User talk:Neil zusman

Welcome
Please see below our standard welcome text. Please note in particular our Entry format (at WT:ELE) and our Criteria for Inclusion (at WT:CFI). The reasons Widsith and SemperBlotto have reverted you on libricide is that the format you used was incorrect (in the wrong style and much too lengthy -- more typical of an encyclopedia than a dictionary).

I suspect that, at first, Widsith thought the word probably did not satisfy CFI so submitted it to WT:RFV, which is the correct process for confirming whether a word meets CFI or not. There would be no point in cleaning it up (or alternatively submitting it to WT:RFC) if it was to be deleted anyway. He probably then checked for cites of usage, realised that it does satisfy CFI, and decided to clean it up himself, rather than submit it for someone else to do. Similarly, if I have time later this evening, I may add some cites. (books.google.com is a useful source of durably archived cites, though some of them are mention rather than use so are irrelevant to meeting CFI)

You will see in WT:CFI that we are concerned with how words are actually used. Actually rather than how they should be (although we do add a warning tag to usages which are normally considered incorrect or "non-standard"). Used rather than discussed or proposed. The appearance of a word in another dictionary does not necessarily mean that anyone has ever used it to describe what it claims to describe!

Some minor points re auto-ethnocide, which I shall leave to you to correct if you feel appropriate. Have you ever come across the plural? Presumably not, since you add a ?. For many words of this type, the plural is rarely or never used. Personally, I think the original use of the template to indicate no known plural was more appropriate. Note that, when you write in a second argument into the noun template, as you did, you also need to add plural first.

We usually use the full title of a book, rather than a shortened version. I am not clear why you shortened the title of the second cite. However, the cite format was a little odd anyway -- if you want to tidy it, you can find the correct format at WT:" (although there is current discussion of possible changes in WT:BP). Most of us feel it is helpful to link to an online source if available.  For example, the cite we are talking about here is available on b.g.c. at.

Finally, if you use the ===References=== text, you need to remove the sentence "Add verifiable references here to show where you found the word in use." when you add them! Anyway, now for the standard text:

I hope you enjoy being here. --Eng in ear 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)