| Revision as of 21:10, 7 July 2006 editWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 edits Automated archival of 1 sections with User:Werdnabot← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:11, 8 July 2006 edit undoWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 edits Automated archival of 1 sections with User:WerdnabotNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| This also applies to telling newbies that they have to do something that policy very clearly does not state in order for their articles to become featured. Trying to force your opinion on people via the back door is not on, Bobblewik. ] 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | This also applies to telling newbies that they have to do something that policy very clearly does not state in order for their articles to become featured. Trying to force your opinion on people via the back door is not on, Bobblewik. ] 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Date linking conflict== | |||
| Please keep the ] page out your current date linking edit war with ]. This page is up for Good Article consideration and your nonsense could effect this pages approval. ] 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks!== | ==Thanks!== | ||
Revision as of 21:11, 8 July 2006
Archive
See: Archive index
Dates
Why are you removing all date links?Bridesmill 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to take me for a fool, Bobblewik. Every time you stop making these edits, you only start again after a couple of months, as if the people who disagree with them will have forgotten about it. Do you want me to throw this one upstairs to the arbitration committee? I'm sick and tired of having to do this dance with you every couple of months to get you to make edits you shouldn't be making in the first place, when there's plenty of other helpful things you could be doing. I've rollbacked the lot this time, but please let it be the last of them. Rebecca 02:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, please cease trying to involve newbies in your crusade. After the long discussion that was had on this issue, you should know better. Rebecca 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This also applies to telling newbies that they have to do something that policy very clearly does not state in order for their articles to become featured. Trying to force your opinion on people via the back door is not on, Bobblewik. Rebecca 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
Thank you for your constructive criticism of the FAC for Cryptography, which became a featured article today. I appreciate your effort and attention! Mangojuice 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
Re: Percentages in MOS
I have responded at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Proposal for section Percentages. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Wood Preservation
Please review the changes that I have to the article Timber treatment. --Lumber Jack 17:40, 4. Jul 2006 (CEST)
Arichival of talk page
Yes, simply copy the code at the top of my page, making the necessary (and obvious) alterations. Sorry for the delay in replying. Incidentally your "E-mail this user" is not working at the moment. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 10:40 5 July 2006 (GMT).
- Thanks! bobblewik 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)