Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Watchdetails/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Main page redesign

I'd like to spread the word about this redesign, and I believe a short notice here will inform more people than by using the usual channels. Is something like that ok? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He's threatened to go ahead and do it himself if nobody answers him.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
DON'T add this until an actual election starts. Community portal is a perfect spot for it, but it's not meant to clutter watchlists. Ral315 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Have they come up with a redesigh that follows the KISS priciple yet?Geni 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, they haven't. In fact, there's more infighting going on now than ever before. The "draft" design changes radically on a daily basis, and the stupidies (like having two search boxes on the page, right next to each other) are a sight to behold. Which is why it's NOT going on the site notice or this page. Raul654 08:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't be advertised here or on the site notice, but your apparent belief that you possess the authority to unilaterally issue such a proclamation is quite troubling.
Oh, and if you're going to rudely accuse of other people of engineering stupidities, you might want to spell the word correctly. —David Levy 18:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

re: email confirmation

I've added a note on this page regarding email confirmation Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Mail_server_blacklisted_by_SpamCop requirements that have very recently been enabled. Many users who have previously configured email may not be aware of the new requirement, and may not notice the change, as from their end the only diferance is not getting wiki email. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to Brion's announcement of the change on the village pump. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I plan on removing this in 2 weeks, unless another option for distributing this information is made availible somewhere more effective then on this page. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not put it permanently in MediaWiki:Prefs-help-email? People going to Special:Preferences might notice it more easily in that bright pinkish box. Splarka (rant) 08:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That box may need some rewording, but a quick test showed that normal wiki links do not work in that area. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but HTML code does, apparently (at least in 1.5, can't test 1.6 mahself), this might be better?:
  • E-mail (optional): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without the need of revealing your identity. <strong>Be sure to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Confirmemail">confirm</a> your email address, or you will not receive email.</strong>
Splarka (rant) 08:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried an html variant, but it failed miserably, may have been a psace in the URL that i didnt use % characters on. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You should be able to use an underline like: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Email_confirmation">confirmation</a>. Although, for 1.6, html might be disabled there too. Maybe test just a <strong> tag? Splarka (rant) 06:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:Please leave the confirmation notice here until 3/16/06. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why March 16th? It's been here for over a week and a half now. Is there anything special about that date? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it's better then 03-15 =), I noted on the VPT article that we;d display this for "about 2 weeks"; but if we think it's been long enough we can remove it, the note on RC was only up for a few days, noting that it was already on here as well, as this is a brand new process my suggestion for 2 weeks was that it would be long enough for most editors that used wikiemail to see it, even if they were not readers of VPT or the mailing list. Some people don't get much wikiemail, and they might not notice that they are not getting email anymore. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. Just curious about the date, and whether there was anything special about it. OK, I guess it won't hurt to leave it on for a few more days, although I wouldn't object taking it off at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

There was a request on the village pump to add the current date to the watchlist. I think it would be useful too. Sometimes, editors do not know what time "now" is when they open the watchlist up. Having the time there allows someone to determine how early or late the changes too place. We can remove the UTC/GMT links if we don't like them. --HappyCamper 04:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that Watchlist times follow your local time zone preference and so are not UTC, hence I don't see how that is helpful. Dragons flight 05:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I use it to find the relative amount of time that has passed between the changes to the articles. It doesn't matter that it doesn't correspond to the local user's time. Hmm...well, we'll leave it as is. See you! --HappyCamper 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone modifies their account preferences to specify their local time. For example, anyone who wishes to maintain synchronicity between edit histories and signatures (among other conversational time references) will retain the default offset of 00:00. I've never changed it, and I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would want to (given the confusion that inevitably arises).
Those who do opt to select an appropriate offset already know what their local time is (and can apply this information to the displayed edit times), so they can simply ignore the UTC indication (which is useful to the rest of us, especially when we're first starting out). —David Levy 05:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I still fail to see how it is useful to add a timestamp to the top of the watchlist given that now is always going to be just somewhat later than the most recent watchlist change anyway.
That's why I referenced someone "starting out." A user with hundreds or thousands of pages on his/her watchlist can simply look at the time of the most recent edit, but someone with only a few watched pages might not have any edits from within the past hour. And of course, a newbie is also less likely to remember the difference between his/her time and UTC.
Given that A) I don't see what purpose it serves, and B) it is potentially confusing to have conflicting timestamps for anyone with a time zone set,
Encountering such a disparity is unavoidable, except for users who never read discussion pages. In fact, this should be less confusing, given the UTC link.
I would prefer that it not be added. However, I won't stand in the way if there is a groundswell of support for it. Dragons flight 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, I won't push for it if there's significant opposition. —David Levy 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking alot about a clock, and personally would love to see the current wikitime all the time, such as on Sitenotice. I've added a clock to my userpage User:Xaosflux/WikiClock and refer to it all the time, to know when it currently is. Was even going to bring it to VPP, but thaught that having a dynamic entry like that in mediawiki would ruin page caching...any thaughts? xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that any admins that can add a link to clear the user's watchlist? thank you. (the link is at Special:Watchlist/clear)--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that link to clear the whole watchlist is not appropriate on the watchlist itself. A user should see it only when he/she clicks on "display all items". Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This has become a part of the default MediaWiki message. It should be noted that clicking on the link results in the display of a confirmation screen, so accidental invocation is harmless. —David Levy 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow you. What do you mean by "default MediaWiki message"? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The MediaWiki software includes default text for all of the MediaWiki messages (which can be edited). The current default text for MediaWiki:Watchdetails contains a "Remove all pages" link. (This was not always the case.)
I am aware that it is harmess, what I am trying to say that the watchlist is not the right place for it.
At least to me, it appears that you should first express a desire to edit your watchlist, by clicking on the "display or edit watchlist" link, to be given the option of "removing all items" from your watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The link is on that page too. To me, it makes sense for it to be in both locations. Someone might want to clear a bloated watchlist without being forced to load the entire thing. —David Levy 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Most likely that someone will first wonder what the heck is on his watchlist to start with, before doing a blank wipeout, which is irreversible. Any strong feelings if I remove the link from the main watchlist page while keeping it in the "edit watchlist" page? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections over this. It is much better to first express the desire to edit our watchlist. I feel this is much "safer". --Siva1979Talk to me 01:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
How so? —David Levy 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I would prefer to keep the link. I suggest that you solicit additional feedback at the village pump. (This talk page doesn't receive a great deal of traffic.) —David Levy 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked at the village pump, let us see what comments will come. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were no other comments in a day and a half, in spite of my post at village pump. I took the initiative of removing the link to "clear the watchlist" from the watchlist.

I perfectly agree with David that the link is important; above I have been arguing (persuasively I hope :) that the right place for that link is in the context of editing one's watchlist, and not before.

Let us see if removal of that link attracts other comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ID

Please add a <div id="arbcom-election-2006"></div> to the message for compatability with CSS. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit, in case anybody is curious

I wanted to somehow convey that not exactly everybody can be a candidate in the ArbCom election. That is, you have to have 1,000 edits here as of October 1. I didn't think it was necessary to link the new clause to provide detail, since it's right at the top of the main election page. --Merovingian ※ Talk 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive box

I added an archive box. --Meno25 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a policy change proposal more than it is a discussion to merge existing policies. I don't see why this needs to be placed at the top of watchlists anymore than any other community discussion. I am removing it for now. Rather than warring on this, lets discuss it here, and if enough folks think it should be there then, good, it'll go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously everybody has this page watchlisted and will now start to discuss (the currently invisible) notice here... the proper place to discuss this is at the village pump (where is already is). —Ruud 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored the message per the discussion already going on at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#General en.wikipedia header?, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#How do we get rid of the banner? and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Need the general en.wikipedia.org header altered - new_message. I don't see anyone really objecting (only some meta-objections to the fact this wasn't extensively discussed first.) —Ruud 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As Jimbo himself is directly involved and no one has given a good reason not to have the notice on the Watchlist page, perhaps leave it up for five or ten days, then take it down--that will give everyone absolute notification of this (per Jimmy Wales) very important discussion is happening... then, when it actually goes to a Wales-mandated Poll, the notice will go up again, to let all users know about it, so that all editors can weigh in. Everyone needs to be absolutely aware of this, and this... is the only reasonable way to do it. aside from people complaining that its annoying, I don't see a valid reason to not do this. why would we not want every eligible editor to see this? what can be gained for any sense of keeping this quiet? It should be known to everyone it affects (which is everyone!). If anyone can give a reason why every editor shouldn't have a chance to weigh in... then that is a reason to not do it. otherwise, it should stay up. - Denny 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't put policy proposals in the watchlist? Because "weighing in" is perfectly meaningless for coming to a conclusion and is just going to increase the level of noise to the discussion, and the longer it gets the fewer people read any of it? —Centrx→talk • 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Er... don't take this the wrong way, but doesn't that imply that only certain opinions are of value...? - Denny 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It implies that if you get a whole bunch of people posting their disconnected opinions, no one is going to bother reading them or taking them into consideration. Also if you get a whole bunch of people indiscriminately joining the discussion without prior knowledge of it, you are not going to get informed opinions and there will be a lot of noise, if perhaps noise is defined to include the number of comments where the natural response to them is "No, that's not what the proposal is about" or "No, this objection was already addressed and resolved to all discussants' satisfactions". If anything, the message would need to link to a description of the situation with the variuos positions on it (which is what you do if you file an WP:RFC). As it stands, there are going to be a whole bunch of people going to the discussion page making comments without reading any of the prior discussion where their objection or approval has already been addressed or is irrelevant, and furthermore there are going to be so many comments that no one is going to read them--which is already what was happening before it was advertised on the watchlist. —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any page which is a basic summary write up of the situation, comparing the ATT vs. the other three? If not... why didn't someone make one...? It would be essential I'd guess... so that even for the poll people could understand it. even most ballot elections have stuff like that; basic write-ups on the contrasting ideas between the two. I'd link that first in the message header, then whats there, then the discussion last. but in some form... it needs to be fully disclosed to every editor until resolved. It's a major change to the core policies for writing articles... no one should be excluded (and not putting it somewhere where everyone can theoretically see it is exclusion). - Denny 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That comparison is one of the points at issue. The proponents of WP:ATT contend that it is the same policy, often in better phrasing; many disagree. I think it is the same myself, but writing a guide that says so would be electioneering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Late edit: I know that having many voices sounding off could be problematic, but... Wikipedia is a place where every voice is equal--you are no better than me, I am no better than you. Your voice has zero authority over me, and I have zero authority... over you. A one to one value... that said, a perfect example is my suggesting the header to advertise the matter... I am new(ish). And mostly everyone liked my idea, and now its live. It'll change, but I doubt it'll come down since concensus seems to like it. Someone could post a brilliant idea that solves the whole matter--could be an editor no one has heard of. Thats why I think this is good to advertise. If it raises a lot, and I mean a lot of discussion/evaluation... I don't think that is a bad thing. No one should be excluded. If it means it takes longer to sort out, so what? The end result is what matters. If it takes weeks instead of days... ok. - Denny 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The implementation, even if eventually validated, has been badly handled - almost nobody knows it's taken place and even when people in XfD debates are told WP:ATT supersedes WP:V, they *still* use WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR etc in their reasonings. I've heard several of them ask "what does this word attributability mean anyway? We at least understood the old ones." And they're the active ones - the rest of the community who don't participate much in WP: space and focus on articles (which this policy does reflect upon, moreso than XfD debates in my opinion) are pretty much none the wiser. Orderinchaos78 03:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that the most likely outcome is that all will remain in place, with WP:ATT being a summary, I don't think it matters much. The actual merging of the page is not a significant issue and was advertised in numerous places. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, it was only advertised "mainly" in places that a limited number of people look at. If you dind't happen to have those places watchlisted... you missed it. My idea for a banner means now everyone knows. Each day more people will know--do you agree this is a good thing? That everyone, literally knows?
As to the fate of ATT I think that'll be the deal too for it to stand against what Jimbo said, and I do support WP:ATT. I love the idea... but you and I and Slim and WAS and the other firm supporters are just x number of people; everyone else gets to weigh in. If 100-200 of us say, "This is good," but another 700-800 (hypothetically) say, "This is bad...", well, concensus decides. :( And for fairness everyone gets a voice and needs to be informed they have that voice... - Denny 03:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is not a majority. Consensus is grounded in reasons relevant to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If 800 people say "This is bad..." without engaging in discussion with the 200 people who agree, then they are not participating in any consensus decision-making. —Centrx→talk • 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that, we don't have to simplify down to that level... but the important reason for this discussion on this page: My idea for a banner means now everyone knows. Each day more people will know--do you agree this is a good thing? That everyone, literally knows about what is underway and what is about to happen with the Jimbo-sanctioned Poll? - Denny 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, someone has removed the proposal announcement. I honestly don't think one day of notification is enough considering the importance of this process, but if this is going to continue to be a huge issue then at least there should be large, un-missable notices placed on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS which inform editors of the proposed changes. At least that way the editors who actually use or read those policy pages will be made aware of the proposed changes. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please restore notice

One day isn't enough, especially as many, many, many more regulars edit during the work week... and will see it then. - Denny 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it was necessary to begin with, but feel free to restore it if you think it's needed. Haukur 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As Denny is not an admin, he cannot add it. I shall. Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, right. Haukur 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
THanks... no one has given a good reason not to have it, and many more people will see it Monday-Friday. Maybe till Thursday? Then pull it till the poll actuall opens, or whichever comes first to do a notice for the duration of the poll? - Denny 22:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It'll get removed when it's no longer needed. Majorly (o rly?) 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. - Denny 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please update

Hi,

Could someone append the following to the notice? Consensus on the Poll talk page is leading to launching on March 29.

The poll will tentatively be scheduled to open on March 29, 2007, at 00:00 UTC.


Thanks. - Denny 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The above was a good idea at the time, but the details have become considerably less firm since then. —David Levy 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed ATT notice

ATT notice needs to go NOW. The ATT discussion is a big mess, and sending more people into the pileup is not helping. Practically the whole wikipedia mediation system is aware of the page by now.

We need to stop, step back, and rethink what we're doing.

--Kim Bruning 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... but when the final Poll itself goes up, we'll need to let everyone know for sure. - Denny 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the system as built will function correctly. But first let's slow down, clean up the mess, and then see what we really still need. --Kim Bruning 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT poll notification template - for when/if it launches

Notice! As requested by Jimmy Wales, a poll is now underway in regards to the Wikipedia:Attribution merger.
Please express your opinion about Wikipedia:Attribution in this poll.

Just posting it here now, for when this happens. This was the generally agreed-upon format for the watchlist header. The plan (also generally agreed upon/not opposed) was to run that template, exactly like that with no "Dismiss" button for just the first day. The idea was:

  • Day 1 (0-24 hours): that notice, as-is.
  • Days 2-7: Lose the graphic, add back in the "Dismiss" button.

If the poll goes longer than 7 days, I guess we can look at it then to see if the notice is worth keeping for the full duration. But a week would ensure that no one later can say they missed it, at all. - Denny 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added something, but I can't see it on my watchlist. Maybe I've not done it right. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll closing message

Given that we had the 'poll is open' message on for the last week, the 'poll is closed' message serves three purposes: It thanks all the users who voted and commented, announces the closing, and provides its simple numerical results.
This 24 hours closing message, like its 7 day long predecessor, has a 'dismiss' button, and the dismissal stays in effect for the duration of a session, minimizing any nuisance factor. Crum375 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the message does not say "The poll is closed." It could have said that; it doesn't. It says "thank you for participating" (it could still be open) and then it says "here were the numbers" as though they were rock-ribbed law or, for that matter, had any meaning at all when presented alone (did it pass because it was a majority or did it fail because it only had a slim majority and not a supermajority for a fundamental policy page? and Wikipedia is not a democracy anyway). If you want to provide closing rather than have the message disappear, it should simply say that the poll is closed, thank you. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with letting people know how many left comments. So far as I know, this is an unprecedented number. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be "Thank you to the 880 people who commented" or "880 people participated". Regardless, while that might be an interesting bit of trivia, it's not appropriate for the watchlist. Many interesting things have happened on Wikipedia, but the watchlist is not the community portal. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
After we invited people to vote and comment at the poll on this specific communication channel for 7 days in a row, it makes sense to announce that the poll is closed, thank them, and announce the unprecedented response, for 24 hours. I don't see what harm this would cause, given that anyone can click the 'dismiss' button. Crum375 02:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The message went far beyond that in some respects, and in other respects it failed to even inform that the poll was closed. The harm is that the watchlist is used as a message board for less important things, and that people, being utterly confused at this bare presentation of numbers, will derive wholly incorrect notions about how Wikipedia works and about the outcome of the poll. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
1. Anyone who participated in the poll is capable of viewing the results on his/her own (if he/she cares to).
2. Users who didn't see the previous message are now being informed of a poll in which they cannot participate.
3. There are no "simple numerical results." People's comments are very important, but displaying these numbers implies that only the vote counts matter. —David Levy 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
David, that 880 people left comments (yes, comments, not votes) is unprecedented. I can't see what possible harm it can do to leave the message up for 24 hours. Why must every single tiny detail of this poll be argued over? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Centrx that the watchlist is not an appropriate means of conveying such trivia. But regardless, why didn't you simply mention the total number of participants? Why did you also include a numerical breakdown? You noted above that these were comments (not merely votes), so why did you author a message that implies that this was a majority vote? —David Levy 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
How does the message imply it was a majority vote? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It was much more remarkable—and interesting to more people—when Wikipedia became a top 10 website, or when semi-protection was implemented. It was much more important than numbers when WP:BLP was created. None of these had a notice here, but all of them were hugely more important than the number of people who posted in this poll. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this. If you don't want to see it, why not just dismiss it? Why are you trying to prevent others from seeing it? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should put notices about any and all Wikipedia events in the watchlist? After all, anyone can just dismiss them. This prevents no one from seeing the numbers; anyone interested can click the link or, otherwise being already interested, can return to the page and find out the results. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of a current event, the release of Version 0.5 on DVD is more important than this poll, and much more important than the numbers in it. Also, you have still provided no actual reason why the numbers of supporters and opposers should be listed. Lay out your motives and provide reasons rather than edit warring on the watchlist. —Centrx→talk • 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on, guys, this is starting to smack of the Soviet Union. Just because you personally don't like the numbers, or don't like the display of the numbers (whichever it is), doesn't mean you should interfere with other people seeing them. Please just leave them for 24 hours, then take them down. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union?! Because people disagree with you?
I don't dislike the numbers or oppose the idea of people seeing them (and I even added a link to the poll, thereby encouraging people to see it for themselves). I oppose the idea of implying that this was a majority vote in which only the numbers (and not the comments) matter. Citing them in this context sends precisely that message, and you still haven't explained why you believe that it's a good idea. (And no, proclaiming that opposing you is reminiscent of the Soviet Union is not a valid rationale.) —David Levy 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I decided not to vote in the poll, but still looked at it. Saying thanks to the 880 people that commented is missing the fact that other people looked and didn't want to comment. Further, it's only unprecedented because it's been advertised on watchlists. violet/riga (t) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

...which is mind-boggling, considering the fact that I reverted once, discussed the issue on the talk page, and edited the message in an attempt to compromise. SlimVirgin, conversely, reverted three times (without any compromise attempt) and equated my position with the Soviet Union. —David Levy 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to David, I mis-read your difs. (Since struck your talk page message). — xaosflux Talk 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Xaosflux!  :-) —David Levy 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Watchdetails/Archive_2&oldid=1108933933"