User talk:Equinox

worst-case execution time

Not sure why you deleted this entry as there is a Wikipedia article with extensive information regarding this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst-case_execution_time newfiles (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hence, the reason I created it in the first place. newfiles (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: Because it's "sum of parts": the time taken for execution in the worst case. Wikipedia also has an article on "List of best-selling video games" but we don't automatically create that, because it isn't dictionary material: it is just a LIST of GAMES SELLING the BEST. If the separate words obviously explain the meaning, then don't create it here. I work as a programmer so I felt fairly confident deleting that one. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, how about Achilles tendon reflex time? newfiles (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles: It's already at RFD, and I don't care. How about not creating entries if you aren't sure about them. Equinox ◑ 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Belated Reply: criminal religious movement

(Also @Fay Freak, Pppery, PUC) I have a curious Question: Would you be surprised, if the Term "criminal religious movement" were to have enough attested Usage to warrant restoring the Entry for that Term here? Apisite (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: The question wasn't "is it used?" (that's a WT:RFV question). We know it is used. But it is "sum of parts": a MOVEMENT that is RELIGIOUS and CRIMINAL. We also don't create an entry for "big yellow dog" because that's just a DOG that is YELLOW and BIG (so that would be a WT:RFD question). Equinox ◑ 01:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In result, yes. The question was combined. The inclusion requirement of idiomaticity provides that a word can be not used enough to be lexicalized. So that three quotes aren’t enough but users need to have a larger idea around the word, due to social context. The word lacked attested usage as idiomatic. It is not only my idiosyncratic complicated way of thinking criteria of inclusion in the dictionary, Equinox has the same line of thought when expressly regarding the rarity of the term, and it is natural to do so and thus it is the spirit of the CFI, regularly followed in practice. Fay Freak (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(Also @Fay Freak, Pppery, PUC) At least it may stay in the entry criminological, no? --Apisite (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: Stop ideating lexical entries with unfathomable factual basis. Do you actually want it to be used or is it an actual term that the 610 Office has a particular understanding of? I think it is the former, you just have a breakout of paranoia and think that such a concept would fit your current situation. Fay Freak (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Apisite: You aren't making your decision based on Wiktionary rules, but on your personal biases. I remember you deleting "pseudoscience" category from woo stuff that you believed in, too. Your preferences will not override our rules. Equinox ◑ 02:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors "morons"

...as you did with this edit. It is a personal attack and inappropriate. Purplebackpack89 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)