Category talk:Redirects to Wiktionary

Tonight, I have been instructed that all wiktionary redirects are violative; therefore, this category is, by its very nature, completely in violation, & must be blocked. All such pages must, immediately, be deleted. That is the only logical result.

Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the instructions you received that said all wiktionary redirects are "in violation, & must be blocked"? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain, given the rather chaotic and incoherent nature of the dialog, but I think hopiakuta may be referring to this on Talk:Oops. The advice given there seem mistaken, IMO. Granted, I don't think we want to have redirects to every word in Wiktionary that is not an article in Wikipedia, but there is nothing inherently wrong with redirect to wiktionary that make them candidates for speedy deletion. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"advertize"
There are 2,499 articles which employ this spelling on the primary pages, more on discussion pages, as well as wiktionary.

But, despite this, it is continually deleted. I have obeyed the arbitrary regulations; but, because I have done it, it is deleted.

As these people rarely offer a response, I am forced to surmise, by implication, that many of these people have some sort of deep emotional need to delete something like "advertize", &/or talk:the_%22Least_Wanted%22_Deck, which has nothing to do w/  wiktionary. Even where other options are:


 * available;
 * offered;
 * requested;...

..... they completely ignore those alternatives, as they are not nearly as thrilling.

Despite the fact that this website claims to be helpful, informative, the deletion-power, the deletion-thrill, seems to be much more dominant than the possibility of being informative.

All power-structures, in order to truly meet commoner  needs, must continually experience  revolution,  revival,  evolution; any  hierarchy  that does not, becomes deadly  oppression.

That is entirely my surmise,  conjecture,  supposition,  opinion.

If "advertize" is illegal, then all wiktionary  links should be deleted, period, & simple.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

05:34, 18 November 2007 Coren (Talk | contribs)

 * 05:34, 18 November 2007 Coren (Talk | contribs) deleted "Advertize" ? (Speedy deleted per (CSD A3), had no content whatsoever except possibly links elsewhere, a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond. using TW)

Please translate this offensive, ridiculous, fraud:

Many|most pages in this category have "... no content whatsoever except possibly links elsewhere, a rephrasing of the title,..."

All websites are "... attempts to correspond."

This proves that wikimedia  is complete, absolute, fraud; everything else is sweet topping, in order to mask the content.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

advertizing
&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * teste
 * wiktionary : teste
 * wiktionary : testee
 * testee

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhidden
Despite the fact that this is not a subject category: well it partially is, in the sense that it categorises word like entities not considered worthy of WP. Wi is creating a massive number of apparently uncategorised articles which is breaking attempts to label uncategorised articles as uncategorised and hence get them categorized. Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC).