Template talk:checkstuffpage - Revision history

SamFisher1022: /* Categorization */ better cat

2007-11-17T17:17:19Z

Categorization: better cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 17 November 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:Okay, why is THIS one protected? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		:Okay, why is THIS one protected? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::DeFender, many of these templates are protected because there is no reason for any non-administrators to edit them and, if a vandal edited them, they would break many wiki pages. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		::DeFender, many of these templates are protected because there is no reason for any non-administrators to edit them and, if a vandal edited them, they would break many wiki pages. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
		+	Better idea, now that we have a separate category for STUFF templates, this page should be moved there. — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Coder at 03:47, 16 November 2007

2007-11-16T03:47:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 16 November 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Once again, I want to categorize this page but can't edit it. I think this belongs under "Notice Templates". — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		Once again, I want to categorize this page but can't edit it. I think this belongs under "Notice Templates". — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Okay, why is THIS one protected? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		:Okay, why is THIS one protected? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
		+	::DeFender, many of these templates are protected because there is no reason for any non-administrators to edit them and, if a vandal edited them, they would break many wiki pages. {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Defender1031: /* Categorization */ why protect?

2007-11-16T03:44:34Z

Categorization: why protect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 16 November 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Once again, I want to categorize this page but can't edit it. I think this belongs under "Notice Templates". — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)		Once again, I want to categorize this page but can't edit it. I think this belongs under "Notice Templates". — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
		+	:Okay, why is THIS one protected? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SamFisher1022: /**/Categorization

2007-11-16T03:42:37Z

: Categorization

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:42, 16 November 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Except that facts can and do, on occasion, get accepted. Therefore, they are also being considered for inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)		:Except that facts can and do, on occasion, get accepted. Therefore, they are also being considered for inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
	::Plus, some facts go there ''before'' ever going to the article. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}		::Plus, some facts go there ''before'' ever going to the article. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
		+
		+	== Categorization ==
		+
		+	Once again, I want to categorize this page but can't edit it. I think this belongs under "Notice Templates". — {{User:SamFisher1022/sig}} 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kookykman: Some facts go to STUFF first.

2005-11-02T20:57:46Z

Some facts go to STUFF first.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 2 November 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think "Some fun facts are being considered for removal," sounds better than "Some fun facts are being considered." {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 22:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)		I think "Some fun facts are being considered for removal," sounds better than "Some fun facts are being considered." {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 22:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
	:Except that facts can and do, on occasion, get accepted. Therefore, they are also being considered for inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)		:Except that facts can and do, on occasion, get accepted. Therefore, they are also being considered for inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
		+	::Plus, some facts go there ''before'' ever going to the article. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}

It's dot com: reply for Gafaddict

2005-10-06T22:46:01Z

reply for Gafaddict

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 6 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think "Some fun facts are being considered for removal," sounds better than "Some fun facts are being considered." {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 22:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)		I think "Some fun facts are being considered for removal," sounds better than "Some fun facts are being considered." {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 22:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
		+	:Except that facts can and do, on occasion, get accepted. Therefore, they are also being considered for inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 22:46, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Gafaddict: Odd wording

2005-10-06T22:05:04Z

Odd wording

New page

I think "Some fun facts are being considered for removal," sounds better than "Some fun facts are being considered." {{User:Gafaddict/sig}} 22:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)