Talk:utmostly

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Listed as an adjective, defined as an adverb, but illogically constructed. There are Google books hits, but I'm not sure that "in an utmost manner" explains anything. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• One of a number from the same user. All bad, most have been cleaned up, some deleted - I would have deleted this one. SemperBlotto 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  I did, but it was re-entered. With Google Books hits, it seemed better to take it somewhere it could be improved. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many days have been passed, so the RFV should be removed at anytime. Steel Blade 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The originally challenged adjective sense has but one cite, not from a well-known work. The adverb PoS was added and cited by Visviva and is apparently good. The adjective sense now has an RfV-sense tag, but it is unlikely we can do better than Visviva at attesting it. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, adjective section removed. I've put two adjective cites at Citations:utmostly, both from b.g.c. —Ruakh_TALK 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)