User talk:L3lackEyedAngels

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cirt! L3lackEyedAngels 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ironic
Your changes to ironic and the RfV page are contrary to our handling of RfV matters. For example, where are the citations for ironic? Don't try to perform functions that you do not understand, such as closing out RfVs or RfDs. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not an erroneous contribution. I provided a valid citation and there was no further comment thereafter for at least a month. Please revert your reversions. L3lackEyedAngels 19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the three required citations in the entry? Please read about RfV at WT:CFI before you write about it again. Links are also available at the top of the RfV page and on the welcome appearing on your talk page. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's do a dry run here. My three citations, which, I believe, satisfy WT:CFI, are as follows:
 * http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/isnt-it-ironic-probably-not/
 * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ironic
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ironic_%28song%29 - I hadn't previously included this one; it seemed like a given.
 * How do those sound, so far?
 * Also, am I in the doghouse for just this RtV issue, or also for the other edits that the bot reverted? Those ones seemed rather innocuous. L3lackEyedAngels 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought a bot did those reversions, not you. L3lackEyedAngels 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WT:ATTEST, which is part of our criteria for inclusion. The NYTimes blog is probably "not durably archived" (though it may be). The free dictionary reference is a "mention" not a use. The WP article is, by the very definition of wiki, not durably archived, as the dated version in which a given word appears is subject to change and does not reflect a process with an end. Also, valid attestation citations should be actually included in proper format preferrably under the definition for which they are appropriate or on the citations page (See tabs on top of page.).

I wouldn't necessarily have reverted the other items if you had not prematurely closed the RfV. Don't worry too much about a short block like this. It is part of learning our weird wikt ways, which are not the same as those of 'pedia. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really citing the Wiki article, but rather the song. I wasn't sure about the best way to do that so I just linked to the Wiki. Suggestions?
 * I'll review WT:ATTEST and work on the other references.
 * For the record, I disagree that one can correctly use irony as a synonym for coincidental. If we're going to keep that definition though, my goal is to keep it labeled as . L3lackEyedAngels 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)