User talk:Koavf

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Koavf, Welcome. We are glad to have whatever portion of your time you choose to devote to Wiktionary. I am including some standard welcome text below because it has some good help. If you're already familiar with the Wiki markup, please do read our article formatting guidelines at the least. I will say, you will find that Wiktionary is a smaller community where your contributions will make a bigger relative impact. --Dvortygirl 06:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Redirects.[edit]

Hi,

FYI, I deleted r.e.m., as we don't do that here.

RuakhTALK 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

bipolar disorder[edit]

Please don't do that. We deliberately do not link the names of common langugaes. Even if you link them, a bot would revert you shortly, since the Translation format is maintained by a bot. --EncycloPetey 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

breaking bad[edit]

The main problem with this entry is the citation page. Citations have to be actual usages, not just mentions. Both of your cites merely mention the term, but do not actually use it. You should find some cites where it is used, in the wild, so to speak. A good place to find citations is books.google.com. —Stephen (Talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: move to Commons[edit]

Have you checked that these have all been imported to Commons? I suggested deleting all the files here once and nobody supported it, so I didn't. But if they're on Commons then they can of course be deleted as redundant copies. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the ones you tagged, I've deleted the no-longer needed ones I uploaded, and moved the useful ones that had licences, and asked the uploader of one of the useful licenceless ones to fix it. Maro and I have removed the {{delete}} tags from a few that are just for unfinished debugging here. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Re "if they're on Commons then they can of course be deleted as redundant copies", not necessarily: Commons sometimes updates (or even deletes) files the other projects may want to keep as are.​—msh210 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

Hey, it looks like you restarted editing here on hitting a million edits at the pedia. Are you aiming for a million here, too? If so, you're most welcome, and best of luck. Note that tagging a page with {{rfd}} is necessary but insufficient for nominating it for deletion: you have to then click the "+" in the template that appears, which will cause you to be editing the RFD (or RFDO) page: there, supply a reason for the nomination. Tagged but not nominated pages will likely be detagged after the tagger has had a chance to nominate (though sometimes another editor will bring the nomination to RFD/RFDO himself if he knows of a reason to nominate it for deletion).​—msh210 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I should have linked: RFD is WT:RFD and RFDO is WT:RFDO.​—msh210 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Because you replied on my talkpage, I continued the discussion there. Fyi.​—msh210 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

{{delete}}[edit]

Sorry, but marking an image used in more than two dozen pages for imminent deletion without even giving a reason is not a great way to go about things. Please use WT:RFDO by applying the {{rfd}} template to the page and clicking the little + button, then typing in your reasoning and pressing 'Save'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay But the exact same image is on Commons and protected... —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but we generally like to discuss stuff like this rather than delete out of process. As of now, each image needs to be dealt with individually. If you want to make a vote about image policy around here, I'd be glad to help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Phrasebook entries at WT:RFD[edit]

Just so you know, idiomaticity has nothing to do with whether we keep these entries or not. They are Phrasebook entries, so instead we are judging them against the criteria at WT:PHRASE (such as "usefulness"). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I guess I can't really judge how important these would be for a phrasebook. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Matt Groening[edit]

Hello. I declined your request for speedy deletion of this template [1] because the template is currently in use at WT:Appendix-only pages. I don't get why Daniel made separate templates for everything on that page, but he did anyway. —Internoob 05:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Internoob: Now it just has two redlinks. What is the value of this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Well now that Daniel restored one of the pages, it has a blue link. I don't think it's worth it to orphan this page and delete it because now it is transcluded on two pages. So you can update both pages at once with a single edit. Might as well keep it around. —Internoob 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, red links are not considered as bad here as they are on Wikipedia. The idea is that they help us by showing what work still needs to get done. —Internoob 06:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Internoob: But why stop there? Should we create a redlink for w:Life in Hell? Redlinks definitely have value at Wikipedia as well. Plus, the appendix page would not be an orphan: it would be linked at Wiktionary:Appendix-only_pages and Wiktionary:Index to appendices. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You can add a red link for Life in Hell if you want to. I don't think anyone would object. There aren't really very many rules for what goes on in the Appendix namespace. If you really think that this template should be deleted, then bring it to WT:RFDO by adding {{rfd}} to the page. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion because it is being used and it at least has a purpose, even if that purpose is mundane. —Internoob 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)