User talk:Una Smith

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Our format guidelines (nicknamed "ELE")
 * Criteria for inclusion (nicknamed "CFI")
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
 * What Wiktionary is not
 * FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to one of the discussion rooms or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite journal
Wiktionary does not use citation templates like Wikipedia does. We cite too many different kinds of sources for them to be useful. --EncycloPetey 04:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
You should be unblocked, if you still cannot edit please email me again. - 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning your comment on SB's page: The removal of an rfv tag without noting such a thing on WT:RFV is a blockable offense. One might argue the block was a bit hasty, as it did not give you time to note the removal on RFV, but one could also make the counter-argument that you should have noted the removal before you performed it.  Finally, a number of problems were brought up with the cites, so I wouldn't confidently say it passed.  Since I wasn't involved in the original conversation I won't get involved, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone contests the rfv-removal.  Personally, I am not convinved by a single regional cite in a work using very dialectical spelling.  The burden of proof is on the person arguing for the word's existence, not on those arguing for its deletion.  Finally, Wiktionary is not quite as nice and polite as Wikipedia.  If a block is found to be mistaken it is removed and everyone gets on with their lives.  Obviously, I don't speak for SB, but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note a removal before it is performed? What instruction creep is making that argument?
 * Yes the block was hasty, and perhaps a note would have been more constructive, but you did cross a line, one you were probably unaware of. Closing an RFV at least requires demonstrating that you know what is necessary for verification. As you probably know by now, a term is not automatically admitted just because the request hasn't been closed in three months.
 * If you want to stick around and learn more about the process, we could certainly use the help. I would suggest starting by trying to verify some of neologisms with quotations from Google Books, especially if you can find any low-hanging fruit. Just don't close it yourself (and FYI none of use close the ones we have cited ourselves). Learn from the reactions and opinions of the regulars here, earn a little trust, and I'm sure even SB will be of help to you. DAVilla 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note the entry in question passed its RFV (here) and that I did not close the RFV. I merely removed the tag from the entry, a housekeeping task, and I did so after re-reading the criteria. --Una Smith 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm....that happened after you removed the rfv tag. The history shows you removing the tag on March 7th, 16:12, and TheDaveRoss passing it and noting the pass at 18:04, nearly two hours afterwards.  Admittedly it was, in hindsight, a bit dim of me to quibble over whether the tag removal or the note on WT:RFV came first, but let's keep the facts straight.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument. I should have prodded to close the RFV first, by some other means, then removed the tag.  What I hoped would happen is some editor on patrol would note the removed tag, investigate, and close the RFV.  That kind of happened, but with (IMO) rather too much time and effort by rather too many editors.  I enjoyed that RFV, by the way;  it was constructive.  --Una Smith 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

galactophage
You need to appreciate that there are a fair number of almost-words like this, much loved by a certain kind of word maven, but not by speakers or writers of the language (and their editors). Four-syllable classically derived words that mean roughly the same thing as two-syllable Anglo-Saxon-derived words (milk-fed) really usually don't stand much of chance in the Darwinian rough-and-tumble of actual usage. If it doesn't meet WT:CFI as an English word, so be it. There are many, many fish in the sea. DCDuring TALK 03:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 27 pages of hits for "galactophage" on Google Groups, in many different Usenet groups. From a cursory inspection, it more than meets WT:CFI, but it is not my entry.  --Una Smith 03:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The cites need to meet the independence criterion. There are problem with raw Groups hits: There are often numerous hits resulting from quoting the same earlier e-mail. That counts as one independent hit. In addition one user may use the same word multiple times in different threads. Again one hit for all e-mail by that user. Also, it may turn out that different e-mail addresses are really the same user. Most importantly, the qualifying citations need to be in the entry or the associated citations page, available for inspection. Frankly, it would be all too easy for someone to cram usenet full of bogus uses to meet CFI if they had a mind to do so. By the second time it happens I would predict that Usenet will no longer be a valid source. DCDuring TALK 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are perhaps 7 threads on Google Groups/Usenet. Most do not "convey meaning" (See WT:CFI.): it is not at all clear what the word is supposed to mean from the context. It seems to be just some insult. If you can find some good cites in that muck, you will have my admiration, FWIW. DCDuring TALK 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At least the French cites look like they might be OK once in format and on the right page. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:bacterin
Those appeared to be mistakes on the author's part. I apoligize. Teh Rote 11:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

miel de palma
Hi, words in languages other than English do not get translation sections, just a link to the English equivalent word. Nadando 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I'll create palm syrup. --Una Smith 04:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Equus
When we list additional terms, such as under a Related terms or Derived terms, we list terms in the same language. The word Equus is a scientific name, and is Translingual. The word equine: is an English word. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The same principle applies on, where you added Equus and equine as "Derived terms". The word equus is Latin, but the other two words are not Latin. Equus could be listed as a Descendant, but equine descends from, which is a different word in Latin. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And thanks for fixing the entries.  --Una Smith 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you check/fix the etymology on Equidae for me also? I probably didn't get that right either.  --Una Smith 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try. Zoological names above the level of genus aren't as familiar to me as their botanical counterparts. ;) --EncycloPetey 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you fix up wild horse for me? One sense seems to be a sum of parts and I don't know how to handle that. The other sense is a common name for a species... --Una Smith 05:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)