Wikipedia talk:Village pump/Archive 5

message: I don't see the point of the "Summarised sections" if what the village pump says is true and it hasn't been archived since September 30. If it's no longer done, it may as well be removed. Any objections? Angela. 21:12, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. JesseW 22:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarised sections

message: I had once proposed having separate village pump sub-pages with dates in the title, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Dec 27, 2004). The date represents when the page was started. Once that page gets too large (say on Jan 5, 2004), we could start using Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Jan 5, 2004). 
The people who were having discussions on the previous page can continue doing so since that page hasn't been deleted, but those starting a new discussion need not be bothered about the page being too long having older discussions as well.
For continuity, both N (probably 2) most recent pages could be transcluded in Wikipedia:Village pump. The only other maintenance this requires is to update the link to the current page in Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Village pump sections and probably a few more places.
This could be simplified if all that is absorbed into Template:Village pump, so that only that whenever a VP subpage gets too long, only that template and the transclusions in VP have to be modified.
If enough people are against sectioning the pump but are ok with dated pages, we could have things like Wikipedia:Village pump (Dec 27, 2004). In such a case probably we'd get enough discussions every day so as to have a page for everyday.
If we agree to have one page everyday (whether or not with sectioning the pump), the "current page links" mentioned above can be made to require zero maintenance, if we make them always point to today's page by using , , etc. e.g. almost all links to Wikipedia:Village pump would become Wikipedia:Village pump ( , ).
I'm not sure if I should be copying over my original proposal or its entire thread here. So I'll instead just link to it:  -- Paddu 19:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to propose that a similar scheme be used for WP:VfD, WP:RfD, WP:CfD, WP:HD, WP:RD, and other such fast-changing discussion pages too. And if anyone is opposed to spliting a project page because of watchlists, please be clear what the issue(s) is/are. AFAICT spliting causes no problems with watchlists (see my response to the previous thread) -- Paddu 19:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A soln. to the size (?) 

message: The ranking table in Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics was last updated in December 2004. It's end of February already. I wish someone had time to update it. ;( I really liked it. Seeing and tracking progress of different languages... --rydel 12:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics 

message: Following the recent changes to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion that were a great success, I am going to follow suite here and be bold, though realizing that:
* A few months ago there was a comment over the 300kb page Wikipedia:Village pump is,
** But noting that this was before the VfD change was made
* Acknowledging that some people do wish to view the long page
* It seems to be a bit of tradition
The move will mirror what happened with VfD.
*Wikipedia:Village pump will be severely cut down, with links to the sections and...
*Wikipedia:Village pump (all) will be created with the express purpose of displaying all Village pump messages at once.
*Template:villagepump will be edited so that it makes more sense in the new context. For some strange reason, all the village pump sections link to it via a  period. I have yet to uncover the reasoning for this.
Fortunantely, there will be no need for bot rewrites because unlike VfD, the Village pump already has the advantage of being physically seperated.
Why should the Wikipedia:Village pump page be seperated? The VfD page was seperated because people who came to talk about VfD would be more interested in links to appropriate sections and instructions, rather than a whopper page that was full of text. The same can apply for Village pump. Those coming here for discussion that are unfamiliar with the concept will undoubtably end up on the main page (talk page on the Main Page, for instance, links to Village pump directly). They will want to have links to appropriate sections and instructions, rather than a whopper page that was full of text.
I'm being bold, but precedent is at my side. This edit is comprimising of page edits and page creations across several areas, so it may be difficult to revert. See the list above for affected pages. I'm hoping that the response to this change will be similar to that which greeted the VfD change. Feel free to comment. Ambush Commander 00:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Argh! There seems to be something wrong. Edits for three of the four pages have gone through, but not for the main page itself! Argh! I keep on getting a URL error. Ambush Commander 00:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
::Okay, it's gone through. Four pages edited. Lots of chaos to ensue. ;) Ambush Commander 00:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::Yay!  Thanks for being bold.  I like it.  (And I second AllyUnion's suggestion, if it could be implemented... JesseW 06:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the Village Pump a Portal, not a dumping ground of 697.8 KB! 

message: It would be nice to have some kind of summary or overview on the Village pump... like the TOC from each page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvement 

message: Why can't we have a preserved archive? lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village dump 

message: I have general concerns about the RfA process.
Taxman, an admin, told me here that "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other places," which presumably include this page here.
Some of you recall my recent "failed" RfA applicant, and my concerns are surely specific to myself, but my attempt to discuss my concerns was opposed: Admins at the talk page of my RfA, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts, locked both the RfA (vote closed) --and its talk page! (Their excuse that my problems were only "general" did not have merit: My problems, while they surely affect a "general" wide range of users, were also specific to me as well, but they were afraid to have that material posted, and I did not have unblock magic.)
So, since these are "system-wide" problems that affect loads of persons, here are the locations where discussion is currently held:
* Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Some_general_RfA_Problems:_Taxman_said_this_was_the_page_for_it
* Misc. Discussions: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
* User_talk:GordonWatts/RfA (Backup, in case someone tampers with links above -plus I've saved a copy on my computer, in case some deletionist Admin trots into town.)
--GordonWatts 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going on Wiki break. Too busy with other things. I wish you all the best regarding analyzing and addressing these and other concerns. Cheers.--GordonWatts 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA discussion 

message: The notice on the webpage containing the category, "Articles that need to be wikified", reads: "This page has a backlog that requires attention of one or more experienced editors." I am wondering whether I am qualified. In particular, I am seeking the answers to the following questions:
* What is the definition of "experienced editors"? 
* What is the criteria for labelling someone as qualified?
* Who decides whether someone is qualified?
* Does it mean that new users are not allowed to wikify the articles on this page?  — PM Poon 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Experienced editors are simply people who have read the style guides, and know how to use wiki-markup to properly format an article, insert relevant links, templates and categories and such. It's up to you to decide if you meet the criteria. If you think you can improve the articles in question (you don't need to make them perfect, just slightly better) go right ahread, be bold. --Sherool 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on the term, "qualified editors" 

message: Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question; please move it to the correct place if there is one. My question is: where does the name "village pump" come from for this place in Wikipedia? I get the impression it is a term similar to the term "water cooler" used to refer to the way general gossip and talking in offices takes place at the water cooler. Except that village pump is, ironically given the supposed Wikipedia user base, more understandable for those who, well, get water from a village water pump. Was this page ever called "Water cooler"? Also, I tried to look up the term "village pump" on Wikipedia, but got redirected to this page, which doesn't seem to explain the origin of the term. Thanks for any answers. 194.200.237.219 11:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure why the name "Village pump" was chosen, though it seems to have been around forever. As a matter of fact Wikinews has a Water cooler as the equivalent of this page. Wikibooks has the Staff lounge, Wikisource has the Scriptorium, Wiktionary has a Beer parlour and meta quite appropriately has Babel. the wub  "?!" 11:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Uncyclopedia has the Village dump. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Village Pump seems like an oddly archaic analogy to select, but it may be an allusion to the "barnraising" analogy prevalent in wiki discussions, which dated to similar places and times. Deco 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the name "village pump" come from? 

message: How do I go about protecting a page from being edited once the information has been finally entered?
Thanks
Tach
ROMATH 18:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages are only protected by adminstrators in the event of persistant vandalim or stale revert wars. All of wikipedia is open to editing at any time. "The information" will never cease being entered. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question please 

message: It's been a while since I looked in on the Village pump, & see that it's changed in a few ways, some that may encourage me to look in more. However, I'm surprised that the image that has sat on the top right was changed, & a glance thru the Talk & archives pages don't explain why the old image was replaced. What happened? -- llywrch 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the image 

message: Hi, in fur.wiki the village pump is located here, please add it as interwiki --Klenje 13:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friulian wikipedia village pump 

message: Cannot upload images. I get this message: "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again.".  Need help. 1() 10:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has responded at User talk:1(). -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot upload images! 

message: There is a mistake in the template :Template:user es-4, it(he,she) should lead to the category "es-4" and not to the category "es-N" Please, correct it. es:user:CHV
: Fixed that, but does a el really contract to al in this context? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in the template es-4

message: When I suggested recently on the main page talk page that the policy change on new articles be pointed out, I was told that it was on the news section leading off from Village pump: I found it then, but cannot find it now. What happened to it
Suggestion - if there is a significant change a link of some sort be put on the main page for a few days, to avoid unnecessary diversion.
Jackiespeel 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The rich assortment of special characters formerly listed below the edit screen has been replaced by a selection of just a few.  This is bad.  Why did this occur and when will the rest of them be replaced?--I use them all the time.  Badagnani 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to look for info on the same thing.  Thoug I will disagree.  Its not bad its really bad.  Probbly even worse than the times when the search page has no links to google or other search engins that work (and that is really bad too). Dalf | Talk 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the history of MediaWiki:Edittools to determine who made any change you don't like, and ask them about it directly.-gadfium 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special characters 

message: I just finished creating a simple "how to" article for people who simply want the basics on adding georeferenced link templates to wikipedia articles. It is called Wikipedia:Coordinate-referenced map templates. Feel free to change the name of it or edit it to death, but I didn't see any other place where a noob could get basic instruction on the different template options that are out there. Please message use the discussion page on this article if you have any major beefs with the article MPS 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: georeferenced link templates: a Simple How to for noobs and non-programmers

message: In moving short items to wiktionary I am left with the problem of what to do with the links to these items, or rather with the future links to these items. It appears I cannot make a redirect to wiktionary, although it is possible to insert a notice that the term is included in wiktionary. The latter looks silly, is clumsy and appears not to be allowed.
So, why is it not possible to redirect to wiktionary? Such redirects should be ideally limited to key items, so as to keep it down to a limited set. Brya 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Translated this means: "don't move things to Wiktionary". Well, that is a point of view, but it looks to me that there would be advantages to moving definitions to Wiktionary (and call upon them there), rather than duplicate them in two places. But if it can't be, then it cannot be. Pity. Brya 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: redirects to wiktionary

message: Hey -- does anyone know if a Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix page will be added to the main page? Janet 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPotter 

message: Does anyone realize that you can't get into the village pump by searching 'The Village Pump"? I typed it in the search and it came up with nothing, not even a relevancy match. I think it should be changed so that people can get in whether they searched it with or without 'the'. Pseudoanonymous 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussions on the technical village pump  about why the search engine is crap. For great justice. 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you saying ? it works for me. Takes me straight there. Unixer 14:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Village Pump 

message: My understanding is that those who have a concern about the sourcing of an image have a short checklist of actions to undertake, that includes putting an {unverifiedimage} tag in the caption fields of every instance where the suspect image is used.
Some wikipedia contributors who volunteer their time to patrol for images that they suspect are copyright violations aren't following this procedure.  I wrote about this, at greater length, here.  
No one wants to see vandals, or the misguided, slip copyright images onto the wikipedia via bogus liscence tags.  But I think those working to remove those images should continue to conduct their activities in an open and transparent manner, and should continue to follow procedure.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  --  Geo Swan 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the VP? Maybe accidentally on talk page? - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of the {unverifiedimage} tag?

message: Is the picture of a pump really necessary it gets in the way sometimes. Lcarsdata 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pump image 

message: Please, for the sake of Wiki, try to stick to relevant facts and leave out words like "Fucking", "Dipshit", "Smackbot", "Screwed, "Huh",  "Yeesh", "Shit", "Wow", sarcastic comments, etc., just to mention a few found at quick glance in Wikipages. Words like these most of us consider slang and mostly vulgar or childish. Wiki is used all over the world, and should be used with wisdom in an as educated manner as possible.<BR> We all make mistakes, don't we. That's a part of the game of development. Use of contemptuous language often gives an impression that the user is suffering from more or less severe immaturity.<BR>
I would like to be able to stimulate people that are more knowledgeable and sophisticated than myself to join in the building of a mature community, rather than see them shrug and pass an impression of a kindergarten.
<BR>
Of course, as long as there is no initial test for admittance, we must learn to deal with this problem as best we can continuously. By the way, I see that abusive use can be blocked in different ways, but how does this apply to similar behaviour in the "upper part" of the Wiki hierarchy? --Profero 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty much the same. Admins can be (and have been) taken to RfC, Mediation and Arbitration, and can be (and have been) blocked, de-sysopped, and even banned from Wikipedia. Such steps are not taken lightly, however. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 14:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the information. We must, of course, realize too that it is sometimes hard to distinguish between what is ones own oversensitivity or other's insensitivity. Could this be a relevant example? --Profero 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have referred him to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, as well. He/she was pretty rude to you, especially considering that most of us would still consider him/her a noobie. Unfortunately, rude encounters are common (some editors even think that I've been rude to them). If you can, avoid interacting with editors with whom you have difficulties. If an editor makes a habit of being rude/attacking editors, he or she will almost certainly eventually be the subject of an RfC. In the meantime, it works better for you if you don't cite things like Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks to someone you're having a dispute with, as that may inflame things. If things get bad enough, a third party will usually step in. So, have a thick skin and try not to dish back. However, if you see another editor being attacked, feel free to defend them. Your reputation in Wikipedia is entirely based on what you contribute and how you comport yourself. (Allof this advice from someone who doesn't always followit, sigh.) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Dalbury for your kind support. It strengthened my belief in the community. And I also appreciate your advice to not cite things as you mentioned. I see your point. However, as I know you know, it was not meant as a counter-attack, only as something to hold on to in a baffling situation. But, of course, I see too that a sudden reaction can be seen as a threat, just as jargon can be taken for rudeness. However, I can easily regain respect for a person that, when made aware of his/her negative effect on other people, will apologize for the effect instead of defending the intention. I guess we all need to stimulate each other into higher levels of consciousness. Please don't hesitate to correct me again if necessary. --Profero 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, while I agree that citing Wikipedia:No personal attacks or WP:CIVIL to your interlocutor in this case would be excessive, real abuse is another matter. If someone is being abusive to me or to another editor (and I don't mean slightly insensitive, as in the example cited above: I mean things like calling someone "filth", or claiming that their nationality or ethnicity disqualifies them from being taken seriously) I will definitely cite that policy to them. I consider it more or less a "warning shot across the bow". I can assume good faith only by assuming that he/she (but, y'know, somehow it always seems to be "he") could have said such a thing only if he were unaware of the policy, and that now that I have informed him of the policy, I will consider further similar remarks to be deliberate violations of policy.  - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility and Development 

message: Thank you for your constructive views. There's surely a difference between rudeness and filth, and one must be able to cope with both relevantly. I have been reading through a few discussion pages during the last days in different languages on Wiki, and find all kinds of bad language in the community to be unnecessarily dominant. Often, in my opinion, it seems ‘only’ to be a matter of jargon or adolescent immaturity. But, should we shrug and tell ourselves that this is how people normally interact, and so let it be, or should we counteract on all levels?  Sure, I see the danger of "Don Quijoting" the Wiki windmills, so I don't mean to start an offensive, but I still can't help thinking that all of this (more or less) bad language probably scares off a lot of highly proficient potential colleagues, and, not the least, consequently scaring off those who seek highly qualified information.<BR>
Behavioral contagion is a threat. However insignificant it may seem in the beginning, I think we must be able to refer to ‘unpleasant’ behavior as well as ‘abusive’. So, for the sake of reaching a higher level, I hope everyone should take this matter seriously. And we should assume good faith, and not forget what path to where is paved with what.
--Profero 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am seeing on Wikipedia is entirely too much childishness and temper tantrums.  It is ridiculous, and not constructive.jawesq 00:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility and development II

message: As a contributor/administrator of some years at Wiktionary, and 28 years in IT, mostly as a person concerned with the interface between non-tech users and technological solutions, I have a suggestion/idea for some significant but probably simple improvement to the Wiki software. Please see User:Richardb43/idea for improved user navigation for the details.
I think this suggestion can go a long way to closing the gulf between inclusionists, deletionists and structurists.
Problem is, I don't know how to promote this idea to the right people in the Wikipedia/MediaWiki space. If anyone knows how to do this, and you think my idea may have merit, please pass this idea on freely.
Thanks.--Richardb43 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Richardb43/idea for improved user navigation]] 

message: I see underlines under all the wikilinks. Is it a bug? Is it just me? Why is it there? It looks very scrappy =( JRA WestyQld2 09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check My preferences:Misc. If Underline links is set to Browser default, then close and re-start your browser, and the underlines should go away. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 09:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Underline

message: Is it prefered to edit multiple sections of an article all at once, or to break up your edits, section by section?  I've been doing the latter, trying to only edit the entire article when moving information from one section to another.  There's a trade-off between readability of the article's history and preventing accidental typos/making distinct changes.  What's the better way to do it, according to wikipedia etiquette? MrZaiustalk 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it is better to break up your edits as it is easier to prevent errors from occuring. However, if you are a very concientious editor, this would not make much of a difference. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another advantage of breaking up your edits is that it reduces the chance of an edit conflict. It 's very annoying to spend 15 minutes expanding and improving an article, only to find that someone else has just saved an edit. Of course, you can put the  tag on the page, but I usually don't think of that. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinct edits per section, or one edit? 

message: GREAT.
From the first time I found you 5 Years ago I thougt you were one of the toppermost concepts and lately I've come across some topics WAY to obscure for anyone els, with relatively good coverage. I Know this is just the beginning, I am really impressed... in fact so impressed that perhaps it may release my imagination. GREAT WORK donyaknow! I check back in 5 years : ) or tomorrow. Thanks hugely to those who have done their bit in creating a master piec, wish I could help more.- David or ~wblakesx ( how do you do that trick?)
::just sign using 4 tildes at the end of your post, great to have you onboard  † Bloodpack   argh! 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELLO WIKIANS  WOW< YOU ARE TRUELY ... 

message: Has someone just changed English Wikipedia wholesale from left justification to full justification?  If so, this really sucks; please change it back promptly.  Badagnani 03:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded on your talk. alphaChimp laudare 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification

message: Is everyone satisfied with the current archiving policy of the Village Pump sub-pages (also discussed above)? I've set up Werdnabot to do the archiving of comments older than 7 days and have put in a request for automated deletion of comments older than 14 days. We could switch to live numbered archives, though VP seems to be a rather transient bulletin board, so I'd favor just deleting stuff buried in history.--Chaser T 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-archiving of VP (again) 

message: I think the edit link is in an unintuitive spot.
It should be within the section, not outside of it. 
For example, look at the edit link for this section. It looks like it's for the section above.
It's outside the horizontal line, which visually seperates the section. I think the link needs to be more user friendly and logical. It doesn't really matter for savvy users, but i'm sure alot of people edit the wrong sections. 
--DJBryson 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit link 

message: Hi all. I'm not yet up to speed on editinf fact boxes on Wiki. In the Robert F. Kennedy article we have an error under 'Spouse' where information is clearly corrupt. It means the box is thrown out of synch and looks bad. I would be extremely grateful if one of you could take a look, edit the mistake so the box is back in order again, and then leave a comment on the talk page to say what the issue was. It really is starting to annoy me now and I've used the sandbox a dozen times to try and figure out the problem. Very much appreciated, Iamlondon 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a change which improves it but doesn't make it 100% right. Someone was using the  template but only wanted one field of it (because the rest would duplicate the  template immediately above). They didn't supply a name which was a required field. The result was a horrible mass of markup which wasn't correct and is a nightmare to maintain. I've cut out most of the markup, but still can't get rid of the empty line at the bottom of the table. It might be better to throw away the remainder of the template and find a more appropriate way to display this one line.-gadfium 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lordy! Well thank you very much for your efforts, they're very much appreciated. Maybe someone else will know what to do, otherwise I'll just chop the bottom section off as you suggest. Cheers, Iamlondon 11:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information Box Problem

message: When I logged in earlier today I receive an unabnormal login message:
You have successfully signed in to Wikipedia as "Valoem". 
Wikipedia has quite a number of guidelines, but you don't have to read them to edit here. Simply write what you want to contribute. 
When writing articles, please strive for a neutral point of view, try to cite sources whenever possible, and do not submit copyrighted information. 
When interacting with other people, please be nice to them and, when you disagree, discuss with them but don't edit war. 
Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so some contributions might not be appropriate. 
If you need further help, you can ask the friendly people at the village pump. 
Return to Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin"
I am not sure why this login changed and how it changed. Is this random? Because I have only made healthy contributions to wikipedia and have created numerous notable articles. I had cited over a hundred sources and have never been rude but always respectful. You can view my long resumé. I recently have written over two pages on the discussion page for Super Smash Bros. Melee the post was very professional and included numerous citation and reasonings as to why the tournament section in that article deserves to included the information written. Does writing large amounts on a discussion page automatically receive this introduction? Or is this some form of direct action target toward me. If it is something that is not automated I would like to know who and why this was sent. Please help me by PMing me. Thank you. Valoem talk 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have recently received a abnomal Special login 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  05:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: Why is Wikipedia using two different codes of spelling?  I see "color" and "colour" in the same page -- writers should use International English to write the pages.  For instance, "gonorrhoea" is to be spelt with an O. --74.96.102.152 23:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MOS#National varieties of English. For articles about subjects that relate to a specific region, we prefer the varianto of English used there. For topics for which this doesn't apply, it's generally the English used by the first major contributor to the article in question. — TKD::Talk 23:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Consistency 

message: There is a sex citation in a Donald Duck's or Mickey Mouse's story (or cartoon)? --Vess 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really unclear. And it is even less clear what it is doing on this particular talk page, which mainly is for discussing issues about the maintenance of the Village Pump. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex in Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

message: is it me or has the picture for the pump changed? who decided that? Pseudoanonymous 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed picture? 

message: Hi All,
I am a great fan and user of Wikipedia, what a great job! I am also interested in the different ways and methods and developments in information and communication systems, and have started a bit to contribute myself, its great fun but I am like many others in lack of time and there also Wiki-skills...
Now I have entered a bit of a problem: User: Calton has harrased me with uncivil comments and put my articles like ecotheology for deletion and attacking my work in English and Swedish article about Ecological Economy, this is really bad stile and I do not feel good about this at all.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swedenborg
Could someone explane to me how I could stop his attacks on me and if my work is really so bad and not fit in Wikipedia and then I will stop writing and only be a user of Wikipedia. --Swedenborg 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looking at your talk page, it looks like you regularly insult people and use profanity on their userpages.  You could stop doing that, for starters. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Friendly Swedish Wikipedian in Need Of Help! 

message: I just spent 15 minutes rewriting the USS Gunnel (SS-253) page based on my own work from the John S. McCain, Jr. page, only to have none of it saved when I came back from the Gunnel talk page... Whasup?  Trekphiler 08:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this page isn't where you meant to ask this (this is the page for discussing the Village Pump (things like when it should be archived), so you may want to ask this elsewhere. I don't think anyone will be able to answer you, though, because it is unclear what you did (you talk about "coming back" from the talk page; perhaps you simple didn't save the changes you made). - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Something like that happened to me when I was making a major edit; I clicked the "show preview" button to see what it would look like, and after reviewing the page for a long time I forgot that it was a preview rather than the actual page, and when I clicked a link (can't remember which one), all my work was lost. Sad panda. ;_; 64.90.198.6 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time if you do that, immediately click the back button and hopefully you will see at least some of your edit in the text box in the show preview page. Tra (Talk) 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would especially work if you have a very slow connection (like myself) and catch it quickly enough. Heh. V-Man737 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked out? 

message: A user has not been assuming good faith, and appears to be refusing to do so. The user also claims that I am obligated to prove that I am not lying about something, while he has been unable to prove I have been lying. Would somebody please educate him? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGF and stuff 

message: Look. I'm all for respecting copyrights and all, but people are taking it to way too much of an extreme. The policies regarding copyrights are unclear, and so people are misinterpreting them, and admins are deleting images and such things that are perfectly fine, or, if they can't decipher what something means altogether, they delete it. It has gotten to the point where it is starting to hurt the  actual informational content. We need to relax a bit, and wait for a copyright holder to actually think they are having their copyright violated before assuming it is.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that personally, it is starting to hurt how much I trust Wikipedia. If we are going to focus more on this than getting our facts straight, then we, as I previously stated, hurt the informational content, by neglecting it. 
This is not a good path we are heading down. We need to stop, take a look at this, and relax a bit.  aido2002 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things are getting ridiculous... 

message: What are the green and red colored numbers that just showed up for every item in watchlist?  Does this have something to do with Christmas?  If one clicks on them to find out what the heck this is, nothing happens.  Badagnani 06:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look like the change in bytes for the given edit. I think the colors are very distracting! Paul August ☎ 07:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not terribly useful, either, given that a large negative in red is not necessarily bad, and a large positive in green isn't necessarily good.  Is this a temporary or long-term feature? MSJapan 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to your blatant greenist agenda! Green is not necessarily good or bad, and neither is red! :-P I think it was a brief holiday color scheme... Happy Christmahannukwanzivus, everyone. V-Man737 20:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  The colors was very distracting. It's much better now... And you can adjust them anways ;) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colored numbers in watchlist 

message: If anybody can help, let me know. Just H 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you have in mind, but the Wikipedia Talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board and its talk page are often quite lively, and a bit less specialized than the name suggests. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking For Project Talk Pages That Aren't Boring or Pointless or Annoying

message: Where can I get an admin's attention?  An editor is attacking, belligerent and rampant violation of 3RR.  Jance 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where can I get help

message: Input sought at Talk:Terri_Schiavo regarding edit dispute: To add or not to add a link
The initial editor added two links that looked relevant, to the North County Gazette, which publishes on Schiavo on a semi-regular basis; One editor removed them, and I added them back, supporting editor #1. A 4th editor deleted them, and I added one of the 2 links back, seeking compromise. The 4th editor, one named User:Calton, made an argument and demanded it all his way, even though consensus was split; I simply seek input to resolve this -come what may, no matter how the chips may fall.
My participation in the talk page is not needed, because I've already cast my vote; plus, I may voluntarily choose to refrain from participation. Thank you in advance.GordonWatts 09:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input sought at [[Terri Schiavo]] regarding edit dispute: To add or not to add a link