Battlestar Wiki talk:Be bold in updating pages: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:54, 11 June 2006

Delete

This policy is not followed. We should just delete it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

With respect, I think you misunderstand the policy. --Peter Farago 12:19, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

I have read it correcly, and by now memorized it. I think the policy is not followed with the "Recent Changes" section reading "Have an idea or though? Post it here on the Quroum." It contradits this policy, thus it should be deleted. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

(Sorry if this is not the place) Not saying anyone is to blame, but this "knick-for-knack" is starting to get a little old. May I offer a solution? Shane, when you have an idea, create one example for the rest to discuss it (via the Quorum?). Peter, please don't revert the example until the rest can discuss it. I know that I am just a n00bie, but I think that we all can get along. Sorry if this should be somewhere else. --gougef 12:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

I'm just following his princible argument in Template talk:Location Data. If something has no use, it should be deleted and the article should be on how people get their information. If there was no inovation allowed, this policy should be removed, revised according the Template talk:Location Data princible for deletion. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:54, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 17:51, 11 June 2006 view source Gougef (talk \| contribs) Sponsors, Chiefs 1,615 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:54, 11 June 2006 view source Shane (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, interwiki, Sponsors, CAP, Chiefs 17,616 edits →‎Delete Newer edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	::: (Sorry if this is not the place) Not saying anyone is to blame, but this "knick-for-knack" is starting to get a little old. May I offer a solution? Shane, when you have an idea, create one example for the rest to discuss it (via the Quorum?). Peter, please don't revert the example until the rest can discuss it. I know that I am just a n00bie, but I think that we all can get along. Sorry if this should be somewhere else. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT)		::: (Sorry if this is not the place) Not saying anyone is to blame, but this "knick-for-knack" is starting to get a little old. May I offer a solution? Shane, when you have an idea, create one example for the rest to discuss it (via the Quorum?). Peter, please don't revert the example until the rest can discuss it. I know that I am just a n00bie, but I think that we all can get along. Sorry if this should be somewhere else. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

			::::I'm just following his princible argument in [[Template talk:Location Data]]. If something has no use, it should be deleted and the article should be on how people get their information. If there was no inovation allowed, this policy should be removed, revised according the [[Template talk:Location Data]] princible for deletion. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 12:54, 11 June 2006 (CDT)