This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you.---- Roger tellme 07:15, 16 August 2005 (UT— C)

• What would you be using spreadsheet files for?-- Pharos 07:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I need to use a spreadsheet to manipulate Category Index in italian language.

We have a problem. Category Index is indicizate by number, this way it is difficult to use, because there are 4600 names and to arrive at the letter Z, takes a lot of time.
I tried to create a page like this Indice Quick, but I have a problem, it is impossible to make daily new voice.
Then using Excel to insert new voice, it is possible.

• I need a spreedsheet for other use, I am an old user of Multiplan and I use Excel for porpouse use in my article.
  

For example to aggiornate the South Pole geographical name, yearly.
Or to manipulate every type of index, that I need.
Or to create a medicine glossary.<bt> And so on.<bt> I need it, on my sandbox in it.wikipedia.
Alternatively, I can use here, in my sandbox and I make a link, for the moment.

---

Roger tellme 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to know. Shuffling through archived talk page discussions, I saw a proposal for locking it, but no definitive explanation. — Ambush Commander^{( Talk)} 02:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

According to the protection log:

09:15, 26 August 2005 Evercat protected Wikipedia:Community Portal (Vandalism)

Evil Monkey∴ Hello 04:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better that way, and to just unlock it periodically to update it.-- Zxcvbnm 13:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am seriously against blocking pages because of vandalism... but holy moley, the vandalism here basically renders history unusable. I guess we had no choice... — Ambush Commander^{( Talk)} 16:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? I've noticed admins refusing to add good-faith edits to protected pages recently. To me, that goes against what wikis are about. The only way to definitively avoid that is minimize protection. Superm401 | Talk 20:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Could some update, the BioCOTW, LDSCOTM, and the PLCOTW. Thanks. Falphin 23:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think administrators would be more likely to make edits if they are specified explicitly, rather. For instance, there is no WP:BioCOTW or WP:LDSCOTM, and I would have updated them earlier had I not had to go finding all the links myself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I normally would of linked them but I figured since it was on the actual project page it wouldn't be needed. But sorry. Falphin 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected the page; hopefully the vandal has gone away. I'll keep an eye on the page to see if it needs to be re-protected for the same reason. -- Beland 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This page needs to be recategoized from Wikiportals to Category:Portals to reflect the new namespace. - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Category:Portals refers to reader-oriented Portals. This is an editor-oriented Portal, and therefore is classified as a WikiPortal still. Ral 315 20:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please update the Canada COTW from Michaëlle Jean to National Film Board of Canada? Thanks. Mindmatrix 17:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Trevor macinnis was kind enough to update all the COTWs. -- Beland 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the formatting on the Portal, so that for each COTW, there is now a template page that contains only the name current focus article. As a result, COTW maintainers will now only have to change that in one place, and it will show up on the Community Portal, on the local COTW banner, and hopefully anywhere else it's used. The change will also show up on the Community Portal whether or not it has been protected, which should prevent similar bottlenecks from being created in the future. -- Beland 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

After some discussion (see here, the Announcement and Goings-on have had a change in page design, and in policy. Please check these two pages. CG 18:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe that when clicking Wikify, which is commonly done to understand what wikifying means, it shouldn't get you to the definition of wiki markup! It's simply confusing, especially since it's an almost technical definition of code, which doesn't make clear on its own what it actually is to wikify! (Even if means to use wiki markup, of course.) If Wikifying isn't important enough to link to its own explanatory page (like all the other titles like it on this page), then at least it should simply link to the Wikify definition! It's simply logical! Kreachure 22:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I guess no one cares about how they present Wikipedia to the people wanting to know about it and, I don't know, maybe HELP making it BETTER. You do learn new things everyday... Kreachure 01:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Kreachure, why don't you go ahead and modify it yourself? Wikipedia works best when people fix things they see that need fixing, rather than asking others to do it for them. If you have any questions on how to do this, ask me here or on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized several times these days, being replaced with a slogan about drugs. Shall we protect it?-- Army1987 10:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the page is a wise decision. The Community Portal should run non-stop (because of its nature) otherwise there'd be no reason why we're having it. I also believe that protecting it would not keep vandals away from doing it once it is unprotected. We have to accept the fact that there are vandals and try to block them. Cheers -- Svest 22:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I hadn't looked at the Community Portal for a while, but I have just been shocked by its current state.

It's become a mess. A dumping ground. As far as I can see, it has no purpose, no point, no aim. It's overwhelming, confusing, and far too bloated. It needs to slim, and fast... but I'm not sure even where to begin.

So let's start with the very basics: What's the point of the Community Portal?

Answers on a postcard please. Cheers, Tom- 23:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I sent you the postcard but I'm not sure if you'll get it since I didn't know your address. In my opinion, the Community Portal is to Wikipedia editors what the Main Page is to Wikipedia readers. It introduces editors to the different places to get involved, such as the open tasks, the various collaborations, and so on. It also has links to a variety of resources for new editors. Does that sound about right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Community portal is for editors, but in its current form it is a mess. I'm in the process of doing some major changes with it. Don't worry, all the links are still there, but I've updated the table to strain the eyes less, and I'm reorganizing the boxes so that the general topic and information comes before the specific collaboration boxes. - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Human Development Index ( HDI) is a standard UN measure/ rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this page backwards? I'm not about to edit the second most important page in Wikipedia, so can we get an experienced editor please? HereToHelp 01:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by backwards? I just did a major edit of the page, putting the general information boxes at the top of the page and the specific editing boxes below. I though this wuold be more intuitive and flow better for all users, not just experienced editors looking for a project. If this doesn't work then let me know. - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, what were you thinking. This is a complete mess, I much preferred it the other way around. To me it doesn't look right, and now I don't know where anything is. Before making major edits you should make a poll or ask other users where can have our say about a test page first. Oh well. — Wackymacs 06:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree - return it back. I use the Portal as my home page for WP because I want to see what is going on - what collaborations need help. I use other general info like once a month. Especially, put back maintenance collaboration at the top. It is very good for involving new users. Renata3 12:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well ok, I've reverted it. But I would like to say that I personally don't find the page to be logically arranged for general reader/editors. If a new or inexperienced user were to see this page the first things they would see are projects, pages to edit, tasks to do. After that they would find a request to get involved. And finally after working their way down the page through a lot of information in templates, text of multiple sizes, etc. they would find the resources needed to understand how to get involved and technical information on how to edit. Yes an experienced user may just want to skip to the projects, but sometimes (as it was even pointed it out to me, in the suggestions of polls, etc. before major edits) even an experienced user needs a refresher in policy/wikiquette. - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 14:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I find the collection of links much more useful than the boxes as well. As a matter of design, however, having the boxes doesn't make much sense unless they're towards the top of the page. This points to the real problem, which is that the boxes are bloated, and need to have their content cut back so that the useful links aren't so far down the page. In the past, I have tried numerous times to correct this, but the content bloat always comes back very quickly. -- Michael Snow 16:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not against changes. I personally think that the page looks AWFUL. It need some very serious design overhaul and just changing boxes around won't help a tiny bit. But for major changes you need to make a "demo" version on say your user space and then have a vote. So it's like a 3-month process not a one-day change. Renata3 21:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...I learned the hard way that major edits don't happen that quickly. Still, I'm not opposed to a redesign, I didn't find the info below the open tasks until about a week into Wikipedia. But a lot of people are used to this page being the way it is. No hard feelings, we all make mistakes, just warn us in advance. But in a way, this triggered the massive rework that's going on even now. HereToHelp 00:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've started a redesign here. Put any suggestions on the related talk page. - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that there should be a chatroom that way people can talk to other people about certain topics. And so students can get help on homework. And ask people what they know.

Well, mate, you're in luck! Check out #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net! -- fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 16:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The excerpt from the Collaboration of the Week is from last week's collaboration, Caribbean Natives, not from the Military History of Iraq article. If you have any other mistakes, I think it should be posted here. I understand the portal is going through a redesign, and I hope that doesn't lower the quality of the page. Davidizer13 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Bold textChatroom's fall under "freedom of speech" so not to have fun, would be against everything this page stands.

Before getting my head bitten off for self-promotion by adding a link under the "Related Communities" section to a Mediawiki site I have set up at http://allyourideas.com , I wanted to make sure this was a kosher place to do it. I would think it should be ok, since it is open-content (and potentially multilingual), but since it is not with the Wikimedia Foundation (though I am amenable to this), I wasn't 100% sure. If it is not kosher for a link to be placed here, I'd appreciate being informed where it would be all right.

This site fills an expressive gap I feel in the Mediawiki pantheon, as I think there is enormous potential to build ideas and idea snippets collaboratively that could be of use to innovators, entrepreneurs, and implementers of all types. Although it is experimental as Wikipedia itself was, and though it is necessary to avoid the site turning into free web hosting space, I believe it should be possible to enforce a kind of self-discipline whereby useful ideas can be collected and organized in such a forum, and thereby directing energies toward open, collaborative, original research (or ideas for research/innovation) by experts and non-experts alike beyond the constraints Wikipedia has for this kind of content.

Brettz9 08:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Related Communities and other parts of pages that link to other Wikis only link to other Wikimedia sites. The reason for this is that if we let one wiki in, we have to let them all on. Evil Monkey∴ Hello 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok,thanks, but how about at least a link to the page listing other wikis? I would think people (including myself) would like to be able to easily find these... Brettz9 10:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this concept page to everyone's attention, as it seems that discussion over the possible adoption of said page has slowed to a halt: User:Trevor macinnis/sandbox/community portal fixup

I suggest we addopt the concept, and move the current page into the user space, so that editors who are set in their ways needn't relearn anything. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Ec5618 20:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid a user-space page becoming a substitute for Wikipedia: pages. I'd prefer not to keep the old style around. People will adapt; they always do. Superm401 | Talk 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I see, and agree. If no-one objects I'm going to be bold. -- Ec5618 15:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was bold. Anything that follows this section, will be in reference to the new portal. Enjoy. -- Ec5618 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Colours

Could you change the colours around? It's a minor thing but if it looks pleasing to the eye more people will sign up for this. -- Bash 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check out the fixup talk page, it was requested that this not be done. Quote:

I would appreciate it if any change that left the current six box format intact also preserved the same color for each rough set of links, even if that set is moved to a different location. After seeing the Community Portal several thousand times, my eyes know what to look for where, but having the same information in a different color disrupts that memory.

I have no problem with the current colouring scheme myself, and in fact quite like the gentle look of the page. -- Ec5618 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I understand that your mind is trained to go to a certain coloued box, which is fine and all for regular veterans of Wikipedia, but what about new users? Those red and blue boxes really hurt your eyes. The 4 boxes at the bottom are fine, but the top 2 boxes are a pain to look at. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are gentle (as opposed to straight red/blue), but they aren't gentle enough. How about #DBEDFF (#EDF6FF if you want a lighter version) for the collaboration box? As for the "To do" box, that's tougher. #FFE0E0 or #FFEEEE?

As of right now, #FFEEEE and #EDF6FF look the best to me right now. What do you guys think? -- Bash 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My mind is trained in no way. I was quoting another user on the the fixup talk page. I had no reason to change the colours.

About your colours; I usually use an LCD screen to view Wikipedia, and the colours you propose (#FFEEEE and #EDF6FF) look awfully pale on it. If you could tone it up a bit, I'd appreciate it. #DBEDFF and #FFE0E0 look almost indistinguishable from the panels below them, respectively. -- Ec5618 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I switched the top two boxes' colors, because you had red above purple, which blended poorly. If someone wants to change back, I won't revert, but it looked bad the way it was, in my opinion. Ral 315 W_S 08:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I have an LCD monitor and #EDF6FF looks fine as the "To Do" box. I think this colour doesn't distract from the text. -- Bash 17:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed; feel free to revert if you don't like it. -- Bash 17:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Narrow screens

Some experimentation has been going on at Template:WikipediaSister/temp. The idea there is to put all different icons into individual tables in such a way that the boxes move around on smaller screens. As this Portal features two columns of text, I thought we might adapt the idea here. The page would look the same on wider screens, but the blocks of text would be stacked head to toe on smaller screens. Comments? The experiment seems to have hit a few snags, so any input would be welcome, either here or there. -- Ec5618 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Updating

I understand that templates are finally allowed to use other templates as input parameter. Perhaps we could fashion a way to update the template and this page at the same time. Both the template and this page could accept the name from a single source. Pondering .. -- Ec5618 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh what has happened to the community portal

Yuck, it was much nicer before. It's just like being hit over the head with a big block of text now.-- JK the unwise 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see that the new page is great. Neat, informative, organised. maybe a little color or box format change. Otherwise great work Ec5168! CG 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I still prefer the older revision of the community portal, which had less colors and a better layout. Also, the Article Improvement Drive info is out-of-date since this community portal template doesn't use the proper AID template (the one that actually stands out). — Wackymacs 21:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't get the wrong idea, this new portal wasn't my design. I merely found it, tweaked it and finally replaced the old portal with it. -- Ec5618 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I know, but you weren't meant to do that yet, because the new design was being tested at another user's sandbox, and discussed there until the majority of people liked it. — Wackymacs 08:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I protest. Yes, I was bold. I felt that the 'active recontruction' banner was getting a bit old. So, I edited the redesign and commented on the Talk page. I then edited the original portal to more clearly indicate that it was being redesigned. I have asked in several locations if anyone would object to the redesign. I never heard a peep. Anywhere. When I changed it, anyone could have reverted me, if their objection to the new design was great enough. Instead, only two editors has objected. Neither has tried to fix what they object to, and neither seems to be in the majority. I'm sorry, but I did ask nicely if I please could use the new portal. -- Ec5618 10:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I also like the new layout. We can't have two different versions for too long, or else people will start improving the old version, and then when the new version is adopted, those changes will get lost.

I've created a new template to sync the AID collaboration with the AID banner, and I've started updating some of the stale links. -- Beland 22:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, that looks a lot better now, I see the Collaboration of the Week is also fixed up, excellent. — Wackymacs 14:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Merging the fixup

Since the fixup sems to have come to a head and the community portal has been updated, the need for User:Trevor macinnis/sandbox/community portal fixup has ended, but I don't want people to lose their edits. Can someone merge the edit history into this page? I'd do it myself but I don't want to make a mistake. For now I'll copy over the contents of the talk page and put them in an archive. - Trevor MacInnis ( Talk | Contribs)

I propose we move this page for the same reason as i did on the Main Page. This isn't a proper noun, and it violates are generally accepted style...we use sentence case, not title case. The current title can confuse newcomers into thinking that's how our pages are named. It even has a lowercase p in the sidebar. -- Phroziac^{( talk)} 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I support the move. I don't know how many times I've type in the name with a lowercase "p" and been consternated. -- Beland 18:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, you shouldn't have to type the page name in. There's a link on the side bar. Raven4x4x 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have a homepage which I use to access Wikipedia pages by typing in the names, instead of trying to naviguess my way around. -- Beland 05:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• It is unfortunate that the Main Page proposal is invoked in support of this proposal, as the Main page proposal was defeated in December 2004. As it stands, the relationship of the namespaces should be the subject of usability research and discussion, first. Ancheta Wis 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I voted for Main Page last December. Thus I am in favor of the status quo. Ancheta Wis 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Invoked in support of? I started the discussions seperately, because I believe they should both be moved... -- Phroziac^{( talk)} 23:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• So that's apparently two votes in favor after 5 days...I'm not sure how to interpret your comment, Ancheta. Anyone else care to weigh in? (I also note the sidebar has been changed to have a capital P now!) -- Beland 05:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my response was not a vote For. In my opinion we have a lot of work in front of us regarding Portals. They are currently about 10 x the work of an ordinary article. We need to make Portals as easy to build as an article. Namespaces and the new Semantic Wiki, where the Namespaces are variables are the way to go on this, where a variable category can be used to state a relation, in my opinion, but we basically need to take the Wiki to a new level, both in Community and in Programming. This is a huge job which takes as input the articles of Wikipedia. Ancheta Wis 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how any of that has anything to do with whether this page should use "p" or "P", but I see above you are opposed. So, 2 in favor, 1 opposed. -- Beland 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally would like to see it renamed Portal:Community to go with other portals ;) And in any case I support the proposed move. Renata3 14:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The portal namespace is supposed to be for article-oriented portals, not reader-oriented portals. Ral315 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Status quo, and this is a unique page. -- Ec5618 23:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This COTW has been bouncing around a lot in a minor edit war. Instead of just reverting other people's changes, people who care should discuss its disposition on this page. Why don't I start. -- Beland 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The redesign of the Community Portal got rid of the smattering of attention-getting colored boxes for any specific page, for a reason. There were too many heterogeneous styles, and the page was starting to get too cluttered. Keeping everything as flat links makes the page look cleaner and helps make it easier to find everything, not just the boxworthy pages. As a result, it's fine with me not to include Template:wiki-week on the Community Portal. However, I think that some of the COTWs should be featured more prominently than the others. These are the three that are "general interest" - the main COTW, AID, and the Maintenance COTW. These are "general interest" because they try to get people to edit articles selected from anywhere in the Encyclopedia, not just a specific topic, and no specific expertise is required. Even though it is new, the Maintenance COTW is important to draw people's attention to because the wiki is experiencing some growing pains. Despite the very large number of editors we have, the number of pages we have which are flagged as needing some kind of remedial work is growing. The fraction of articles in the project which are flagged for attention also seems to be growing, though I'm not sure whether this is because we are doing a better job identifying them now or not. It would be understandable if we had a small fraction of articles sitting around dirty for a short amount of time before they are noticed and fixed. But we have backlogs of months or years in some categories. It would be healthy for the project to encourage greater awareness of these backlogs, to increase the proportion of "clean" articles (enhancing the project's credibility and usefulness) and reduce the amount of time it takes for things to get fixed. In conclusion, my preferred outcome would be a return to the design where the COTW, AID, and Maintenance COTW got a little extra coverage at the beginning of the "Active collaborations" section, followed by the list of topic-specific ones. -- Beland 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Where the Maintenance COTW is located now is very small and hard to find. I think it should be more prominently displayed so users who are looking for something easy to do will find it easily, not hidden among the millions of other "tasks you can do." The Maintenance COTW is what the community has chosen to be the maintenance focus for that week, and in order for it to work, you need to be able to find it easily. Agree with Beland-- Kewp (t) 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree more. In the current design the AID, COTW and Maintenance COTW are hidden amongst all the other stuff on the page. We could simply add the appropriate templates to the page, the AID one especially stands out (its pink at the moment!) — Wackymacs 13:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the AID template, and Wackymacs ( talk · contribs) left me a message on my talk page asking me to explain why further than I did in my edit summary. I've just read through this discussion and my comments are also appropriate here:

People are informed that the article improvement drive exists on the Community Portal, as it is listed on the page, along with the current AID collaboration. If you want to create a new template, similar to that of {{ cpcotw}}, and add that to the Community Portal, I have no objection.

The argument that the maintenance collaboration is 'more important' than other collaborations is flawed. One could argue, for example, that there are hardly any articles covering the European Union and the ones that do exist are not very complete, therefore the European Union collaboration deserves due prominence. All the collaborations are important; unfortunately there is not enough room to provide a full description for all of them. Sticking to how it is presented currently, in alphabetical order and listing the current collaboration, is in my opinion the best solution in the meantime. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is space for everything, just know how to use it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Community_Portal&oldid=26976917 This is my edit like in 5 mins (totally unpolished, but you should get the idea) which I reverted. Just develop proper templates and put it in! Renata3 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The community portal was only just recently redesigned; the last thing it needs now is another redesign. Talrias ( t | e | c) 14:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so narrow minded? I don't want to get personal here, but you seem to be stubornly protecting status quo, which many agree is not satisfactory. The portal was redisigned, so what? The redesign was not completed. There was a discussion about spliting it up to help and community and merging announcements and news into it. But someone hurried and put the portal in place. And as you see many people are still not too happy about some parts of it. It's not completed, as everything else on wiki, because the content is changing every minute. And I think another redesign is just what it needs. Renata3 16:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to your personal remarks. Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What about non-personal remarks? 'Cause we need to make it work for everyone. And I am getting pretty frustated. Renata3 17:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody have any other comments? Because I am gonna be bold and change it up. Renata3 11:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where is the right place to talk about this, so, I will comment here. Wikipedia was mentioned in the Brazilian Terra website. See this link. The news is about the possibility of Wikipedia also become available as a paper encyclopedia. Carioca 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In the future, Wikipedia:Press coverage is the appropriate place. Superm401 | Talk 02:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier, I found a page that appeared as though it might have been vandalized, since it had been transformed into a redirect and the information on the page now appeared to be completely removed from Wikipedia. I reverted the page and issued a test1 warning as a precaution, only to discover through return correspondance that the other Wikipedian actually acted in good faith. I now wish the test1 warning was not on that user's page. What (if anything) can I do about it? 139.78.10.1 15:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would post another message on that users talk page apologising for your mistake. I'm not sure if removing the test1 warning is considered good practice or not, but certainly a comment on their talk page is the way to go. Raven4x4x 10:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)