From VfD:
Very short dictionary definition. Don't see potential article here. Gwimpey 16:53, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
A student who uses Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research may be considered a crackhead without giving undue offense. When trying to teach teenagers proper historical investigation, why not add a harmless line to an 'official' entry such as under crackhead? The entry reads that the term is often used when talking about someone doing something foolish. I would like to add, "like using Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research." I do not consider that addition to be vandalism (how can you vandalize an open site?) and it is right. What is wrong with it?
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
trey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5306:BB2D:D829:143E:AC07:5D85 ( talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
From VfD:
Very short dictionary definition. Don't see potential article here. Gwimpey 16:53, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
A student who uses Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research may be considered a crackhead without giving undue offense. When trying to teach teenagers proper historical investigation, why not add a harmless line to an 'official' entry such as under crackhead? The entry reads that the term is often used when talking about someone doing something foolish. I would like to add, "like using Wikipedia as a valid source for historical research." I do not consider that addition to be vandalism (how can you vandalize an open site?) and it is right. What is wrong with it?
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
trey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:5306:BB2D:D829:143E:AC07:5D85 ( talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)