Talk:Konk

majorclanger, why do you keep changing the page? konk means just what i said it does. it is used all across the world as large or grand.

This is a disambiguation page, not an article. It's not appropriate for an article either, as you've mostly provided a definition. Look here: wp:disambig for what this page is supposed to be. Majorclanger (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

majorclanger, you are right and wrong. the circa info at the bottom of the page was in good fun. vandalism? give me a break. that said, the definition, of large amount is NOT wrong. the word Konk has been used in that context for years and is a legitimate definition. where can i put the definition without the rest so that you wont keep deleting it. i will leave the rest out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefhogan (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "good fun" closely matches vandal behavoiur - the deliberate introduction of false information. Majorclanger (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have changed the page. hopefully you will leave it alone now. it is completely legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefhogan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a legitimate definition (and I have severe doubts, considering that *none* of the online dictionaries I looked at had an entry for konk that remotely matched your usage), you can put it on wiktionary, which exists for that purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not a dictionary (see the "What Wipipidia is Not" policy section), specifically wp:dictionary. Quite apart from this policy, the content of the page is a disambig and the removal of the disambig template doesn't change that - there are links to three existing, reasonably useful articles. Any additions that don't follow the disambiguation format will go. If a related topic warrants an article, it should be created and pointed to as a link. The purpose of a disambig is not to provide content, but to link to it. This is a perfectly useful disambig page and it will remain so. Majorclanger (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. do you work for wikipedia? by what authority can you block a user? 2. if you look up almost any word on wikipedia, ie...hacienda - "spanish style home", it will give a definition. am i expected to believe that encyclopedias dont give definitions as well as other information? 3. please relax on all the vandal talk, you are way overdoing that point. 4. Konk DOES mean what i said it means and is used throughout the country in such a way. just because you cant find it or dont use it yourself doesnt change that. i deal with clients as far away as Israel who use konk in that way. doesnt wikipedia provide new information? shouldnt i be allowed to add legitimate info regardless of your personal opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefhogan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]