Talk:Azed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

"Small but devoted following"[edit]

I know of no published data for the number of Azed solvers - the phrase is the result of deduction, presumably from the much diminished number of competitors in the monthly clue-writing competitions. Even if it is correct it can't be used in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:No original research)

It may in fact not be true. There now are far more more places for competitive clue-writing than there were forty years ago and many have feedback on the clues submitted. This could be diverting potential competitors without affecting the number of people who solve the puzzle but don't enter the competition or the thrice-monthly lottery. Or then again, you could be right. In this context, it doesn't matter.

Of course, if you know of a published source to back the phrase up, by all means put it back with an attribution.

Dinoceras (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather mean-minded contribution[edit]

A rather mean-minded contribution by User:AndrewWTaylor who has completely removed my addition with a sneery "WP is not a how-to guide". I'm tempted to quote Wikipedia on Reversion:

"Reverting a contribution is sometimes appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page.

Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?

In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism, uncontroversially disruptive changes or unexplained removals, the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing, politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes."

The absence of clues from this crossword is puzzling to neophytes, and I have already had to help one or two people - "Is this a crossword? Where the fuck are the clues?". The Guardian doesn't want to know, and the whole thing gives off an atmosphere that it's a very elitist crossword that doesn't welcome new users. Maybe spreading that angle on various social media platforms would be the best way forward. Errando (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]