User talk:Luciferwildcat

• Archive 1

You may have noticed that you've been blocked by me. We haven't really interacted yet, and so I thought I'd take a second to explain myself. You need to slow down. You also need to learn some wiki culture, especially Wiktionary specific stuff. You're producing a lot of good work, but you're also producing a lot of crap, and at the speed you're going, we can't sift through everything and separate the two. So, first off, we do, in fact, want modern slang terms here on Wiktionary. However, they absolutely must be cited. Your practice of creating them (typically sloppily, I might add), and then whining when people rfv, rfd, outright delete them is unacceptable. If you are to continue to create these sorts of entries, you need to learn how to cite them, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. You have a day off. Spend some time looking at what others are doing to get your entries up to snuff and start doing it yourself. I hope you don't take this too badly, as you have the potential to be a very useful editor here, but you have to alter your approach. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

After looking through today's edits, I see that you are, in fact, slowing down, and you are attempting to cite your new creations. Consequently, I have removed the block. When I saw recent changes full of your edits, and one of them already rfv'd, I guess I simply overreacted. I apologize for my undue haste. If I might make a suggestion, it would probably go a long way to restoring your standing with the community if you went through your old entries, especially the ones currently in WT:RFV, and cite them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have edited on Wikipedia for years with little issues that could not be resolved and have become a knowledgeable editor, however without having made mistakes or collaborating I never would have been able to move forward and that is the point of all wikis. I find it unfortunate how draconian and plutocratic some users here would like things to be. I try to create things as best I can and I don't neglect entries created previously, and especially when I find a good citation for a hard to cite term I go back. Nevertheless a cursory look at the word of the day shows that most entries have no citations at all. Now I make sure to cite any of the vulgarities that I encounter but plain slang in addition to all other terms should be fair game to be left in a basic template state if there isn't time or available sources immediately. In many cases other users have been able to add some via usenet, a source I have never understood. Simple google searches and admissions from other edits are that they have heard the term in most cases so it's all in good faith. Over time I have gone over many old entries and added i.e. sg = [[]] [[]] to two word compounds and will continue to do so. The markup is difficult to learn but I have worked on it. Of course I will make mistakes but I can catch them later, sometimes other editors edit conflict correct me while I am still in progress creating an entry and figuring out the markup and they whine at me, very impatient and frustrating. I also have some learning disabilities that make it hard for me to learn things quickly and make it so I forget things I have learned previously. I'll keep altering my approach based on feedback but demands from some editors that I only create entries for the subjects they arbitrarily deem fit are uncalled for and lead me to disregard their communications as this is just bullying. Everyone here is free to edit what they wish on a free dictionary, it's sort of the point. I will say I was a bit confused as to why I got blocked for "slow down" when I only made 10 edits today, most of them to just 4 entries, and yesterday all I did was work on Spanish language animal sounds which I would think is extremely uncontroversial, especially since they are all included at RAE.es. Psychmological was RFV'd, I was certain it was a legitimate term but could only find one seemingly suitable cite but I thought others would be aware of the term and one was, another editor chipped in and added more cites after I listed it on RFV myself to protest its quick deletion. Ejamactional was one I was able to cite and I was told by other editors that I made up the words, but clearly I did not. I am more than willing to go through my old entries for sure, although I have forgotten what some of the accounts were, thankfully most are medically related, intitialisms, and vulgarities. But I will continue to work on them regardless. I noticed on the block log you unblocked me but my IP address is still blocked thus blocking my account. It's okay I think you just blocked me in good faith albeit hastily and without any due process, thanks for unblocking me instead of just forgetting about it.Lucifer (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let's clarify a few things. First, you say that I blocked you without "any due process". Let's make something crystal clear right off the bat, there is no due process. If an administrator thinks you're wasting time that could be spent more productively, they block you. That's all the due process we have here. New folks often run into problems because we do things the wrong way, and can't convince us otherwise. A better approach is to assume that most of us have been doing this online dictionary thing for awhile, and the way we do things is generally right, even if you don't understand why. So, as I said before, if you want to add new/slang terms here, that's fine. We genuinely want them. However, you must cite them. Citing them is a lot of work, and most people can't be bothered to do so. If you can't, then please go hang out somewhere else, like Urban Dictionary. If you are willing to put the work into it, then we're happy to have you here, and you'll find people are generally happy to offer assistance, should you need it. However, note that you have already burned through most of the patience people are willing to give you. If you keep creating uncited questionable terms, you are going to find yourself subject to longer and longer blocks. Please stop whining about draconian policies and overbearing editors. We haven't the time to coddle you. Shape up or ship out. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

I've been slowly going through the batch of new words added to WT:REE at the start of the year. "Cronehood" was among those words — that's why I created an entry for it. I was unaware the word had a second sense specific to Wicca. Thanks for adding that!

When I initially gathered citations at Citations:cronehood, I did so in the understanding there was only one sense ("the condition of being an elderly woman; the time during which a woman is elderly"), but now that I know there's a second sense, I realize there might actually be some citations that apply to the second, Wicca-specific sense mixed in there. Since you seem to be familiar with the topic of Wicca, could I ask you to look over the citations page, and if there's any misplaced Wicca sense citations in the first section, to move them to the second sense section where they belong? Thanks! :) Astral (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I appreciate it. Astral (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Already got lemma form damned if one does and damned if one doesn't. Please fix all your links to go here instead. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does feel like a proverb but it seems to take all kinds of forms ("they're damned if they..." etc.). Equinox ◑ 02:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lucifer. Thanks again for your entries, it is always a pleasure to read them. Of your recent Spanish entries, culón is my favourite. To let you know, we call this type of word an augmentative. solterón, cabezón and mujerona are other good examples of augmentatives in Spanish. Keep on rocking, dude! --Itkilledthecat (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this actually (deprecated template usage) silicone rather than (deprecated template usage) silicon? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you put the "-" back in the templates. This is the wrong way to go. If you're treating them as proper nouns, change the part of speech header to "Proper noun" and use the {{en-proper noun}} template, instead of trying to make them work as common nouns. See the entry for God to see how someone else did it.

The horned god term definitely looks like a proper noun to me, and the triple goddess one may be as well (though whether it can be used in the plural is a matter for debate, even then). As common nouns, they would have to be countable: uncountable would be for something like sand or water, for which the whole idea of singular vs. plural doesn't apply- you wouldn't use it for something that is singular only because there happens to be only one of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did you want to go through the rfd process to have the deletions voted on, or did you just want to delete them? If the latter, you would use {{delete}} instead of {{rfd}} Chuck Entz (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

(breath sounds) Hi. Please don't do this. When you re-added, you must have seen the warning banner, showing that it had been deleted before, and why. Equinox ◑ 00:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It failed RFD. Simple as that. Do you have some incredibly convincing citations up your sleeve from real publications? And do they show anything more than "sounds caused by breath" which is SoP? Equinox ◑ 00:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

You realise that adding terms to "lung sounds" does not provide any evidence for "breath sounds". Equinox ◑ 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

When reading the quotation at lung sounds you will see that it states "lung or breath sounds..."Lucifer (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

But they are just the SOUNDS of BREATH. No more worthy of an entry than "Brown leaf" - a leaf that is brown. Please slow down and stop adding stuff like heart sounds before this is resolved by process at RFD (which you already sidestepped, and I am giving you another good-faith chance there). Equinox ◑ 01:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Whistling is a sound of the breath, but it is not a breath sound" -- am not convinced your citations demonstrate this. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Emergency care and transport of the sick and injured literally lists what breath sounds to note, specifically the ones I listed at lung sounds. No where does it say sneezing or laughing or whistling is one.Lucifer (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't mean that whistling isn't a breath sound. It only means that it isn't important in healthcare, which is outside a dictionary's purview. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Are you blocking me for an entry I did not even create? Or are you just sore cause I proved you wrong Mr. not a doctor? Wikipedia states, "In cardiac auscultation, an examiner may use a stethoscope to listen for these unique and distinct sounds that provide important auditory data regarding the condition of the heart to a trained observer." You auscultate with a stethoscope and you use a stethoscope to listen to the lungs AND the heart! You may want to see wikipedia's article on ausculation, [1] Auscultation where it clearly states that lung sounds and breath sounds are considered. Your edits to auscultate are medically inaccurate.

No, I think he’s complaining about your linking of "heart sounds." He feels that "heart sounds" is SoP and not eligible as a separate entry. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Right but in any case, he changed auscultate to To practice auscultation; to examine by auscultation; to listen to the respiratory system for lung sounds through a stethoscope which is inaccurate factually and I have shown him evidence of such. You can auscultate heart sounds and he has repeatedly and ignorantly removed that from the entry.Lucifer (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you do translations like this, could you please add a translation gloss like this? In superannuate, I can't tell which sense the translation you gave corresponds to. —Internoob 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

e.g. [2], [3]. I think you once said somewhere that you are dyslexic (sorry if I'm mixing you up with someone else); if that is true, maybe it would make more sense for you to suggest revisions on the talk page or WT:TR rather than going ahead with what is often ungrammatical and bizarre. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dunno whether I am a mean person or not but I will take your word for it. I still think my comment above is true. I value truth (and building a good, usable dictionary) over not offending people. Equinox ◑ 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mocking someone with a learning disability is not funny. Neither is pretending that they should not be able to edit here just because you hate us. Also if you value truth why did you ignore the fact that ausculate is widely used to describe listening to both the lungs and the heart even after I provided proof?Lucifer (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

By the way, (deprecated template usage) auscultate is in fact used for the heart, rather frequently, in fact. I have changed the definition to reflect that. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

@Luciferwildcat, evidence of mocking please. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty simple: calling other people "really mean" is not acceptable. We're all assholes sometimes, but the trick is not to respond like an asshole in turn. I know, it's not like you were swearing, but it can still be offensive. So, from now on, if you want to insult somebody, please do it on my talkpage and don't bother everyone else. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have been repeatedly called far worse by other editors here and they have never been blocked. Is it acceptable people make fun of your disability and attempt to discredit you as an invalid participant in an open wiki project because they only want non-disabled people to be able to edit? My edit history clearly shows an ability to learn complex programming in order to improve what I am able to contribute here. I used language that was far less incendiary and toned done as compared to my counterpart in the discussion.Lucifer (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)21:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Find me some direct insults that are worse, in conjunction with disruptive or semi-disruptive editing, and I will block them too. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ever heard of User:Dick Laurent? I recall being called a "wild bitch" and repeated disgusting suggestions that he would stop harassing me if I let him "lick my asshole"; it just seems that there is one set of rules for a small group of editors here and another set of rules for the rest and the first group is allowed to bully all others inconsequentially, even disruption is not vandalism per Wikipedia rules which are valid here when there is no policy here to contradict it and it's very disingenuous and unproductive to not make any attempt at all to even mediate anythingLucifer (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good point there. I don't think that matters, though, because Ric is becoming more inactive, and blocking him for any noticeable period of time will just cause him to leave altogether. The yardstick against which we measure need for a block, however, is in this case dependent on the wellbeing of the project as a whole. Equinox and Ric both can be realistically expected to make more productive edits than you, based on past editing histories. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, and local Wikipedia rules are NOT valid here. Just so you can't wikilawyer me too much. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know they don't all universally apply and there is a huge grey area, but I have read on policy pages here that when in doubt you should consider the wikipedia equivalent and apply it literally or in spirit here. I am not trying to lawyer anything here just seeking clarification because after it being found acceptable to be called a wild bitch (which was one of the nicer things I was called by that user) I never thought telling someone that their insensitive comments being mean would get me blocked. I feel there is not justice in these unparallelled rationales.Lucifer (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

What disruptive edits? And I would like a diff for the alleged insult. I have not insulted anyone with any curse words. Equinox made very discriminatory and offensive statements about people with disabilities directed at me and my learning disability. I simply told him that that was "mean" but that is hardly an insult, especially when compared to him suggesting I should not be allowed to edit due to my disability. I believe the wikimedia foundation would be highly critical of such uninclusive and discrimination statements here.

Lucifer (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, here's the insult diff: Equinox's userpage. An insult does not have to contain curse words. Show me a diff where Equinox suggests that you should not edit at all because of your disability. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Right above in the previous thread he says, If I am, "dislexic" "it would make more sense for [me] to suggest revisions on the talk page or WT:TR rather than" make "bizarre" edits, here Jumbling around a few characters is not bizarre it's a minor issue that I routinely clean up, which I did not hesitate to do or learn from when a much more civil ambassador of criticism Internoob did here which resulted in these edits. I think bullying comments about people's learning abilities especially when they demean someone with a clear track record of working around their disability to create entries just as good as others rooted in a personal dislike of another user and exploiting that disability to discredit them instead of the merits of his edits would be described as bullying and mean by anyone. But I spose since I am the one with a disability I should just shut up and go to the back of the bus or on the short bus like a good boy instead of confront discrimination?Lucifer (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

An earnest statement that begins with "maybe it would make more sense" is not "mocking", as you allege. I don't really clean up after you, so I wouldn't know, but misspellings are a major problem in a dictionary that is, among other things, telling people how to spell words, and yet you are still writing "dislexic" for "dyslexic". The bottom line is that if you checked your spelling and grammar (even by means of spellcheck), stopped getting into wikifights, and tried in good faith to add only acceptable words, you wouldn't be blocked right now. I'd say complaining to someone else or waiting three days are your best options. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's telling me I am an invalid perhaps with a cloud of courtesy but it's a non-disabled's sign nevertheless, whether I spell it dislexic or not, I don't frequently make spelling errors in actual entries that I don't catch myself quickly. I regularly patrol my previous entries and update and expand them. I don't know what wikifight you are refering to, I didn't initiate calling someone mean they did calling me retarded. And why does it not matter that others can call me a wild bitch or worse while I can't say someone is mean and speak my mind? How do you reconcile that?Lucifer (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Er, was that a reference to Gattaca? Anyway, I have noticed that you fix your entries, but often leave mistakes as well. You are not describing past events in good faith. Please note that I am highly unlikely to respond any more to this thread. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't quoting anyone but telling me I basically need to ask others to do things for me is calling me retarded for all intents and purposes, it's discrimination and retaliation. No reference to Gattacca intended, the term invalid predates that film considerably if my pea sized brain serves me any well. Well it doesn't really matter if you don't it's not like you reply to anything I say. You just blocked me because you felt like it because I did not say anything remotely insulting based on the community standards that everyone else around here is held to.Lucifer (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't insulting anyone. The FACTS are that dyslexics can't write very well, and you are dyslexic, therefore you can't write very well; while Wiktionary is a resource that explains how to write, and what words mean (a writing skill), so you are not well equipped to edit. It's like letting a blind man drive a bus. If you used the talk pages and made suggestions, people who are capable of writing (which, yes, doesn't make them better than you) could easily take your suggestions and write them in standard English, which will help language learners. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is a very ignorant statement. I write excellently and had straight As in College. It is a fact you don't know anything about dyslexia. It encompasses much more than jumbled letters or a stutter. Most writers actually have an LD most people of little fame are rarely famous writers or able to do anything than write a formulaic journal entry for an engineering study. Your views on the disabled are highly offensive and outdated. It is true blind people cannot drive a car but they can play basketball, use a computer, read, write, text message, and ride a bike. My blind friend Donna actually can also drive a car, wheelchair, and tractor! See there's this thing called working with what you've got and disabled people are actually predisposed to developing echolocation. Sighted people can too but usually never feel a need too. My legally blind grandmother text messages me everyday. She can't see any of the keys but she memorized which is which and every menu and has the phone read the message back to her aloud. A blind person that cannot echolocate cannot play basketball, and a dyslexic person that cannot spell can't contribute to a dictionary; however a blind person that can echolocate can can play basketball, and obviously a dyslexic dictionary contributor is able to write dyslexic entries so poorly that other editors approve of them being added to the main page as a word of the day such as plutodemocracy, front runner, ultra light rail, paratransit, cronehood, ferryboat, pink slime, reptilianness, militaresque, sibilant rhonchi, otorhinolaryngology, covenstead, linguica, love goggles, acculture, not to mention that I am literate and fluent in three languages you pompous bigot!!! REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION NOW! Also spell check does not work for an online dictionary that has thousands of words not included in spell check like monsterization, or assholic that can be durable and reliable cited in widespread use so it does not solve any spelling errors. I do double check or triple check everything I do and every time someone tells me I am making mistakes I learn a way to fix them, I will occasionally make an error nevertheless but so will you. Non dyslexics make errors too but no one says to you, "hey stop editing because you are normal brained and are not making an insightful unique errors you normie!", do they? And you know one more thing it can be spelled dislexic too! I will be sure to add it once you remove the block, see here dislexic, so basically how does it feel to be confronted as the hateful anti-disabled crusader of wiktionary who is always wrong? So you can't spell yourself, that is the benefit of a wiki we all work together and instead of whining about mistakes we as common stakeholders either fix it ourselves or help another out. One more thing, dislexia is mostly a READING not a spelling disability. It effects my ability to proofread, so I do sincerely check my entries sometimes dozens of times before I can notice the mistake because block blo k bkock biock and b ock can all look the same to many people with or without dyslexia, but look at those entries I provided, where are the rampant mistakes you speak of? Did you really have me blocked cause I said your comments and discrimination was mean? Or you just hate crippled people don't you? MUCH shame and guilt for you!Lucifer (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have some kind of persecution complex. And since when does dyslexia count as being "crippled"? Anyway, if you're so able and competent, then edit properly instead of making an awful mess that necessitates fixing and blocking. I'm not the only admin who has blocked you, by any stretch. You can keep screaming at all of us or you can fucking behave and edit properly. (I note that Wikipedia has had problems with you, too.) Equinox ◑ 23:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I've noticed you openly insulting people on their talk pages. Please stop. Disagreeing with editors is ok, insulting them is not. I will indefinitely block you if you carry on insulting people; that is, if another admin doesn't do it first. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

What insults? And where were you when Dick Laurent was repeatedly insulting me? And don't give me that oh well we think he is a better editor than you bs.Lucifer (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for absolutely no reason. I was not abusing multiple accounts as blocker claims, I have not used any other account this week, month, or year!71.142.69.216 06:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bullshit, stop lying. You're well aware of all the trouble you've been causing, mostly bad editing and inability/unwillingness to improve, but also abusing multiple accounts (as you just have done using your IP) and intimidating behavior/harassment. If you're genuinely unaware of what you've been doing, you need to take a good hard look at yourself. PS have allowed Luciferwildcat account to email and edit this talk page in order for this discussion to continue. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Trouble is very vague, are you able to specify with one example from the last month, just one? Mind you, a minor spelling, bolding, or formatting error that I was quickly fixed (by me) would not be an acceptable example. Please show me an area you have brought to my attention that I have been unable to improve upon. Lately I was aksed to use a pipe ("|") whenever I added translation boxes and I stated doing so. An IP is not an account. My username plus my IP is not multiple accounts. You and everyone else here regularly edits with their IP address too, because computers log people out. When you edit with an IP account you get asked to create an account, why? Because an IP address is not an account. What harassment or intimidation? I say calling my plea "bullshit" when you can't cough up a diff is intimidation and completely unfounded. Everyone is 100% unaware of my abusing multiple accounts because it is not happening. What are the other accounts?Lucifer (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is not a question of lying. If he is accused of abusing multiple accounts, just show the diffs to prove it. Nothing could be simpler. I took a look and could not find any evidence that he used either of the mentioned accounts during the last eight months. If no diffs exist to show otherwise, then he is right when he said he did not use any other accounts this year. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Unblocked. The reasons given for the block were: "Abusing multiple accounts: User:Gtroy, User:Acdcrocks. persistent bad editing and refusal to improve." No evidence has been presented that either of those accounts have been abused. They have not even been used since 2011. Also, I can’t find the cases of bad editing that were alluded to, and cannot find any comments mentioning improval that he has refused. And I see no evidence that he has lied about anything, in spite of the completely unsupported accusation made above. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Merely reading this talk page would show you the cases of bad editing. I know you're anti-block in general, and have protested almost any long-term block ever made, but try to pay attention. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you were to do just that you would only find complaints on your end about very minor grammar differences in a definition that you created and a content dispute between yourself and I regarding the inclusion of lung sounds, breath sounds, breathe sounds, and respiratory sounds that we both took very seriously but that you claimed I was recreating in violation of the rules, rules that lay out very clearly that it is okay to resurrect a moribund entry if the original was baseless, either a humorous or vandalistic entry or lacking attribution, I redadded it in very good faith with good citations from reputable medical texts and you indiscriminately deleted them without any due process in the RFD or RFV namespaces which led to their extreme prejudice, furthermore they were barely given a fair trial from the misleading statements you made about them calling them "lucifier trash" (or something to the tone of that) and no one could see what I had entered. Those are the absolute only disputes between myself and anyone (so only you) in months. I will admit I do have serious problems identifying adjective versus noun usage and I recently realized why, all adjectives in Spanish are also nouns and since that is my first language I tend to have an inability to easily differentiate them, nevertheless in the case of barebum/barebutt and barearse I strongly believe that barebutts (plural) for example is attestable and therefore this is an adjective and noun word. Still would you cough up one diff showing cause for "intimidating behaviour/harassment" and another for "disruptive editing" That would be really nice if going forward you could show honor and integrity by stating directly the exact reason you are blocking me with evidence.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reblocked with a more accurate summary. So, everyone happy now? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Still would you cough up one diff showing cause for "intimidating behaviour/harassment" and another for "disruptive editing" That would be really nice if going forward you could show honor and integrity by stating directly the exact reason you are blocking me with evidence.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

In addition there is no "eight months" rule about abusing multiple accounts. His original account (I believe User:Gtroy) was blocked and he worked around it. Wonderfool was first blocked who knows how long ago, at least 2006, and seems to be fair game for reblocking at any time (sometimes he behaves, but sometimes he makes a damn mess — just like Lucifer). The onus is on Stephen Brown to show us the eight-months rule, which I've never heard of. Equinox ◑ 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is consensus which every wiki is based on and community consensus decided last year I can come back if I stick to one account and I have met my end of the bargain, why are you so intent on unburying a dead horse? I think you might just have it out for me for some unknown reason at this point as if you had a serious rationale you would have exhausted yourself with a diff orgy but you can't so you are just making things up and have the audacity to claim I am full of "bullshit". That is low and sad.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reading this talk page did not show me the cases of bad editing. You need diffs. Your accusation that I am anti-block in general is unfounded and untrue. Your claim that I have protested almost any long-term block ever made is not only untrue, it is a deliberate misrepresentation. It implies that you know how many long-term blocks have ever been made, and that you know how many I have protested. Tell me how many long-term blocks have been made. How many have I protested? Show diffs.

(1) There is no "eight-month rule", but it is completely unreasonable to let someone edit for eight months after stopping a behavior and then suddenly block him for it. Your phrase "refusal to improve" is an important consideration and it implies that we frown on a stubborn refusal to stop doing something when warned that it is unacceptable, but it also implies that stopping doing the thing after being warned is the improvement that was needed. If someone breaks a rule for a short time at the beginning, then stops for a long period of time, it is strong evidence that he has stopped. (2) There are valid reasons to have multiple accounts; having multiple accounts does not automatically mean that he is abusing the privilege. Abusing multiple accounts usually means some sort of fraud. Luciferwildcat never tried to hide who he was and did not use multiple accounts for any sort of fraud. He was not trying to use more than one account at a time. What happened last year was that Ric had made one of his sharp comments to Luciferwildcat, and to someone new who does not know Ric at all, it struck him as being particularly offensive, so he made a comment about it that pissed Ric off (something that is sometimes easy to do). So Ric used his blocking powers to bully Luciferwildcat, blocking User:Gtroy and other accounts as he found them. User:Gtroy had not committed any sins against the project and the blocks and multiple accounts were a matter of a personal dispute with Ric...the blocks should not have been used for that purpose and were abusive, but trying to get around the unfair blocks to address the problem was not unreasonable. The only reason Luciferwildcat created additional accounts was to try to deal with the bullying. After Ric stopped blocking him, he did not create other accounts. His short history of multiple account was a natural reaction to the bullying and not used in a fraudulent way or in a way that was a detriment to this project.

The now-reworded reason for the new block is "intimidating behavior/harassment, disruptive edits." We have had a lot of editors argue with one another and say nasty things, such as when you just now falsely accused me of "protesting almost any long-term block ever made" (I suppose you are referring to the time that I tried to moderate the personal dispute between Ric and User:Razorflame), or when Robert Ullmann charged me with committing genocide because I sided with Ivan on the Serbo-Croatian issue. None of that nastiness has ever been deemed by us to be "intimidating behavior or harassment" to a degree that calls for permanent blocking. When Luciferwildcat said you were "being mean", that, compared to what we normally put up with, is in no way intimidation or harassment, especially since Luciferwildcat has no power to block or otherwise harass anyone. It seems to me that Luciferwildcat is the one being intimidated and harassed.

We block anons regularly, for days, weeks, months, or indefinitely, and summarily, at the drop of a hat. This is a necessary evil for us, given all the factors, and we have to do it. It is not necessary to do it that way to our registered active editors who are clearly trying to be useful, however. For our very few registered active and eager editors like Luciferwildcat, we have a moral duty to be reasonable and fair. Blocking him because Ric bullied him a year ago is not reasonable. Disruptive editing might be a good reason, but you need diffs.

Given your fantastic accusations against me above, it is clear that this needs to go to WT:BP for community action. If you want to get rid of an eager registered editor, you need specific reasons and complaints, and the complaints need to be true, relevant, and significant. That means diffs, evidence of warnings, etc. So far you have shown no evidence against Luciferwildcat. Maybe it’s there, but I could not find it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time and being so thorough, I would not have remembered all that nor how to recall it or articulate it in such a way. Is there a way we can just do an interaction ban between me and equinox for a period of time? That seems to work very well on wikipedia. Also I tried to take this to the beer parlour but equinox or mglovesfan removed it citing vandalism or that I was splintering the topic to too many places and that I was misusing things in general or something to that extent.Lucifer (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, we don’t have anything like an interaction ban. Wikipedia has a lot of policies in place to protect the editors from each other, but here we have nothing of the sort. We do always want more good editors, but, since we have so few active regulars (only about 20 in total, while Wikipedia has thousands of admins and many thousands of regular editors), nobody here has much time to devote to helping new editors...new editors are expected to learn quickly to make clean edits that do not need repair, and to be able to recognize and fix their own mistakes. The learning curve is very steep, much more so than on Wikipedia, but I tend to agree that you’ve been given a raw deal. Ric is eccentric and easily irritated...when he started in on you last year, we did not have any policies to act as a check, and some other editors may have assumed that he was being objective and so may have decided on that basis that you’re a bad apple. It’s called the mobbing syndrome.

As I indicated above, I have posted it to the Beer Parlour, but don’t get your hopes up. Since we have so few regulars, nobody wants to take the time even to monitor the drastic actions of some admins, but just hope that problems will fix themselves or go away. I don’t think there is anything more to be done, it all depends on whether enough people in the Beer Parlour think you have a reasonable case, and if they think it can be fixed without too much wasted time and effort. If nothing gets done about it, then you might think about becoming more involved at es:Wikcionario:Portada. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well it is very heartfelt and I really appreciate it. I wish I knew why these people are doing this. I have tried to hard to keep up here but the experienced users are so extremely critical and unwilling to let new people in. I guess the community is too small to care. But I spose I can just create a new account on my other computer, school, or work and try and keep it low key. Spanish wiktionary has super complicated write up, I don't think I could learn it without getting booted off there too.Lucifer (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

seriously can you just prove your baseless accusations with a diff?

Equinox deleted his talk page, so I can see the diff using Special:Undelete, but I can't show it to you. @Stephen G. Brown, at this point you're either lying or just too lazy to read this talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why can't you specify at all? Are you unable or unwilling to? All I am hearing is "I don't like you Troy". What on this talk page is intimidation/harassment?Lucifer (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You know you've done it, you don't need evidence. It's a bit like me asking you for evidence that I'm wearing a blue T-shirt right now. Perhaps you should remain indefinitely blocked just for out and out lying throughout this talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have not presented a shred of evidence to show what error or errors you’re talking about, no evidence whatsoever that he knows he’s done "it", and no evidence at all that he has told any lies. You, on the other hand, were lying when you called him a liar for claiming that he had not used "any other account this week, month, or year". If you can’t show proof that he is lying "throughout this talk page", it means you’re the one who is lying. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If anyone has a chance could they delete posavaso, it is actually a plurale tantum per RAE[4]Lucifer (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

ghetto lottery (uncountable)

1. (idiomatic, US) A financial windfall obtained by a poor person
   • 1977, Jack Newfield, Paul Du Brul, The abuse of power: the permanent Government and the fall of New York, link

     The experts all agree that sports betting and the numbers game — the ghetto lottery — are the biggest sources of income for the mob, and this money is used to finance other rackets like narcotics, loansharking...

   • 2003, Michael Eric Dyson, Why I love black women, link

     Marcia's father, known in his neighborhood as "Duke," became quite a gambler, betting on horses, dogs, boxing matches, and even policy, or "playing the numbers," which was the ghetto lottery, so to speak.

   • 2011, Bao Phi, Song I Sing, link

     ...soup too expensive for her to be declared slant-eyed Jesus of the ghetto lottery tickets fat with long promises just beneath her reach.

Created it, with some changes. Most importantly, the third citation can’t be seen directly and therefore can’t be trusted. Luckily I found another citation in usenet. It’s also important to write down the page number of citations. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a bunch, I am thinking there are two senses now. The one I always new was using an undeserved shakedown lawsuit to just make some money by a poor person especially a black or brown person, but the second is the one I came up with after finding those first two citations that support a casino related windfall, your citation seems to legitimize my original understanding of the term however, what do you think?Lucifer (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I have created this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/2012-07/Blocking of Luciferwildcat. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Cool, thanks for the effort, I appreciate it.Lucifer (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

yes i would naturally vote for myself to not be blocked and i would like liliana's vote to be nullified for claiming its based on unsubstantiated "misbehavior" while using very rude and abusive language in my opinion.Lucifer (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, see Special:Contributions/Luciferwildcat. There's a difference between lack of evidence and just refusing to look at the evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are refusing to specify in any way shape or form. Why can't you even mention what you are talking about. The link to my contribs is every edit I ever made and they are not 100% even remotely objectionable. I don't see any misbehavior/intimidation/harassment, if its so rampant why are you scared to give a diff to back up your spurious and or fabricated claims?Lucifer (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

still don't see why I am block, Ruakh, what intimidating behavior harassment?

Ruakh was just copying the original wording. Be grateful that he commuted your sentence instead of bickering that it will last a few more days (it would have otherwise lasted much longer in all likelihood). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just never understand because a lot of things don't make sense here and am trying to make sense of it. There was no talk about continuing my block nor any mention of 6 days so this arbitrary extension of a block that did not pass isn't something I should be grateful for.Lucifer (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense to anyone, but that's becuase the honest truth is that we didn't know what to do. Complete lack of consensus. I still think Ruakh made the right decision. If you disagree, you can take it up with him once your block expires, although I would advise you just to leave him alone.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is pretty cut and dry 58% opposed the block so I should be unblocked.Lucifer (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

For better or for worse, you will be. In two days. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well if not now than then, I so dislike the "indimidating behavior / harassment" label, even blank or "for complicated wiktionary reasons" would be better. And for better Meta, for better.Lucifer (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Haha. I'll take your word for it, maybe you'll actually improve, copy-paste your entries into a text editor and run spellcheck first, or something like that. Who knows. Good luck, Troy. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I actually have firefox enabled to do that whenever I am editing any text within the browser i.e. it underlined "spellcheck" in your comment and "firefox" here in mine but not "Firefox" so it knows. Any other advice? And thanks.Lucifer (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's good. Yeah, really my only other main piece of advice is to check if entries can be cited before you add them. If you find you're making little errors on regular tasks (like, say, adding new Spanish nouns), I might be able to make templates for you that would solve those problems. Just ask. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay I will, I think I am permanently challenged when it comes to the Spanish even if I copy and paste. I think I may create the citations page too from now on.Lucifer (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually object to using "nigger" in a definition (although I think you've gotta be careful, and use the appropriate "ethnic slur" glosses etc.); it was someone else who objected to that. My edit was adding "small", because -ling implies it, and the given citations seem to support it. It's a bit like -let in niglet. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ahh that I understand and it's pretty obvious (we had settled on "diminutive stature"), it's simply that we talked about the definition on the talk page and I thought we had reached consensus so its annoying and confusing when other editors in this case Ruakh interrupt and don't participate with the rest, you made the most recent edit so I did not want to edit war just contact the most recent editor and as for the glosses I made sure to include them "pejorative" is there and so is "ethnic slur", is the ethnic slur one done right, it links to each individual word.Lucifer (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Two things:

• Different definitions should be on different lines.
• {{sense}} in used for semantic relations (-onyms) and usage notes. Use {{gloss}} in definitions.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

([5]) {{gloss}} is only used in definitions; use {{term}} in etymologies. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

seriously blocking me over repeated editorial changes that are meant to reach consensus is ridiculous, why can't this be discussed on the talk page. I suggest we ask the beer parlour what should be done about this definition and unblock me.

I have unblocked you. Consider yourself lucky. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do me a personal favor. Stop doing stupid things. Your definition of (deprecated template usage) nocturnavore is awful, if it even exists. You should have checked for citations and try substituting your def in for the word in the quotes. You'd notice that it'd make no sense.
Really, you do this as soon as you're unblocked? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just heard it on the news used to describe McDonalds new shareholders meeting where they are attempting to attract more customers at night time.Lucifer (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do me a personal favour and respect my blocks. I might sound like a cunt but I know what I'm doing. Equinox ◑ 00:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I respect you for who you are (cunt or otherwise), but I won't respect blocks that I think are abusive. I think a paragraph of explanation and a few diffs would have made a big difference. I'll go look at niggerling's history and see what I think. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I should have never unwatchlisted that page. A block was definitely in order. Then again, Equinox, your actions have also been of the standard that usually merit a block around here. So you both should be quite happy to be unblocked right now. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Are you serious? You blocked me for adding citations which you don't like? It was brought to my attention that you wanted cites for unambiguous entries such as grandgirl but when I add the cites you block me because you claim erroneously that they only "look" correct butb are not? If I made a mistake did it ever come across your mind that you could inform me of a mistake? Perhaps I copied the wrong link however they were all bona fide quotations from google books if you search the citation on google books you would find the source. Could you provide a diff for this? Also this cannot be a blockable offense and this is total bullshit, why are you doing this? Also at the entry for birfday I added a citation that stated, Why don't you make somebody's birfday cake, Rachel? see it here and it matches the citation here then Ruakh said this was the wrong information and misleaded here and blocked me but either s/he put no effort into finding out the correct information or is outright lying and abusing their powers here. Lucifer (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

hello anyone there?Lucifer (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I gather that it was for editwarring at niggerling. In future, after you make an edit, you should move on to a new word and not worry about what changes others make to you edit. It can be constructive to see how your edit was changed, but don’t interfere with the changes made by admins or established users. If someone screws it up after you, it’s their problem, not yours. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, it wasn't related to that; it was for adding defs with misleading quotations. In particular, LW added a bunch of AAVE "eye dialect of" spellings, supported by sources like James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, only with wrong metadata that obscured the otherwise-obvious wrongness. —Ruakh_TALK 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

How are any of the quotations misleading!? They are examples of the usage of the words in print. It is common for th to be supplanted with f and even being spelled that way in America it stems from Black English also known as AAVE or Ebonics, some have parallels with Southern American English as well but their origin is in African languages which is why the th f merger came to the USA. What wrongness? I used google books here and that's what was quoted.71.142.69.216 03:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you really not know who James Joyce is and what Finnegans Wake is, *and* not care enough to look them up? Even after my comments? —Ruakh_TALK 03:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea who that is or what the wake book is about. I have picked up from the context that it is tantamount to mein mapf though, or not as bad? Would you just tell me what I did wrong? I am very sincerely intentioned here and though I would get blocked if I didn't attribute birfday or wif eye dialect entries. This makes me sad.71.142.69.216 08:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you do not use diffs to discuss the edit, I don’t think you will ever be able to understand what Ruakh is saying, and Ruakh will not understand what you are saying. For all I know, the two of you are not even speaking of the same edit. Why are there no diffs of this in the discussion? Do you know how to link to a diff? If not, I can explain it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are actually diffs within this section with me explaining what I am talking about.Lucifer (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

[6] and [7] are two examples where Luciferwildcat created pages with one definition, labeled AAVE, and add a citation that indirectly cited Finnegans Wake, despite the fact that Finnegans Wake proves that labeling it AAVE is too limited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Look it up. The fact that you use Finnegans Wake as an example of AAVE and for whatever reason, despite being corrected, have not looked up Finnegans Wake is concerning; your response doesn't indicate that in the future you will take more care to properly understand the context of your cites before using them, if you can't understand the context here after having it pointed out to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the burden be on the person attempting to explain what is wrong with the whole situation? I did in fact look up FW although it seems you did not assume good faith here, nevertheless all I found was the fact that it is a difficult book to read because it is like a 7 layer cake that runs between different stories sub stories interruptions and has a difficult to follow continuity with no traditional beginning middle climax end conclusion. Now what is the problem with labeling a term I am under the impression of belonging to the AAVE group of terms and also then adding a citation of the term? This dictionary is full of glosses followed by uses that don't match the common gloss of the term all I am saying is that a block for that was uncalled for especially when there was no edit war or conflict over the content. If you didn't like the citation I chose why not improve it by adding one you think better illustrates the term. Also if the sentence does not illustrate usage of the word as defined it is clearly being used in another way and perhaps you should be bold and add in a new definition. Now what is wrong with the quotes I used!? For being such a critical vocal bunch it seems whenever a question such as where is the diff or what do you mean then you bite your tongue or you all get memory fog and then you complain I don't want to learn or understand when you can't make anything beyond a vague accusation and expect exceptional clairvoyance on my end. I have looked into it and asked you all if that is right or wrong. I will ask again. Is the quote somehow racist and inappropriate? Is there something else wrong with this book? If so, what? Just tell me in one word. Evil? Spanglish not AAVE? Misspelled? Something else?Lucifer (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

FW is a work by an Irish author set in Ireland with Irish characters. You should not label a word AAVE and then add a cite that proves it's not just AAVE. You should never use a cite that doesn't support what you're using it for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

And that merit's a block? Just because it is citable elsewhere it suddenly isn't AAVE? People in Europe, Australia, Africa, and Whites in America use the term "nigga" and other black english terms, that doesn't suddenly make them not AAVE if you ask me.Lucifer (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you have a cite for something and it doesn't support the definition, don't attach it to that definition. The fact is that Joyce's use of those terms was certainly not remotely related to AAVE; it is a long standing feature of Irish English, one that possibly predates the first black slave brought to the US. I'll let the person who gave the block argue for the block, but I'm still concerned that you don't see anything problematic about writing a definition and adding a cite to that definition that doesn't support it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does support the definition which is that it is a variation of birthday. The cite supports that. It also happens to be widely AAVE, also there is a strong correlation between the English used by poor Irish American immigrants to the south and that adopted by their black property that survives to this day. Jamaican Creole English for example is extremely closely to the Irish English variant you better recognize.Lucifer (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

And there's the problem that you added a cite that named a book that was quoting from Finnegans Wake instead of actually citing Finnegans Wake itself. It's not always easy to get a good cite, but you still should have listed the author as James Joyce and made it as clear as possible who you were citing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well of the thousands of citations I have added I don't believe I have ever added a quote from another book that happened to be quoting another book, do you expect me to read every single book most of which only a snippet is available to me for free? Or buy and read every book? I mean what you are asking here is impossible. Why not be a good neighbor and point that out to me and how and against which policy that is? Nothing wrong with it, it is just a usex, the original words in FW might as well be a popular colloquialism, I doubt that writer was ever the first one to phrase such a sentence and what will you espouse I shall be blocked for not knowing the proto-origins next time? That sir is ridiculous.Lucifer (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

What you have done very many times is to quote a book without even checking the sentence to see if the word is being used in the way that your definition suggests it is. The most ridiculous case was where you found a quiz book asking "does the word XX mean (i) something, (ii) something else..." and used this to support a totally false definition that was one of the wrong answers. (I forget the word now, but it was xylo- something. I could find it if I had to.) You just don't seem to read the stuff you quote, and you also seem to use "I heard it once, or my friend said it" in place of a citation, which is not okay at all. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That xylo word was a requested word and that was the only useage that could be found so we were trying to figure it all out. I wasn't trying to sneak anything in baby. And I did read it, a quiz seemed like a refreshment to the typical sentence we use here. New ideas are good don't be such a bitter luddite when it comes to ingenuity, maybe this idea didn't pan out but if we did things on this project as we did them when it was first launched we wouldn't even support foreign languages would we? It's perfectly okay since 99% of words that I have added I have heard before and that is why I added them in fact 99% of the worlds I have added are words other people use. I have never made a word up and have been able to cite everything from niggerling to cockfag to obeast to DCAPBTLS so don't give me that contrite baseless nonsensical vitriol you love wasting your keystrokes on its stale and worthless and no one was talking to you anyways.Lucifer (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Many of your made-up words have been deleted because there was no proof. That's true. Your comments about wasting keystrokes are just ad hominem bitterness and jealousy. Try to do better research and it will help all of us, especially those who have to clean up your mess. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

What percentage of my words has been deleted? It's very, very low. They are a direct response to your persistent vitriol which is not at all ad hominem. "Have" to? You want to or look for it and you must like it maybe there is some masochism going on there, don't be jealous.Lucifer (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, looking at birfday surely that doesn't merit a block, even for a repeat offender. Ruakh says "misleading quotations" but there's only a link to one in this thread. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I linked to diffs of pawty and Fursday above, both definitions labeled AAVE supported with quotations from a book that was citing Finnegans Wake. I'm not interesting in arguing about the block, but I am concerned that Lucifer doesn't seem willing to understand why that frustrates the rest of us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is also the “citation” he added to nocturnavore. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Birfday and pawty are african american vernacular englush and pawty is NOT in finnigan's wake, why does that frustrate you and why can't you accept that?Lucifer (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? pawty is cited to Finnegans Wake and you yourself originally used a quote from Finnegans Wake to cite it. Finnegans Wake does not have AAVE in it. Thus birfday and pawty are used in dialects of English other than AAVE; they're not just AAVE. A responsible editor would not cite a word from Finnegans Wake and label it AAVE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is predominantly AAVE, any Irish usage is archaic or dated. I am sure someone somewhere said then wrote nigga before any Black person did in America but that doesn't change the fact that the current definition should mark that it is strongly correlated to AAVE.Lucifer (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think s/he's talking about the situation in the alternate dimension hs/e lives in where facts don't matter and diffs are not worth producing, just insinuation and untruth.Lucifer (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don’t wish to get deeply involved with this matter, except to say that a lot of AAVE originates in various dialects of English as spoken in GB and Ireland. It seems that the educated English of the south of England did not like to deal directly with the slaves, but preferred to hire roughs from Ireland and other areas of GB to handle the slaves. So, for example, the AAVE verb aks (ask) has roots all the way back to Middle English and Old English. Old English had the verb ascian, as well as axian or acsian (result of metathesis). Chaucer: "I axe, why the fyfte man Was nought housband to the Samaritan?" —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The problem isn’t whether or not the terms added by Lucifer are really AAVE, the problem is that he added an Irish citation to support that. Imagine that I was accusing a person of a crime, and showed a picture of the person’s brother committing the crime as evidence. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The citations supported the definition. The terms really are AAVE. They are also other things. I found a citation that supports the usage. Not every citation can support every sociolect that is associated. This punctiliousness is both incorrect and disruptive.Lucifer (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

. . . and then put forth a cockeyed explanation for why only the one person could have committed it. —Ruakh_TALK 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

That analogy presents a terribly flawed false dichotomy. In this case the citation does support the definition. A picture of someone's brother is not evidence of anything. A citation showing older usage is relevant. In fact it presents valid and useful etymological history on how the word transferred from Irish to AAVE and has lost its status as the common Irish pronunciation and is now predominantly lower class blacks in the USA.Lucifer (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the citation supports the definition, which is why no one removed it. The problem here is tagging it as AAVE. “A citation showing older usage is relevant” relevant to what? Certainly not for tagging it as AAVE, since it is from an Irish book by an Irish author, with Irish characters, and doesn’t mention or even allude to African Americans. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Citations are not added to represent the gloss or usage notes. Their only purpose is to illustrate actual usage. RELEVANT TO O L D E R U S A G E which is why for example on the citations page we organize the cites by years to show change over time. AAVE is derivative of Irish, maybe you need to take some African American History classes, cause AAVE is Standard Southern American English that is highly influenced by Irish Gaelic, Irish English, in addition to Wolof, Igbo, Yoruba, and other Niger Conglo languages.Lucifer (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also at an entry for say "gracias" we use citations that support the gringo usage of the term, but that doesn't mean it is not a loan word. You are just looking for errors to be spiteful or something cause I don't understand your angle or your refusal to concede the lexical correlation between Irish and AAVE or why you are so obsessed about this one citation and how it doesn't do everything and have every bell and whistle, why don't you get constructive and add in additional citations? Also obviously the since you yourself admit the citation supports the definition what is the problem? The term birfday is predominately AAVE in this day and age. The irish usage is archaic. Get it right.Lucifer (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Funny, because you didn’t add half of what you just said when you created the entry or added that etymology. The lexical correlation between Irish and AAVE is irrelevant for this purpose. You might as well add a Latin citation to prove that a Spanish term exists. If birfday, Fursday, etc. are AAVE (and I think they are), you should search for citations by AAVE speakers. I am obsessing about this because you’ve been adding tons of badly-formatted, wrong and/or uncitable shit for ages and don’t improve when someone gives you another chance. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Of course not that would be encyclopedic. Latin and Spanish are different languages. (And we do include the Latin origin in the etymology when available). AAVE and Irish English are closely related dialects. Since they are unambiguously AAVE then stop Stonewalling that. I did search for them but y'all blocked me before I could do nothin about it now didnya? Don't give me this for ages bs because your first edits where not substantially better than mine. Give me concrete examples of recent edits that I have made that are "badly formatted" under circumstances where I was able to correct them and I don't think you're gonna find nothin. It'll all citable baby. I do be improvin so you better recognize!Lucifer (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

How would it be encyclopaedic to add {{AAVE|Irish English}} instead of just {{AAVE}}? “AAVE and Irish English are closely related dialects”, just like Spanish and Latin are closely related languages. The point is: they aren’t the same, an IE citation is NOT good enough to prove that a term exists in AAVE. You weren’t looking for AAVE citations, you were adding entries. God knows how many more you’d have added hadn’t Ruakh stopped you. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wow. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

To get back to the point — Lucifer, the problems were as follows:

• You added James Joyce cites, and other non-AAVE cites, to support purported AAVE defs. (It's debatable how serious a problem this is, but I think we all can agree that it's less than ideal. At the very least, it should have made you stop and think for a moment.)
• You added these cites without indication that they were from James Joyce. The only reason I knew they were James Joyce cites is that I clicked the link and pieced that together myself. This is the most important fact about the citation, and you got it completely wrong. (To your credit, you did at least include a link. If I'd had to Google the quotation myself to discover that, I would have been even more annoyed.)
• You added an absurd etymology at birfday. If you had understood the citations you were adding, you would have recognized that your explanation didn't hold water.

A new problem is that you wrote above: "AAVE is derivative of Irish, maybe you need to take some African American History classes". You're claiming knowledge now that you obviously didn't have two weeks ago; are you claiming that you've taken "some African American History classes" within the past two weeks? (And I think everyone else here, by the way, already understood the connection. At least, you were the only one demonstrating ignorance of it.) How are we supposed to trust you when you consistently refuse to acknowledge the limits of your knowledge?

By the way, to say that "AAVE is derivative of Irish" is insulting. You probably mean that it's a derivative of Irish English, but even that is too strong a claim IMHO. You'd do better to avoid reaching for vocabulary you haven't mastered.

—Ruakh_TALK 21:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

If the word is also used out of AAVE this is not inideal and here's why: It could be from a similar or correlated dialect and it is (Irish) [Irish may refer to the Irish language or Irish English dialect and it is related]. Since it is used out of AAVE out of AAVE citations do' support the definition. If the word is the same, pronunciation the same or very similar then the citation is okay. Because if the citation is not acceptable to the definition but it is used in a work outside of AAVE then it must be a second sense. But it is not so the definition and the citation do in fact match.

I Accept that I missed the quote within a quote part and that makes the citation not properly attributed but the citation was attributed in good faith with a sentence bolding the word in question, with the author, year bolded, title and a link to where. If it was that bad why not fix it yourself or yelp at me to do it, certainly the citation did not substantially change insomuch as having any adverse academic effect upon an unsuspecting reader.

Would you refresh my memory as to what exactly you mean by absurd etymology at birfday, mind you I was blocked before finishing. I am always open to any coaching when it comes to improving my editing and when there are editorial disputes I am not even reverting anymore which is why I am talking about adding the AAVE gloss to this entry here and not edit warring and have also "slowed down" and have not added numerous entries again but there still seems to be a problem and it smells like the problem is that others just don't want me and would rather stalk me here (no wikistalking I mean quite literally to follow me around and unfairly and draconianly overscrutinize me) and that seems to be a form of bullying to me.

I always knew Ebonics and especially Jamaican English are derivatives of Irish English and I know it from college and I frequently correct people when they claim "aks" vs "ask" is ignorant when it's just inherited from African languages phonetics. The fact is that Irish and AAVE can be so similar that I confused the Irish citation for an AAVE one, but citations are for definitions not for glosses. And don't get all pedantic with me with that a or no a, you're not my schoolteacher and if you are a teacher at all people will hate you for that childish correcting of adults when they are freewriting.Lucifer (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a teacher. And I'm not convinced you're an adult. But my point was simply that the adjective "derivative" is pejorative; if you're O.K. with accidentally saying racist things, fine, but then you have to accept that sometimes you'll get blocked for it. That's not being pedantic, that's acknowledging facts of life. —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced you're an adult either and in language derivative is not ever pejorative its logical and historical, English is derivative of Middle English, Spanish is derivative of Latin, and AAVE is derivative of various West African and Germanic language dialects, accents, and languages. Languages have nothing to do with race just particular cultures and the ability to acknowledge that has nothing to do with anyone's race at all. Personally I have no problem saying anything at all whether it be positive, negative, intentionally or accidentally racist, but that has not occurred here, focusing on facts is what I am proposing and you seem to be attempting to contort and demonize me as racist now due to personal dislike instead of based on content or linguistic and historical actualities and facts. Pedanic is the state you reach when you fastidiously overreach established norms in order to promote blocking me for adding a valid citation. Can we gte back to the actual discussion that we should demark these terms as AAVE already?Lucifer (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an adult — I'm only 27, and I firmly believe that adulthood begins at 40 ;-) — and English is not derivative of Middle English, it's a derivative of Middle English. Don't use words you don't know how to use. (And it's absurd to say that "AAVE is [a] derivative of various West African and Germanic language dialects, accents, and languages". Almost every aspect of that statement is absurd, starting with the distinction between "Germanic language dialects" and "Germanic languages".) —Ruakh_TALK 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

What's absurd is your obsession over the use of the article a and your deliberate ignoring of my point. I'm American and that's just how people actually talk and you can obsess over your outdated grammar all you want while I remain in this century. So the accent of AAVE is highly influenced by that of Irish English. The grammar and syntax is highly influenced by Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, and Wolof. That is why it is derivative, because it originates from these various sources. And just because I don't phrase things the way you prefer them to be does not mean I am wrong nor incorrect.Lucifer (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you think that the adjective "derivative" can mean "being a derivative (of something)" in twenty-first-century American English, then I invite you to find three cites in support of that view. —Ruakh_TALK 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Derivative is a form of derive, derive already means "originate from", derivative is just a conjugated form of this. Nevertheless touche.Lucifer (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Luciferwildcat (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Please cut it out with these ridiculous and unsubstantiated blocks. You say "rided" is made up crap but it has an entry here as a non-standard past tense form of the verb ride, furthermore here are a ton of citations that show rided is in common usage, you also say I "continue to create unattested and downright nonexistent crap" but if you look at my edit history I created rearseat, biker gang, biker bitch, and the verb ride bitch (meaning ride shotgun) with cites, I also added grupera, iatrogenia, nebulizador, vaporizador, fundición, limpia, horno de fundición, pvblic none of which are controvertial or ambiguous, most appear at RAE.es lasty you you can't issue a block for cumulative long term behavior when the community has already voted to keep me. It is completely unjust to block someone infinitely today and claim its because they behaved badly last year and broke the 3rr for example and block them now. That is abuse of power. So I DEMAND YOU GIVE ME SOME DIFFS TO PROVE THESE LIES!.Lucifer (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a side note to anyone watching this page: take a look at this!
@LW: We don't have 3RR; we're not Wikipedia. And you must admit you've made some pretty bad messes. But I'll leave it to Sche to explain why this block is infinite, because that seems too much to me. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about block length, but he does seem to have a stubborn resistance to learning. If his response to his last block had been to promise to be more careful with cites and to promise to make more of an effort to properly cover the uses of words like birfday, it would have gone a lot better. Instead, I didn't really get the impression he understood why other people were frustrated with what he had done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fuck you, I have learened how to edit very well here shut the fuck up. My last several blocks have been completely unwarranted and total bullshit.71.142.72.131 01:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• No one is saying rided is made up. We’re saying rided bitch is made up. Just because two terms exists it doesn’t mean they exist together.
• Having good edits is no excuse to make bad ones, especially not if you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that they’re bad edits.
• “It is completely unjust to block someone infinitely today and claim its because they behaved badly last year [...]”.

Take a look at cumulative, especially the second definition: That is formed by accumulation of successive additions. It’s not claiming that they behaved badly last year, it’s claiming that they have constantly been behaving badly since last year. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you resume editing after your block expires, please avoid adding verb translation tables and translations to noun entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply