someone with a chequered history here on Wiktionary, and I fell headfirst into a pot that was being stirred. :/ -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise that idiom... but he likes nominating people for adminship. It should nevertheless be taken as a compliment. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was intended as a play on stir the pot. Basically, what I meant was that after I learned about Shegashega/Wonderfool's history, it made me wonder whether the adminship nomination proposal was done for the lulz and feel as though I had fallen for something about which I should've known better. But WF was before my time, so I don't have the experience that more veteran editors do, and don't know how to spot him whenever he turns up. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * >But WF was before my time
 * Not really, he's still an off-and-on editor. When a newbie immediately produces good quality, it's usually a sock. Asturian is a classic giveaway of Wonderfoolery. There are other signs, but that ought to suffice. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * His main account, User:Wonderfool, was last active in 2006 (except for a single edit in 2010), which is before I joined Wiktionary. I might've encountered WF under subsequent accounts he's used, but did not make the connection until recently due to lack of experience/information. Unlike LWC — I dealt with him firsthand, and could probably spot him based on the characteristic patterns of editing he displayed. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd support your hypothetical admin vote, if you wanted one. I don't understand all the scripting nonsense either (though I might force myself to learn it some day, having a programming background), and I edit almost exclusively in English; those things aren't barriers. IMO the main difference is that admins can delete pages, so it's good for anyone who wants to do vandal patrol, and delete the fairly large amount of anonymous rubbish that doesn't require RFV/RFD. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, but at the moment I fear becoming an admin would be biting off more than I could chew. I tried managing WotD for a while, and found that it was prohibitively difficult to balance with other things I do around here. I'd rather contribute well in a limited capacity than try to contribute more broadly and do it poorly. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

spank bank
--Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Equinox created the entry while I was in the process of gathering cites, but if you've got any other amusing terms, feel free to bring them to me. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WT:FICTION notwithstanding, I wonder if Appendix:Star Wars/protocol droid could gain admission to the mainspace. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wank bank was speedily deleted in 2009. I've heard of it, but only once and in 2013. No idea if it's attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Meta - I also think Jabba the Hutt as a disparaging term for "fat person" could be added to mainspace (see the citations page).
 * @Mglovesfun - De-redded by Equinox again.
 * -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikisaurus and attestation
As you are someone with a significant contribution to Wikisaurus, I'd like to bring Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus_and_attestation to your attention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

wincest
--Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could find sufficient cites to support Wincest (slash works featuring Dean and Sam Winchester from Supernatural), but not enough to support wincest (win + incest). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's sad. Might I request User talk:Equinox? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dug up three more cites for salsatheque. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your talkpage is like WT:REE now, but an REE where stuff actually gets done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha. I thought the "REE where stuff actually gets done" was WT:WE. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

yeppity, yuppity
--Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I love you. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

‘douchefag’ --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Fun request
Could you find some citations for ruh-roh that are independent of a Jetsons or Scooby-Doo context? Ultimateria (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ruh-huh. I rug up rum ritations. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Here, have some Scooby snacks! Ultimateria (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rank roo. :) Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

come back ☹
Oh blood, it’s Pilcrow all over again.

Cloud, please don’t leave. I already tried that, and I just came crawling back here later. You are a seriously good contributor in every aspect. I know that there are a lot of douchebags here, but you don’t need to take them seriously; you have a lot more credibility than they have. Are you absolutely certain about your decision? Will you feel the same way a week from now? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not know my remarks would make productive editors leave Wiktionary. I will do more reading on gender (presumably a self-made declaration of being male or female independent of the biological sex) as it relates to civility. I now assume that several editors have the following stance: --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When a biologically male person (with penis and no breasts) asks other people to refer to them as "she", it is impolite or even rude not to comply.


 * Fuck, you really are the best comedian on the project. [[Image:Happy smiley face.png|21px]] —Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but me, but that's not exactly my stance, no. My stance is that someone's biological sex is generally not relevant to others (and is not generally an appropriate subject for civil discourse), and that if an editor chooses to present herself on-wiki as female, then her biological sex (even if somehow known) is not a justification for refusing to accept that choice. —Ruakh TALK 20:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, what if I decide that I am a polar bear and demand that everyone calls me Mr Sexy Bear. Are the people refusing to do so uncivil? --Vahag (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh? —Ruakh TALK 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Cloudcuckoo, please don't leave because of us. I promise to enroll in a sensitivity training program. --Vahag (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're leaving. From above comments, I gather that it somehow involved comments by Dan misgendering a transwoman. Was it you? If so, for what it's worth, I support you and wish you all strength you will need on your journey. Good luck to you, Cloud. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't me. It transpired with Dan making a comment about CodeCat in the course of this discussion, suggesting that CodeCat was pretending to be female on this wiki when she was actually male, something which was revealed (as I interpreted the comment) by what Dan characterized as CodeCat's "aggressive male behaviour." What troubled me was the implication that someone's gender could be inferred from their on-wiki conduct — that if someone acts "aggressive," it automatically means you're dealing with a man. That struck me as espousing a particular conception of inherently masculine and inherently feminine traits (men are aggressive, women are passive), which is fine to think in "meatspace," but letting that viewpoint influence one's perception of or interaction with other users seems as problematic as doing the same with religion or ethnicity. Then Vahag added a comment which I, being unfamiliar with Vahag's apparent history of intentionally making provocative comments in an attempt to be funny, took at face value.


 * My initial concern was with the implication that there are characteristic ways in which male and female editors should behave. Then subsequent comments were made which seemed (in my interpretation) to question the existence of transgenderism, and those only troubled me further, because once again, people are entitled to their views, but is Wiktionary the proper venue for sharing said views when doing so could cause unnecessary friction and ultimately prove counterproductive to the wiki's goals?


 * I admit I jumped into the discussion linked above. Maybe there's some history of which I'm unaware, and my ignorance lead to a misunderstanding.


 * I also think biological sex and gender identity are not very relevant in wikispace. It's why I generally don't correct people when they apply the incorrect set of pronouns to me (which, on the Internet, where gender ratios are apparently not 50/50, is more often than not). It's not really relevant.


 * Anyway, thanks to everyone who's stopped by to offer kind words. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a means of clarification: I did not use the aggressive behavior as the sole indicator of malehood; I did use it as an auxiliary indicator, not the main one. Malehood can statistically be predicted from aggressiveness; that is a fact, and you cannot do anything about it; what you can do is forbid this sort of statistical inference in public. But again, there are other indicators of CodeCat being a male, ones that I have left unspecified. For reference, here are the diffs to my comments at Beer parlour:, . Furthermore, I have never met a male asking to be referred to them as "she" in my life, and I have no personal policy on how to deal with this; this is a new subject for me to sort out. On the face of it, a biological male declaring to be a female looks approximately as wrong to me as a human declaring to be an airplane, but there must be a difference that makes people accept the former; I wonder what the difference is. I would very much appreciate if you could refer me to online material where I could learn more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're back to stay
Well, the title says it all. When I made, I was surprised to see that you hadn't already made it (and thanks for your usage note; 'twas a glaring omission on my part). Cheers! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 09:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I tend to err on the side of caution and wait until a term has acquired a full year's span of citations before I create an entry for it. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shit, I thought it'd been used before the show, but it doesn't look like it. Given the rules, I suppose I wouldn't complain if someone RFVed it, although I'm sure the word will make it anyway and one might even be able to argue widespread use (cf. Talk:olinguito). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sherlock creators apparently made a point of of breaking with tradition and having the lead characters be known on a first-name basis to fit the modern-day setting of the show. So presumably shipping of the characters from the original Conan Doyle works and most adaptations of them would use pairing names based on a combination of "Holmes" and "Watson."
 * I don't see a major issue with letting the entry stand. It's only a month shy of being able to have a year's worth of citations, and with the new series airing this month, I expect the "Johnlock" phenomenon will be discussed in the media. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you active again too. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)