User talk:SoccerMan2009

Please do not re-create Dasey without adding at lease three citations as needed by WT:CFI: "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." If you find three such citations, then you may create the entry again, at which point the entry will go through the Requests for deletion process. --Yair rand 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yair rand, three citations are NOT needed by WT:CFI, as is clearly specified by the use of the word "or" in the following excerpt from WT:CFI, Section 1.2, "Attestation":


 * "'Attested' means verified through


 * 1) Clearly widespread use,
 * 2) Usage in a well-known work,
 * 3) Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
 * 4) Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." (emphasis added)


 * Based on the use of the word "or," only one of the criteria for Attestation must be met by the word for it to be considered "attested."


 * As I stated in my original request for undeletion of the entry for the word "Dasey" (see the bottom of SemperBlotto's 2009 User Talk Page archives),


 * "If you search >Dasey< on Google, about 106,000 results come up and if you search >Dasey "Life with Derek"< on Google, about 484,000 results come up (don't ask me why more come up, but they do. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself). I think it is safe to say that 106,000 or 484,000 results on Google constitutes "lots of pages," and even "clearly widespread use," thus meeting the criteria for Attestation as defined in WT:CFI Section 1.2, "Attestation" (see verification method 1)." SoccerMan2009 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The about 106,000 Google results are actually 692 in English only, plus not all with the same meaning. It's not just a matter of whether you can find the letters D-A-S-E-Y in that order, but with a specific given meaning. For example abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz gets 834 hits, 142 more than Dasey. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mglovesfun, as far as I can see, that is not true at all.
 * 
 * SoccerMan2009 19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because you're looking at the first page, not the last one. Try it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should stop this now; everyone agrees that this is not dictionary material. Given the hundreds of thousands of real words that we don't have, please add some of those. Note that "disruptive edits" is one of our standard reasons for blocking someone. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. As I just said on the other page(since you guys insist on having this debate on multiple pages),


 * "On a separate side note which should not be confused or conflated with my main reasoning for why "Dasey" should be undeleted, why can't new entries just be left alone if they are in dispute as to whether or not they meet the criteria for inclusion but they are not vandalism or an incorrect definition? In other words, can't we all just live and let live and focus on our own contributions instead of deleting others'?  To put it another way, during the Salem witch trials, a level-headed person once said something along the lines of, "It would be better for ten guilty people to unpunished than for one innocent person to be convicted." SoccerMan2009 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop arguing about the word and our policies and go find three citations, and then we can all get back to work on the dictionary. If you cannot find three citations, tough - it doesn't meet our standard for inclusion.  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac ☃ 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because then we'd end up with literally thousands of pages of invented nonsense, mainly! Equinox ◑ 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't say we didn't warn you
Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)