User talk:Cloudcuckoolander/Archive 3

ass
A lot of the entries that you are adding appear to be modern coinages. Personally, I would add to them to denote that they are not suitable outside of modern context, but I don’t want anybody to mass‐revert my edits and then get pissed off at me. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently going through Appendix:List of protologisms, picking out interesting words, and seeing if they're citable. I generally avoid using the "neologism" label. When I tag something "Internet slang" or "fandom slang," or even just "slang," that label on its own should be sufficient to denote that the term in question is a modern coinage. Adding a "neologism" tag when a term is already labelled "Internet slang" strikes me as redundant. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)



That is all. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

CFI and senses
Re your edit summary at cynomorphism, my reading of CFI is that each term needs three cites (or other requirements) to be considered attested. CFI doesn't discuss individual senses. This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've always taken the ability to nominate individual senses of entries for RfV/RfD as an indication that each sense in an entry requires three independent cites. There's also nothing in CFI that explicitly states that online sources cannot be used as citations, but the "durability" provision is commonly interpreted that way. Anyway, if you are reasonably certain that a term may be considered attested if it has three cites split between two senses, go ahead and revert the cynomorphism entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Senses need to be cited individually, otherwise there would be nothing to stop people from adding made-up senses of words that exist. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so senses need to be cited individually; that's fine. But, Ungoliant, do you think each sense needs three separate cites? This, that and the other (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall an RFV-sense ever being closed as passed with fewer than three citations, other than LDLs or when a citation is from a well-known work. You can start a BP discussion on this topic if you want. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

phobias
Glad to see you attesting phobias. When you use confix for the etymologies, could you please include a |lang=en parameter? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. I assume this also applies to other etymology templates, such as suffix? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

peniaphobia
As much as I admire your persistence with some of these word-list phobias: you can see why the 2001 cite isn't any good, right? Equinox ◑ 00:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's not from a dictionary or word list, nor is it a clear-cut mention ("the fear of poverty is called peniaphobia"). There's only four phobias listed in the complete quoted sentence (I trimmed it for brevity's sake), so it seems to be a selective use, rather than part of an indiscriminate laundry list of phobias the author copy-and-pasted into the novel. But I replaced it with a quote from a UK marketing agency's bi-annual report that I found through Google instead. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO it doesn't have to be a dictionary-like statement for the instance to be a "mention". Why would you define a word at the point of using it, unless because you already know it's an oddity that your readers won't have seen before? To me there is a big chasm between, say, Oliver Sacks defining a neurological term in a footnote (because he is writing for a "lay" audience) and some (probably pretentious) writer using a word they evidently got from one of the word lists and defining it because they know that nobody, of any rank or role (except linguist?), could understand it otherwise. Anyway: thanks for revisiting the entry! Equinox ◑ 01:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd chalk it up to pretension in most cases. But I suppose we should be thankful for such pretension, because without it, I doubt we'd be able to cite most word-listy words. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

bottlefeeder
Do you already know that people can be these for (young) animals, too? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd hoped "infant" was broad enough to encompass both human and animal babies, but I've changed the definition per your suggestion. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Some Wikisaurus citing
Would you be able to cite the following redlinks from Wikisaurus:clitoris? happy button, hooded monk, love button, magic bean, pink jelly bean, venus mound. For those that you would be unable to cite, please don't delete them from Wikisaurus, since I would send them to RFV to give them a chance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was able to cite happy button and love button. I couldn't cite hooded monk, magic bean, or pink jelly bean. Venus mound is a synonym of mons veneris, not clitoris. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some Wikisaurus citing 2
There are many redlinks at Wikisaurus:labia, in case you would like to give them a shot. Multiple of them are defined in Urban dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's still redlinked, I was unable to cite it. Excepting piss clam, which I was able to cite under the sense "a clam which squirts water," but not under any sense related to female anatomy. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

dweebling
Is this a synonym of the words that you recently created? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I'll put it on my Wiktionary agenda. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is your name Daniel?
--Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be a Danielle. Just sayin'. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You’re a woman‽ I had no idea. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Je suis une Canadienne." :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I do remember that discussion, but I forgot about that detail. (By the way, it’s more common to write «…suis Canadienne…», sans article.) --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, «…suis canadienne…» --Type56op9 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the corrections. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Some Wikisaurus citing 3
Wikisaurus:drunk contains 19 redlinks, in case you would like try to attest them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the horribly tardy reply. I will do what I can (slowly, though, unfortunately) and report back to you. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am grateful and indebted for your efforts, no matter how delayed or slow they may be. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's still a redlink, I couldn't cite it under the sense "drunk." With the exception of had one over the eight and had one too many. Those two are citable, but I'm not sure whether we should treat them as adjectives, or instead create noun entries for one over the eight and one too many. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I removed the redlinks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

dysmenorrhoeic
Hullo. Why did you define this as a noun? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Silly mistake. I have a text document on my computer that I use for creating entries, and sometimes I neglect to change parameters. I evidently used the document to create a noun entry and then forgot to change the heading to adjective when I went to create the entry for this term. Thanks for catching that for me. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

photophobia
Is it possible to define this as ‘the fear of having one’s picture taken?’ --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I must say, your interests here make me desire to ask you some questions (preferably in private; e‐mail). Of course, if you aren’t willing to disclose any information to me, then I’m perfectly willing to understand, madame. --Romanophile (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a much more boring person than my contribution history probably suggests. I soak up interesting words like a sponge and add them to Wiktionary if they don't already have entries. Sometimes, I make projects for myself, like adding as many terms for different types of fan (Arianator, etc.) as it is possible for me to cite. Or phobias. Or 4chan slang. Or Tumblr neologisms.
 * I prefer to Wiktionary separate from real life and other online endeavors. So I'm sorry to have to turn down your request. :( -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For some good news: I was able to cite photophobia under the sense you suggested. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

MGTOW
Hi Cloudcuckoolander, you didn't give a reason for your recent changes to the MGTOW definition, so I'm going to revert back. If you want to change the MGTOW definition, please discuss it on Talk:MGTOW. -- 71.208.37.30 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The one who modified the definition without discussion was you. The fact that this modification remained in place for nearly a month was an oversight. We don't always catch things right away. Your modification, simply put, was not in keeping with NPOV. There's obviously a delicate balance to be struck when defining words. It wouldn't be accurate to define slowpoke: as "a person perceived as moving too slowly," because that's not what it's used to mean. But when a definition requires us to describe an opinion or belief, it isn't neutral to present said opinion or belief as anything other than an opinion or belief. We can't state that MGTOWs are remaining single due to the "risks of marriage" without qualification because that makes it seem as if the riskiness of marriage is objective fact. And we certainly can't use a loaded word like "gynocentrism" in place of the more neutral word "feminism." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't realize these policies were so different from Wikipedia's manual of style which suggests avoiding unsupported attributions in that way. Two questions. First, would you object to the definition being stated in a less pejorative way to MGTOW? The tone of the current definition strikes me as much more condescending than it needs to be with the placement of phrase "what they perceive as" in the definition.
 * Would you object to a change going from:
 * a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.
 * to:
 * a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men who believe the risks of relationships with women are significant enough that they have committed to remaining single and/or celibate.
 * That would still indicate it's a belief of people who identify as MGTOW. It would also avoid having to use the term 'feminism' (which is irrelevant to the definition) or gynocentrism, and bit about "undesirable qualities of modern women" (which also irrelevant to the definition).
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 71.208.37.30 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be worth moving this discussion to WT:TR, so that more users will see it. Wikipedia has far more users than we do, and talk pages don't get many eyeballs. Equinox ◑ 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Tea Room is probably the most appropriate place to have this discussion. Definitions are based on what available citations say, so if you want to see significant changes made to a definition, you may need to provide CFI-compliant citations to support said changes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cloudcuckoolander, you mean provide WT:CFI-compliant citations to support that the tone of the definition should be less condescending? How would I go about doing that? -- 71.208.37.30 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The definitions of words on Wiktionary are derived from citations (i.e. instances in which a word is used in a book, magazine, movie, etc.). If you think the current definition of a word is inaccurate or incomplete, and wish to see it changed, then the case for modifying the definition in line with your suggestions will be stronger if you are able to provide some citations that show the word being used in a way that reflects the specific meaning you ascribe to it.
 * Regarding tone: sometimes entries will be intentionally or unintentionally biased, contain inappropriate humour, etc. In that case, one wouldn't need to justify editing the entry to remove said elements, since our policies stipulate that definitions be written in a neutral and serious tone. But, to be honest, I don't see anything amiss with the current definition of MGTOW, and I think what you're seeing as condescension is likely just NPOV in action. NPOV is kind of like harsh fluorescent lighting in that it often makes for an unflattering picture regardless of the subject.
 * The Tea Room is probably the best place to propose/discuss changes to MGTOW entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral. Search for definitons what they perceive as, the only one containing that attribution is the MGTOW definition. If you look at the definition of atheist, for example, it's phrased like the change I suggested. I'll add this discussion to WT:TR. -- 71.208.37.30 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

think of the children
Hi there Cloudcuckoolander, you had previously helped out and added an entry I improved, Streisand effect, as Word of the day.

created the entry on think of the children and I recently improved it.

I nominated it at Word of the day/Nominations, however mentioned at user talk:Equinox that unfortunately these days most of those that appear on the Main Page are recycled entries from prior years because it's pretty inactive.

I was wondering if you could add it to one of the upcoming dates for Word of the day?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I retired from overseeing WotD over a year ago, and I fear I've forgotten how to properly add entries to the queue. Sorry that I can't be of any assistance in this matter. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, no worries, I got help from others, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

special snowflake
What’s a special snow flake? --Romanophile (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A snowflake of determinant 1. — Keφr 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's usually used sarcastically to indicate someone who sees themselves as way more exceptional and unique than most people. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Blast, I didn’t check snowflake to see the definitions. Please delete this useless topic. --Romanophile (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not useless. I'd previously considered creating an entry for special snowflake. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So, would you like to be amigos with me? --Romanophile (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We're already wikimigos. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That’s great! Do you desire to be in contact with me? I use a few programmes like Facebook and Skype to keep in touch with people. You don’t have to accept this, of course; just a proposal. --Romanophile (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You already asked this quesion, and the answer was no. I have tried to be understanding/gentle, but now you're ignoring boundaries that were clearly established. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I lost my cool like that. There's a lot of stuff going on in my life right now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t recall asking that question before, but that’s probably because I’m an idiot who constantly obliviates everything. And I don’t think that you should feel obligated to apologize; I believe that scumbags deserve no compassion nor forgiveness. If anything, I should be sorry. --Romanophile (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)