Since u do not want a userpage, try moving it to ur talkpage. There r some users who dont want a userpage. if u would like 2 contact me, please add a comment on my talkpage.  Meteoroid »  17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try moving what? J Di 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means create a redirect. – Chacor 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, no thanks. J Di 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the power, brother. Also, killer trick with the cascading protection of your redlink! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created your user page again, J Di. Because I want to see your barnstars -- and you are an administrator. Most Wikipedia administrators must have a user page. If your user page is deleted again and again, report them on their page. Thank you! Jigs41793 ^Talk/_contribs 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy stating that administrators, or anybody else, must have a user page, so please stop recreating it. My user page is being deleted by me, most of the time... see here. J Di 12:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Jigs person has been going around changing others' userpages, and saying "this is not vandalism", and still gets reverted because the changes aren't asked for. Someone should stop them. 72.21.50.138 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J Di - thanks for keeping watch on leaf. However, you should beware that more than 3 reversions in a single day can risk you getting blocked, even if they are good reversions. It's probably safer to call in some of the other typical reverters, or post the page on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection sign up sheet. Cheers, Debivort 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but the three-revert rule does not apply to reversions of vandalism and page protection was not necessary at the time; only two editors were vandalising the page at the time and they both stopped after the IP was blocked. J Di 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The messagebox "If you are replying to a message I have left somewhere else, leave your reply where my message is." is breaking the formatting of the page, by hiding some of the toolbox entries (Firefox 2). Please don't use CSS tricks like this. --kingboyk 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with the above. Please make it appear lower down or remove it altogether, it looks tacky IMO. 89.213.56.186 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too low, people won't be able to see it, and if it isn't there, I'll start having problems with needlessly fragmented discussions again. J Di 14:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps replace it with <table style="position:fixed; left:0%; bottom:7%; overflow:visible; padding:0px" class="collapsible usermessage"><tr><th nowrap="nowrap" style="font-size:90%">&nbsp;</th></tr><tr><td><div><center><small>If you are<br />replying to a message<br />I have left<br />somewhere else,<br />'''leave your reply<br />where my message is.'''</small></center></div></td></tr></table> which would give it a show/hide link so it can be 'minimised' if someone needs to use a toolbox item. Tra (Talk) 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please apply a force #redirect to your talkpage from your userpage. —Meteoroid » 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I'm not going to do this. J Di 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm butting in here, but perhaps a notice at the top (like here) would be an idea? Just a thought. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone. How much clearer does that need to be? J Di 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come every time I start a conversation on your talkpage, a chain of replies begins? Please explain. —Meteoroid » 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... J Di 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? —Meteoroid » 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question because I don't have an answer. J Di 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not start a conversation war. 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? J Di 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.......... —Meteoroid » 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil Meteoroid. We can still see the blurred text while editting and also leave the guy alone. Stop harassing him. --Shaggy9872004 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for reverting my talk page. Appreciate it :) - Alison^☺ 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For The Wedge (Australian TV show), is a genuine Myspace link be applicable as a source?Shaggy9872004 05:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what it's sourcing, Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources should help you. J Di 07:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sourcing the 'Theme' part of the article.--Shaggy9872004 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be okay as long as the MySpace page makes clear that it is the official MySpace page, but you should still try to find a better source if you can (preferably a news website or a Network Ten website). J Di 08:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedge's Official website links to that Myspace. So should I use it?--Shaggy9872004 09:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be okay then. You might want to say that it's the official MySpace and that it's linked to from the The Wedge website in comment tags (<!-- blah blah -->) or whatever they're called though, so other people know. J Di 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for taking care of that. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the PBB2 article, I'm unsure about if it is appropriate to use colors in someone's nomination box in the following situations:

• A housemate was punished for numerous violations of the rules and was put up for eviction as a consequence. Currently the table has the blue background in his box that has been use for "Banned" in prior series. The housemate, however, was still allowed to nominate since he never discussed nominations. Personally, I think that it should not have the color, but when I changed it, it was reverted later, and I don't want to cause any problems.

• Two housemates are immune from eviction, but the table and some editors insist that behind there nominations this week there should be a gold color in a similar fashion to "Exempt". Although they are immune from eviction, they were not exempt from the nominations process. I again believe that there should be no color behind it.

I figured I'd ask you since you seem to know a lot about nominations tables and the color codes. If you have any ideas it'd be great. Thank You. FireSpike 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the best person to ask since I personally would like to see all colours stabbed in the gut, but I'll give it a shot.

• If the housemate who violated the rules and was put up for eviction by Big Brother was still able to nominate, I don't think a colour should be used in the cell as there was nothing stopping them from otherwise being involved in the nominations process as normal — being up for eviction is a part of the nominations process.
• The housemates who are immune to eviction but still able to nominate other housemates probably should have coloured cells to indicate their immunity as long as the same colour isn't used to indicate exemption from the nominations process completely, and as long as their nominations are included in the same cell.

Hope that helps. J Di 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]