User talk:Geo Swan

Well, let me begin by giving you our standard welcome, as no one seems to have done so yet (everyone has to have one :).

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!

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain more fully this reversion? Geo Swan 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite a while back, so I can't say for sure what my motivation was, but it appears that the definition you had added was far too specific. "Enemy combatant" is a general term, and not restricted to the Afghanistan conflict. The definition you offered is probably valid in a very specific context. However, as a dictionary, our definition should be more generally applicable. Does that help? If you're not satisfied, by all means respond or bring the issue up at the Wiktionary:Tea Room. Atelaes 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while that original definition may have been the earlier (I dunno), the one I supplied is the more well-known, more important one. The definition I supplied is the one used at Guantanamo.

I suspect if you asked the DoD's current crop of spokesmen and spin-doctors they would be unaware of the existence the earlier def.

Dead tree dictionaries often have multiple definitions for words. Wiktionary doesn't?

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, an enemy combatant is theatre-dependent. That is, in Iraq an enemy combatant would include Iraqi military and paramilitary forces, in Khosovo it might include Albanian as well as Yugoslavian forces and Khosovar forces. Thus the USA DoD might have definitions for each theatre in which it engages in operations. - Amgine/^talk 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if you check more fully you will see that the definition I added applies world-wide. Geo Swan 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Yes, this applies world-wide, in that anyone conspiring with the Taliban or Al Quaeda (anywhere in the world) is considered an enemy-combatant. However, this definition only applies for one country (US) and in one specific conflict (depending on how you define one conflict), 9-11 and the ensuing Afghanistan conflict. I'm sorry, but I stand by my revert. Again, if you would like the larger community to take a look at this, by all means put it up for discussion in the Tea Room. Sorry. Atelaes 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I just left a request on User_talk:Atelaes -- not realizing we had already started a discussion here.

  I just checked, and the more common "global war on terror" definition reamins removed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

re: your comments on my talk page

I have replied there. (here). - [The]DaveRoss 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RfV discussions

MGlovesfun did not make clear how one can positively contribute to RfV discussions. Though broad web searches are usually not helpful, Google Books searches usually are. Also Google News. For current slang, Usenet (via Google Groups, but with attention to whether the group is Usenet). Rarely Google Scholar. One can also try COCA and BNC, both via BYU, for more complex searches, especially for grammatical points and common words. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks. Did the four examples offered suffice to establish the term merits an entry?

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)