Welcome to Wikitravel. Please take a sec to look at our copyleft and policies and guidelines, but feel free to plunge forward and edit some pages. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted. If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, and if you need some info not on there, post a message in the travellers' pub.
If you want to sign your name type ~~~; to sign your name with the date and time type ~~~~; and to just add the date and time type ~~~~~ into the text of the article you are editing. The ~ get replaced when you save the page. -- Huttite 22:44, 17 Dec 2005 (EST)
The Bad Reichenhall page is almost done. Just a couple photos and a little bit more info would be good. Does anyone know German and French? Because those 2 sections don't have any Bad Reichenhall page.Kingjeff 16:36, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)
When I use the strike, I seem to strike other stuff that I don't want on top of what I wanted to strike. Can anyone teach me how to use it properly? Kingjeff 21:42, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)
ok. Thanks. Solves the problem. Kingjeff 15:01, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)
User Talk Page Etiquette
I notice you are deleting talk page discussions from your talk page that you consider complete. While this keeps the talk page small and tidy, it is bad manners. It also makes others wonder if you are really understanding what we are telling you or if you are simply being arrogant and ignoring us. I do not think this is the case, just that you are not aware of how removing text looks from another's viewpoint. Consider how you would feel if someone else removed your comments from their talk page with no explanation.
If you want to clear inactive discussions off your talk page you can create a sub-page such as User talk:Kingjeff/Archive and copy the text of all your old discussions there. Leave a link that points to the archive at the top of your talk page. That way we can all see what we told you in the past and don't repeat ourselves in the future. It also looks professional. -- Huttite 17:03, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)
ok. ok. I'll archive it for now on. Kingjeff 17:25, 29 Dec 2005 (EST)
Where the !!!! is Frankfurt/Oder!
Where is Frankfurt/Oder? The wiki says it is a suburb of Frankfurt! Please do not use the / construct as part of a name unless you refer to a city/district. Use a - or a space to separate double banger names like this.
The article is not helped by the lack of content. There is only a template, no other information. There should be something more. I notice you have written a few articles like this. If you are going to write article like this, at least say place is in region or country. It IS part of the template. -- Huttite 20:29, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)
Talking to anonymous users
There is generally little point talking to an anonymous user on their IP address. No-one gets a warning that a message has been left. Many are on transitory IP addresses such as dialup ports. Unless they know enough to watch recent changes like a hawk they will not see their message in a timely way. It is better to leave a message on the talk page of a article or just ignore the edits and make cleanup changes later. But if a vandalising user is persistent just welcome them with a reasonably polite note, no need for too many extra comments. That way the vandals are easily identified in recent changes as they have blue talk links. And remember it is New Year's. -- Huttite 22:37, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)
My February 2006 nomination
Can you explain what you are trying to do by striking out nominations in the DotM page? If you want to withdraw a nomination because you now think the article is not good enough, the correct way is to move it into the Slush pile. Jpatokal 22:54, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
Please explain moving Wurzburg on Talk:Wurzburg before moving it. The name has not been decided and Wurzburg is a valid spelling, unless there is another place called Wurzburg and Wuerzburg. I reversed your move to continue deliberations. -- Huttite 19:20, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
DotMs and "support"
I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Choosing a DotM is not a question of "supporting" one article, the point is to give comments to all articles, and comments stay valid even if the article is not chosen for next month. What is your objection to this? What are you trying to say by striking out your previous comments? This should only be done when you had an objection which has now been fixed. Jpatokal 20:10, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
Am I not allowed to change m mind? Kingjeff 20:17, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)
Is there Wikipedia administrators on here? Kingjeff 10:04, 11 Feb 2006 (EST)
You asked about my opinion of the Bad Reichenhall article. In my opinion it is a Usable article, but not a Guide. There is a great deal of material there for such a small town, particularly on its attractions, and that of course is a good thing. However, most of the attraction listings give little information that one can actually use -- the attraction is just there. Significant elaboration is needed. Furthermore, there's very little information on some of the important basics (what's worth buying in the "elegant pedestrian area"? where, exactly, can one get a drink? what allows one to choose among the very sketchily described places to sleep?) and no photos or maps. These are precisely the things that, in my opinion, distinguish a Guide from something that's merely Usable. Even Usable is a stretch in certain regards; the requirement that a Usable article be such that "(a)n adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources to get to the destination, eat, and sleep" is only marginally met as regards "Get in" and "Get around."
That said, it certainly seems like a cool place, and one that I would try to visit when in the area. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:43, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)
Wikitravel:Destination of the Month candidates procedures
A friendly tip: You seem a bit hazy on DotM nominating procedures. As I understand it, the procedure is:
However, you don't support your own nominations. That gives a mistaken impression as to what level of support the article has. It's kind of like, in parliamentary procedure, seconding a nomination you yourself have made. Withdrawing or qualifying something you wrote seems OK (equivalent to amending or withdrawing a parliamentary motion), but not just saying it again. Clear?
Incidentally, I don't see any need for the format change that you have tried to make there. Formatting isn't a problem with DotM nominations as they stand, and it just makes the page more cluttered if one introduces all the headings you propose. It's good that you're interested in improving the process, though. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:31, 4 March 2006 (EST)