User talk:Dr. Nazeroth

Chemitician
You're welcome to prove me wrong either here, on my talk page or on the article's page itself, but currently I see no proof that it's not a neologism. Let me explain my rationale:
 * Firstly, it's "not in dictionaries as of yet". This is, to my mind, considerable proof that it's a neologism. A word gets listed in the dictionary when it's used by enough of society to warrant a clear definition. If enough members of society aren't using this word (presumably because they don't know it), how can we say when it was created? For all I know and for all you can prove with this information, the term was created just the other day.
 * Secondly, there are no sources for the word. "Dr Barnes" and "Dr Johnson PhD" are hardly sources, since there's no indication of who on earth they are. I'm more than willing to believe that there exist somewhere a person surnamed Barnes and a person surnamed Johnson who have PhDs, but that doesn't make the use of these names reliable at the moment. Can you provide links to webpages which explain what these people do, or even to interviews where they've made the comments you credit them with? Without them, there's no proof that they exist in the roles you say they do.
 * Thirdly, and as the most minor of the issues, the title contradicts the text of the article. The title reads "Chemitician", while the article talks about "Chemisticians". This may well be a typo, but it also (alongside the other more serious issues) leads me to the belief that this is a term which was being made up as the article went along or shortly beforehand.

As I said above, you're welcome to respond to these comments here, on my talk page or on the article itself. BigHaz Schreit mich an 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)