User:Silence/Archive0009: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<center>Posted by [[WP:EA|'''''(^'-')^''''']] [[User:Covington|Covington]] 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team</center> |
<center>Posted by [[WP:EA|'''''(^'-')^''''']] [[User:Covington|Covington]] 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team</center> |
||
==GA spam on featured template== |
|||
hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in [[:Template:featured]] despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place). |
|||
this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations! |
|||
they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed. |
|||
i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:12, 15 May 2006
- Archive I: July 2004 to September 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive II: October 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive III: November 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive IIII: December 2005. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive V: January 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VI: February 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VII: March 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VIII: April 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VIIII: May 2006 to December 2006. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VV: January 2007. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive VVIIIIV: February 2007 to July 2007. Nothing important happened in this one.
- Archive IIIVXXXLCCCCDM: August 2007 to August 2009. In this one I edited Łobżany.
- Archive IIXV: September 2010 to September 2015. Nothing important happened in this one.
These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with me,
If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing, or next to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are distant they are nothing.
- ―Walt Whitman
I wear a necklace, cause I wanna know when I'm upside down.
- ―Mitch Hedberg
Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
- Thanks for the notification. -Silence 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please Help
GA spam on featured template
hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).
this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!
they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.
i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)