Talk:mayhaps

Is this not a blend of perhaps and maybe, rather than a misconstruction? --Kjhf 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a misconstruction of mayhap based on the false assumption that it is a blend of perhaps and maybe. —Stephen (Disc) 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't the two terms coexist peacefully as opposed to accusing each other of being a mishap? 84.198.56.170 23:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Other webpages and citations indicate it is a legitimate term with around 400 years of usage. Perhaps it should be regarded as archaic or dialectical? Anyway, if I cared more about the Wikipedia, then I would do some research to resolve the issue and even fix the actual entry, but as long as Wikipedia continues supporting spammers, I will continue my policy of occasional comments without editing. Let they who care about the Wikipedia do the actual work and earn the actual recognition, eh? Shanen (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your time is your own, but the reasons you give are wrong: 1) this is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia and 2) we definitely don't support spammers. I delete spam entries and hide spam edits all the time, and permanently block any account used for spamming. If you know of any spam on Wiktionary, please let me know, and I will take care of it (provided it really is spam). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)