Bluesclues666
RFC discussion of your username (Bluesclues666)
editHello, Bluesclues666, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a policy on what usernames editors can use. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with that policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it here. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- Sam Blacketer 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Username allowed
editHello, Bluesclues666. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (here). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding edits made during March 22 2007 (UTC) to Mooninites
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The comment on your userpage
editHi. You say on your userpage that you intend to "CONTRIBUTE A LOT OF UNTRUFUL CRAP" to Wikipedia. We welcome all good-faith contributors but this statement of your attitude is unhelpful. Please note that if you are found deliberately adding any false information to our articles, I will block this account indefinitely. I would appreciate your changing the comment on your page to something more productive and from now on making accurate and verifiable edits. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Her certaily does not need to change this statement. It is after all a statement of WP policy as outlined in WP:V. You may not like the wording but who the hell are you to tell him to remove it. JC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.8.166 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
- That's a ridiculous comment, and you are not helping this user by adding it. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is after all a statement of WP policy as outlined in WP:V that anything can be added as long as its verifiable. Is it rhe term CRAP to which you object?( or just the other shit?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.8.166 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
- Yes the policy does say that verifiability, not truth, warrants inclusion. Let me ask in reversal, is something untrue verifyable? Can you offer proof that a Pig iron is acutally some kind of meatbyproduct? No. What WP:V implies is that we only accept a subsection of reality/truth - the subsection which can verified. CharonX/talk 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)