Talk:mercenary
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFV discussion: January 2016
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense:
A person employed to fight in an armed conflict who is not a member of the state or military group for which they are fighting and whose prime or sole motivation is private gain.
Tagged, but not listed. An IP and I have been going round in circles over this (see my talk page), and their newfound willingness to follow normal procedure rather than argue should be encouraged. This should be pretty easy to cite, right? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly widespread use... Equinox ◑ 15:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I added a few cites, agree with widespread use. - TheDaveRoss 16:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be listing here definitions tagged maliciously as it encourages people to make more malicious nominations. I would also remind you (all of you, I mean) that WT:BLOCK applies to editors who harm Wiktionary intentionally or unintentionally. There's a bit of debate when it comes to this editor whether they actually believe what they're saying or not. No matter, WT:BLOCK applies whether it's intentional or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes, in those rare times when I feel kind, I would have done something like restore the definition that had been undesirably altered and RfVed the new one, which almost certainly would die from citationlessness after a month or so. If that kindness were repaid by a malicious challenge of the restored sense, I would no longer have felt kind and indeed felt duped. I might then not feel kind again for some days. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I consider this RFV passed and have removed the tag. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I consider this entry to have been inadequate, which was why it was easy for us to be embarrassed by a troll. We missed the evolution of the meaning of the term, probably because we never bothered to look at actual usage in print. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I consider this RFV passed and have removed the tag. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes, in those rare times when I feel kind, I would have done something like restore the definition that had been undesirably altered and RfVed the new one, which almost certainly would die from citationlessness after a month or so. If that kindness were repaid by a malicious challenge of the restored sense, I would no longer have felt kind and indeed felt duped. I might then not feel kind again for some days. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- RFV passed as either clearly widespread use or with the use of attesting quotations present in mercenary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)