User talk:Cloudcuckoolander/Archive 4

lesploitation, lezploitation
These terms apparently exist, but I can’t define them and don’t feel like doing so. Maybe you can, if you desire. Ass. --Romanophile (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive. :) -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * They could be gynophilic women in general, not just female homosexuals. To me, your definition could be more accurate. --Romanophile (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The tough thing with writing definitions is trying to balance accuracy with simplicity and understandability. Hope the revised definition is an improvement. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gaystapo
--Romanophile (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

technicity
I can't really figure out what definition(s) is/are citable and how to define them, so I'm pulling a Æ&Œ and leaving ithis one on the doorstep of the superior lexicographer, if you deign to handle it. Cheers! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look through the Google Books hits. Looks like there a probably multiple senses in use. Will have a go when I have more time. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Added cites to the sense included when SemperBlotto created the entry. Also added a second sense. I think there may be other senses out there, possibly related to technic, but I can't parse anything from the first 25 pages of Google Books hits. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I a poor editor?
I noticed that in many of the English entries that I generated, you had to improve the definitions. It’s probably annoying to clean up after me all the time. Should I do something else? --Romanophile (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having to fix anything you created recently. So I don't think you have any cause for concern. :) Although, if you want some advice, looking through your recent edit history, I see you created saviorhood with the definition "status of being a saviour." This should ideally be "the status of being a savior." It's a very minor thing, and you're not the only editor I've seen define an abstract noun without a definite article. But adding a "the" would make for a more polished entry. Also capitalizing the first word in the definition and including a period at the end. Not everyone adheres to this formatting, but, again, if you want to make your entries more polished, it helps to go that extra mile.
 * Defining words can be tough. It's really difficult trying to find the right balance of accuracy and understandability. So if you ever feel at a loss, don't be hard on yourself. Sometimes it takes me an hour or more to work out a good way to define something. And don't hesitate to ask for input if you don't quite know how to proceed in terms of defining something. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lazily guilty of creating any number of "-nesses" that are "Quality of X" and not "The quality". Heh. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I left out the articles because I tend to idealize definitions as translations. So if I decoded ‘The saviourhood of your mother,’ it would read ‘the the status of being a saviour of your mother.’ I also recall a discussion that using proper punctuation in definitions is now an archaic practice. After rereading the discussion, it’s not a universal rule. It’s just that definitions for the language that I’m writing in right now should be punctuated, but translations should not, unless a comprehensive definition is necessary, I suppose. Apparently, I confused this practice. I should quit thinking of English definitions as translations. That’s frequently why I simply make requests rather than do the entries myself. Still, most of the regulars here don’t like an inflated request section, so now I am attempting to avoid it. I’m also fond of technical terms, but I understand that here it’s preferable to use more common and plain terms, so I just deal with it. --Romanophile (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that SemperBlotto is one of the few editors who has a problem with me, which is a shame because I generally like his work. There’s also another one (whom I actually dislike), but I’d prefer not to say his name. On the other hand, maybe I’m superoptimistic and lots of editors secretly despise me. --Romanophile (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

mental image of you
I have imaginary ideas of what some editors look like. Although I’m not a furry, I still imagine you as a smiley anthropomorphic she‐wolf (possibly because you touched a few furry terms on the project). --Romanophile (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

some more Tumblrish terms
Some more CFI-dodgers you might have a chance with: Tumblrite (Tumblr user), Tumblrina (female Tumblr user, possibly something more specific, e.g. histrionic?), tucute (co-ordinate term for truscum: someone who believes dysphoria is not necessary for transgenderism? - again, only seen this on Tumblr). Equinox ◑ 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No luck with either of those, unfortunately. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One I've seen is "hunty". Urban Dictionary thinks it's an affectionate blend of "honey" and "cunt" or "cunty". - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Managed to cite this one. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wereanimals
If you happen to be interested, werecrocodile and werejaguar could be attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_jacking

IQ125 (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WT:CFI. This term isn't attestable by our standards. The fact that there is currently a Wikipedia article doesn't change that. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

STEMlord
Can you tell me what ‘STEMlord’ means? --Romanophile (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently a slur against someone who favours the STEM subjects and dismisses "softer" subjects such as sociology and gender studies. Equinox ◑ 18:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It goes beyond that, though. The term seems to be used not just to refer to people who believe that STEM subjects are superior to the social sciences, but to people who seek to justify or dismiss the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. Their underlying idea being, essentially, that STEM fields are "real" science and social sciences are "soft" science, and that women are underrepresented in STEM fields because there are fundamental biological differences between men and women, not because of historical discrimination and lingering institutional sexism. This isn't currently citable, however. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny, I've never heard that term before. I actually do think that non-STEM subjects are easier and their "findings" are less likely to be objectively valid, but I'm proud to report that in my department, which is hard science, 63% of current graduate students are female. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The hits on Google seem to be primarily from Reddit, Twitter, and other social media sites. Doesn't seem to have broken out into wider use. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Displaytitle on Citations pages
Why are you using displaytitle here? —CodeCat 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To get emoticons to render correctly. Underscores apparently don't render in page titles under normal circumstances, and they're used to represent mouths in several of the emoticons I've been trying to cite. Without the mouth being visible, the emoticon can't really convey what it is intended to convey. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. I noticed, though, that when I removed displaytitle, the entry name part of the title was turned into a link. You should probably include that behaviour. —CodeCat 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Citations:¬‿¬ doesn't seem to have any underscores in it, nor do several others of the pages you created recently. —CodeCat 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the statement "the entry name part of the title was turned into a link." I just tried removing the displaytitle template from Citations:ಠ_ಠ in preview mode, and didn't notice any changes except the underscore "mouth" no longer being visible in the page title, only the Kannada letter "eyes."
 * 2. I copied the page code of Citations:ಠ_ಠ into a word-processing document and have been using that as a template to create new citations pages for similar emoticons. I admit that I have not been manually testing whether non-underscore-featuring emoticons render correctly without displaytitle, but feel free to do this and remove any displaytitle uses you deem unnecessary. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A few suggested emoticons
I appreciate the new citations for emoticons that you've been getting for Wiktionary.

Just a thought: While you are at it, maybe if you happen to find citations for the most basic emoticons that we don't have yet (redlinks), you might consider citing them too. I believe some of them would be:

(edit: I reserve the right to edit this list to add more suggested emoticons)


 * (:
 * ):
 * (-:
 * )-:
 * -_-
 * -.-
 * ~_~
 * ~.~
 * ¬_¬
 * ¬.¬
 * ._.
 * o_o
 * o.o
 * O_O
 * 0.0
 * 0_0
 * n_n
 * T_T
 * T.T
 * @_@
 * @.@
 * *-*
 * *.*
 * ♥_♥
 * ♥.♥
 * X-D
 * 8D
 * 8-D
 * >.<
 * >_<
 * B
 * D
 * -D
 * O
 * P
 * S
 * -S
 * V
 * 0
 * |
 * - |
 * /
 * -/
 * *
 * -*
 * >:-(
 * (>^-^)>
 * <(^-^<)

For unsupported titles, I've already left links in the format of "Unsupported titles/blahblahblah", if you want to use them. Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to create citations for unsupported titles, you can model them after Citations:Unsupported titles/Full stop. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. Many emoticons are difficult to cite because the characters used aren't searchable on Google Books and Google Groups. The only way to cite them, really, is to chance across uses when looking for other things, or find users who like using emoticons and systemically look through their posts (as I'm doing now). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I guessed you would be doing that. I also thought that maybe you are finding lots of basic emoticons too in addition to the more advanced ones, so that I hoped my suggestion would make more sense. Good luck. If you need any help with the work required to make the correct title appear (as in making ":/" appear rather than "Unsupported titles/Colon slash"), let me know. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

brogressive
Hi. Saw this somewhere recently: I think it's a political progressive who has misogynistic attitudes... or something? Sounded like something you might be able to attest. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IPV
What does IPV mean? Example: ‘the vast majority of assaults are IPV or by other people close to the victim.’ -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Intimate Partner Violence. — JohnC5 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fielding this one for me. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! — JohnC5 08:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

femcunt edit
Why did you remove/change the citation? Equinox ◑ 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't remember why specifically. Probably because I thought the other MCP citation was more to-the-point and illustrative. And less thorny subject-wise. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You’ll be back
Really, you will. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. This is it, sorry. A line has been crossed and crossed again. The wiki sold its proverbial soul for $10 and I am done. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you will return as well. I'm sorry you feel that we have lost our soul; the only aim has always been to build a good free dictionary, and I would keep on doing that even if the exact same contributions I made for free were paid if someone else did them (and this is, of course, not likely ever to be the case for the edits that you or I do). I derive pleasure from the work and from what we have produced, rather than what values anyone may put on it (and pageviews, rather than dollars or reais, seem like a good way to measure value, but I think my work here, much of it on obscure vocabulary or little-known lects, would do exceedingly poorly by that metric). In any case, you know as well as we do that leaving and returning is the norm, and that's okay; we'll appreciate whatever further contributions you choose to make. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * She’s done this several times. Check the history section of this page if you disbelieve me. Every once in a while some drama goes on here and she claims that she’s leaving forever, only to come crawling back weeks later. Several other editors have already been through this, but when you do it over and over, it just chips away at your credibility. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Paid editing isn't "drama." It's a wholesale betrayal of the most fundamental principle upon which this and other Wikimedia projects were founded. In the past, it's usually been interpersonal run-ins that prompted my wiki-breaks and wiki-retirements, and some distance allowed the proverbial air to clear to the point where I felt comfortable resuming editing. But this isn't something that can be resolved with distance. If I come back two months from now, the stench of paid editing is still going be hanging in the air, because this time the problem lies with the wiki itself, not with its users. A wiki that tolerates paid editing is a wiki that has no respect for its volunteers and the work they do, and I value my time, energy, and sanity too much to allow myself to be taken for granted. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cloudcuckoolander, you are one of the contributors who contribute substantive lexicography, not just edits that switch one template for another. Your repute for adding attesting quotations that are hard to find, in volumes, is unmatched. If you leave, English Wiktionary will be so much poorer. If you object to the practice of editors being paid for editing, we can raise this in Beer parlour. Paid editing was discussed in Beer parlour and no one objected, AFAIK. I tend to think paid trivial boring edits can be okay, but must be strictly within established consensus. Either way, we would be better off without paid trivial edits than to lose a valuable contributor of real substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I did not realize you have raised your objections at Beer parlour/2015/November. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, the response to my posts at the BP has been hand-waving followed by crickets (while, concurrently, another bribe was offered and accepted). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for your opposition towards my idea of paid editing and your decision to leave the project. It's true that leaving and returning is the norm, so I hope you consider returning in the future. In addition to Dan Polansky's compliments, I've always appreciated your work in fiction-related words. (Potterphile, etc.)
 * I have one objection, though. The response to your posts at the BP has not been "hand-waving followed by crickets". In that BP discussion (Beer parlour/2015/November), other people replied to you, some of them gave arguments in support for my project of User:Daniel Carrero/term cleanup after your complaints. That is, you have not been ignored, I was the first to respond to you on that discussion.
 * In particular, I disagree that paid editing is "a wholesale betrayal of the most fundamental principle upon which this and other Wikimedia projects were founded." That project was designed to be as uncontroversial as possible: I'm emptying Category:term cleanup by manually replacing by  in 21,000+ pages. That's quite like bot work, except a bot can't infer the language code accurately in all cases, so I'm doing it manually. This is entirely different from the heated controversies in Wikipedia about paying someone to write articles. In particular, this Wikimedia statement refers to the problem of "paid advocacy editing" or "paid editing for promotional purposes".
 * I'd argue that the fact that Wikimedia allows paid editing under some circumstances is a good indication that not all paid edits are a betrayal of fundamental principles. I suggest seeing Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment for the rule I mentioned before which requires paid editing to be disclosed publicly; also see further details and the FAQ there. The (rather large) talk page (plus archives) could be also of interest.
 * Each Wikimedia project has the ability to create its own rules concerning paid editing. (provided they satisfy the basic requirement above) I think that for Wiktionary, emptying any cleanup category that requires manual work could qualify easily enough.
 * A last note: On this page on Quora (a question/answer website), someone asked: "Wikipedia: Has anyone active on Wikipedia used Patreon/Gratipay (or some other crowdfunding service) to crowdfund their contributions to Wikipedia?" I replied: "I've been using Patreon to obtain funding for a large cleanup project for Wiktionary" and left the links to the project there. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)