Talk:reäction

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Also whereäs, reäct, doïng, variëty, diët. These seem highly suspect, and any cites are clearly likely to be scannos or types. --Le Fondu (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

doïng is crazy. "Mostly Netherlands"?! Presumably to disambiguate with (deprecated template usage) doing! the bouncy sound. Equinox ◑ 17:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:doïng shows that doïng passed an RFV already.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that people look up what they're bringing to RFV? A simple Google Books search turns up [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Project Gutenberg offers another example, [5] (and whatever errors you may find in PG books, reäction for reaction is not at all a likely one.) None of those are scannos, nor do typos seem all that likely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Le Fondu (talk • contribs) was in a hurry because he knew he was about to be permablocked as a WF sock... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get why we block him. Better to know your enemy's identity than to force yourself to keep guessing. And he's not really even an enemy! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says he's going to keep to one identity? Believe me, every permutation of approach has been tried at least once, and it always ends up the same. He only behaves himself for a while, then does as much damage as he can get away with before being blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If he needs to make more than one identity to edit, then that's what he'll do. It isn't difficult at all. And he's not your enemy! He's one of the greatest editors ever. --No5 Bridge Street (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

@No5 Bridge Street: You stated a few years ago that you were getting married. As far as I am aware, you have never mentioned your marriage since that time. I keep wondering if you are still married to the same person, and if you play tricks on that person the way you do with us. It’s none of my business, of course, but I often wonder about it.

@Μετάknowledge: He doesn’t really do any real damage anymore, as far as I know (he got kind of nasty the first time). Usually he just deletes the main page as a signature stunt and leaves a taunting note recounting how many times he’s tricked us. Most of us really don’t have a problem with him and don’t care to block him, but there are one or two admins who are acutely sensitive to the taunts, and they look for him and usually block him on sight. Personally, I think he has done a large body of good work and it doesn’t bother me that he has this weird quirk. I have no idea why he does it or what he gets out of it. I can understand that he might get fed up with some of the bureaucracy and petty tasks, but there is no reason that he couldn’t simply disappear from time to time and return after he’s rested. I think he just likes the idea that he gets our goats, but only a couple of us actually feel like we’ve been duped when he does it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who's not blocking him on sight. It's always good to hear your analysis. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. He occasionally makes an annoying mess (don't give him a bot!) but he mainly creates good entries, and is fun to have around! Equinox ◑ 00:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see enough citations for "reäction" that I'm going to mark it "passed" without making anyone add them to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

whereäs

(nominated by Le Fondu as part of a batch)

This was already cited at the time it was RFVed! RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

reäct

(nominated by Le Fondu as part of a batch)

I see enough citations for "reäct" that I'm going to mark it "passed" without making anyone add them to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

doïng

(nominated by Le Fondu as part of a batch)

Previously passed RFV, re-nominated without comprehensive reasons for doing so. Duly struck. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

variëty

(nominated by Le Fondu as part of a batch)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

See also the discussion of diët, which will soon be archived here or to WT:RFVA or Talk:diët. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)