User talk:Zzzzz/Archive4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That's fine. I'm going to try to clean it up, though. Can I readd the ABs link you deleted? TheJabberwʘck 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Removing warnings from your talk page
Please do not remove warnings from your talk page. Continuing to do this may result in you losing the privilege of editing your talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
actually WP:VAND says only that removing vandalism warnings is considered vandalism, and WP:TALK says that restoring removed messages is "not proper" and edit warring. That's pretty weak grounds on which to base a claim that 'all warnings must be retained'... it actually makes the repeated restoration of such (as has been done) a blockable offense. thankyou. Zzzzz 11:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Reminders...
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
GA and FA and template controversy
- Hi... I got a note from you about GA and FA on my talk page. Normally I reply there but since it appears you left the same note on many pages, I'll do so here. I have no idea what this conflict is about and am not sure that getting involved in it without knowing what is going on would be useful. If I have time and interest I will investigate but no promises. I'm not sure that leaving a message as cryptic as that one will get you the desired results though... ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- (refactored... I really really like to keep threads together and am watching this page)
- sorry it wasnt clear, i figured you were an interested party from your comments on the TFD debate about the "good article" star. basically, now the GA people are trying to put text saying "this featured article was once a good article!" into the featured article template. there appears to be no valid reason for this other than (a) inappropriate advertising of the non-policy GA wikiproject (which is internal spam), and (b) a self-congratulatory pat on the back for the good article people (which should be unnecessary if the article is already featured anyway). discussion is taking place at Template talk:featured, your comments are welcome. Zzzzz 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note; this issue is something I had actually seen earlier and planned to comment on sooner or later. I will not unprotect and then edit the template, but I will willingly join in the discussion since I had been planning to anyways. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea; see Talk:List of computer pranks for why. Do you agree, and if so, can you put a {{db-reason}} notice on it? TheJabberwʘck 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)