Talk:glycodiversification

This entry has passed Wiktionary's verification process without prejudice.

This means that, while adequate citation may not have been recorded, discussion has concluded that usage is widespread and content is accurate
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion

---

glycodiversification

--Connel MacKenzie 08:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Added a couple of references - there's lots more out there. SemperBlotto 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another extant word that can easily be found with both Google and Google books that MacKenzie is too idle to check but just dumps here making work for others. 87.114.156.2 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. As usual, another blatant, pointless lie. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22glycodiversification%22 does not yield anything like three durably archived published references. --Connel MacKenzie 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I said it can "easily be found with both Google and Google books". That is a plain fact, and accusing others of telling lies when that is clearly not the case is hardly constructive. 87.114.156.2 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. In the context of your other trolls, this was simply additional slander. To repeat, b.g.c. does not support your assertions: 1) that something should be checked before nomination, 2) the preposterous assertion that I didn't check first, out of the kindness of my heart, 3) that a sufficient number of durably archived references exist at all. --Connel MacKenzie 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the mutual insults which are not making either of us look too clever. b.g.c does support my assertion that the word can be found there. I didn't say it had sufficient entries to qualify for CFI, simply that it could be found there. As to whether or not you should check - it seems that isn't the way things work here so I retract that objection. House 08:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is semantic. It can be found with the combination of Google and Google books, but it cannot both be found with Google and be found with Google books. The last only returns one hit, which is insufficient. Note that Google web search is unreliable and we do not make a practice of checking it, except that terms can often be deleted immediately if they fail even that. DAVilla 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)