User talk:Now registered

Auburn Metropolitan Area

Hi! I am a little confused about what you are trying to fix on the article Auburn, Alabama metropolitan area. I really don't know what you mean by "Other cite request replacement". I have provided citations attesting to current usage of the term "Auburn metropolitan area" concerning Auburn and its suburbs. I would ask that you please don't remove the existing citations. I think it is clear that the usage is in the citations given; if you disagree, please use the talk page rather than simply blanking the references. Thanks! --Lissoy (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You had it moved back in 2006 from Auburn-Opelika Metropolitan Area, which is what I have heard it called my entire life and I grew up there. I want to see what prompted that change because your comment was ambiguous and I believe that was on purpose. The area is not called that in any article I have ever found that doesn't link to this wikipedia article. As such, it's self-referential, and I linked in the citations I have found in state literature which call it Auburn-Opelika. Your own comments have shown a tendency to be Auburn-centric. That's because you have a passion for the University and the city, I am sure. But be mindful that when you promote Auburn and seem to be demoting other nearby communities, it can be offensive. Maybe when you edit articles about Opelika, for instance, imagine it is Auburn and imagine how you like the wording, and I imagine that there will be less of the rather negative tone you tend to lean towards concerning Auburn's neighbor and county seat. Without the student population, which fluctuates greatly, Auburn is roughly the same size as Opelika, and they coexist well. Except, it seems, in wikipedia, and I am trying to make sure things don't become "original research" as this renaming of the metropolitan area.

Urban Dictionary

Hi there,

Thanks for posting why you undid my revision on the Perineum article; I was unaware that urban dictionary was not considered a valid source. There are other sources I could have cited, though I don't think it's particularly important that the example I added be present; people can always search google for these slang terms if they want. That said, it's sometimes hard to judge what material is worthwhile to present and which material is not, even after a thorough reading of the guidelines.

I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to point me to where the validity of urban dictionary as a source has been discussed. I do not doubt you when you say that it has been discussed at length, I'm simply interested in reading this discussion and seeing what the ultimate reasoning was for the decision that it should not be used as a reference.

Also, I just checked Wiktionary and Dictionary.com, and found the term defined in those locations. I'm pretty certain that Dictionary.com is a proper reference source, but is Wiktionary also? I haven't used other wikimedia pages as references in the past, and am unsure if referencing other wikimedia pages is considered to be proper, or is considered self-referential.

Thanks!

Spiral5800 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Used to be all over the talk page, but I am not the first to revert those style of changes due to urban dictionary use as a source. The problem with it as a source is documented elsewhere, though, and I encourage to you to find that information and read it.

I found this when I looked in the archive of Urban Dictionary's talk page: UD is not reliable in the sense that you can take any definition as authoritative. Some definitions are so poorly written that they can easily be misinterpretted. A big reason why UD is not reliable for Wikipedia purposes is that any editor with a point of view can make a UD entry to support it. That does seem to be a pretty good reason to not use UD as a source; that the same thing could be said about Wikipedia is kind irrelevant I guess. Thanks for taking the time to reply! Spiral5800 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)