Talk:die Arme in die Hüften gestemmt
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lingo Bingo Dingo in topic RFD discussion: December 2020
Just because English has "akimbo", doesn't mean that German "die Arme in die Hüfte gestemmt" is necessarily a term. The verb "die Arme in die Hüfte stemmen" should be the lemma (if there should be a lemma at all). — This unsigned comment was added by 84.188.177.183 (talk).
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
die Arme in die Seite gestemmt[edit]
As pointed out on the talk page, this seems awfully SOP in German, and [[akimbo]] should link to the individual words, not to this. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC) - The gloss is wrong, Akimbo means "mit verschrenkten Armen". Being slightly tired, and not used to the phrase, I had first read Armee and couldn't figure the meaning, so I figure it's slightly idiomatic, hard to translate, too, and probably doesn' work with many other verbs or appendages. weak keep. 109.41.0.199 05:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I Was totally wrong, misremembered akimbo.
- Delete, wtf! Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- RFD deleted SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Original discussion: Talk:die Arme in die Hüften gestemmt
- Undelete >SOP, lemmings, set phrase — Dentonius 20:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment this appears to mean "hands on hips". Troll Control (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- ... or akimbo — Dentonius 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. This forum is on the brink of being too big thanks to an unnecessary influx of undeletion requests. I have half a mind Dentonius to block you for a month from adding additional requests, just to give us a chance to close some of these requests, but I'll ask you first – nicely – to refrain from adding any more.--Robbie SWE (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Robbie, please don't turn en.wikt into ro.wikt where only you (and I) participate. On what basis would you block me for requesting undeletions? Would you prefer it if I requested deletions? — Dentonius 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Robbie, is this your way of asking me to spend more time with you on ro.wikt? — Dentonius 20:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- But in all seriousness, Why are you threatening me, Robbie SWE? Admins are supposed to favour discussion instead of using their big buttons. If you don't mind daily deletions, why do you mind undeletions? — Dentonius 20:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Individually, your requests are reasonable. Collectively, they're a burden. Basically, you're doubling the workload by doing everything twice: once for real, and once to humor you. The more I see this, the more it looks like filibustering. How is reopening a debate that you know you will lose different from the US senators who read from the phone book to delay the vote on the Civil Rights Act in the 1964? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Chuck, I'm concerned about the threat I just received. Why has the admin threatened to block me? From my point of view, having seen how he operates on ro.wikt, I don't think of it as a joke. He's chased away just about everybody on ro.wikt. — Dentonius 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Individually, your requests are reasonable. Collectively, they're a burden. Basically, you're doubling the workload by doing everything twice: once for real, and once to humor you. The more I see this, the more it looks like filibustering. How is reopening a debate that you know you will lose different from the US senators who read from the phone book to delay the vote on the Civil Rights Act in the 1964? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Robbie, please don't turn en.wikt into ro.wikt where only you (and I) participate. On what basis would you block me for requesting undeletions? Would you prefer it if I requested deletions? — Dentonius 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Slander aside, I didn't say I wanted to block you from the project, just temporarily restrict you from adding more requests to this forum so we can allow due process. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Robbie, I hope you can understand how it comes across to me. Even if you meant it as a joke, it's not funny. — Dentonius 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, Robbie SWE. You win. You've scared me with your big buttons. Although I believe in undeleting useful terms in this dictionary. I can see that the prevailing atmosphere on en.wikt is deletionist. I'll hold off on undeletions for a while. Eventually, I'll add a few more from time to time (a few weeks from now, perhaps), but I'll restrict the frequency with which I add them to the forum. Pat yourself on the back. — Dentonius 22:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Warning an established user before blocking is part of the blocking guidelines. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this Vox. He placed a copyviolation on my page a long time ago. But, he was right back then. It taught me to be more careful and use the citing tools we have. So I'm actually happy about the positive side effect of what he did. However, this is something which strikes me as unfair. I'm not doing anything which breaks the rules. An admin's personal preferences shouldn't be a reason to block me or put me on hold or whatever euphemism was used. — Dentonius 21:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above, if you repeat something that doesn't violate the rules enough times, it becomes disruptive by virtue of the sheer volume, and thus violates the rules. There's no rule against posting a few paragraphs to your talk page. However, if I do it several times a day, every day, for weeks, and restore everything when you try to archive it, that would be harassment- which is a violation of the rules. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this Vox. He placed a copyviolation on my page a long time ago. But, he was right back then. It taught me to be more careful and use the citing tools we have. So I'm actually happy about the positive side effect of what he did. However, this is something which strikes me as unfair. I'm not doing anything which breaks the rules. An admin's personal preferences shouldn't be a reason to block me or put me on hold or whatever euphemism was used. — Dentonius 21:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Warning an established user before blocking is part of the blocking guidelines. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Slander aside, I didn't say I wanted to block you from the project, just temporarily restrict you from adding more requests to this forum so we can allow due process. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep deleted of course. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep deleted — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 22:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Snowball close. Overwhelming consensus for this to remain deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Twips, twips, twips, late support for keep deleted, it's just "put the arms on the hips".
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Twips, twips, twips, late support for keep deleted, it's just "put the arms on the hips".