Talk:Commanding officer/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Commanding officer/Archive 1
More actions
m Grammar fix |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Am I wrong, or is this article another "flashlight"? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:15, 20 January 2006 (EST) | Am I wrong, or is this article another "flashlight"? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:15, 20 January 2006 (EST) | ||
: Not sure if by 'flashlight' you mean 'stub that really can't be expanded on', but I was in the midst of questioning the need for this article, but you got there before me. :) [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:17, 20 January 2006 (EST) | : Not sure if by 'flashlight' you mean 'stub that really can't be expanded on', but I was in the midst of questioning the need for this article, but you got there before me. :) [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 17:17, 20 January 2006 (EST) | ||
::What he means is that it is redundant. I agree. This article isn't needed at all. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:21, 20 January 2006 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 22:21, 20 January 2006
Delete
Am I wrong, or is this article another "flashlight"? --Peter Farago 17:15, 20 January 2006 (EST)
- Not sure if by 'flashlight' you mean 'stub that really can't be expanded on', but I was in the midst of questioning the need for this article, but you got there before me. :) Joemc72 17:17, 20 January 2006 (EST)
- What he means is that it is redundant. I agree. This article isn't needed at all. --Ricimer 17:21, 20 January 2006 (EST)