Revision as of 22:20, 7 March 2009 edit Dabomb87 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 66,457 edits →Use of linking: reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:18, 8 March 2009 edit undo Tony1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors 279,133 edits →Initial discussion Next edit →
Line 51: This RfC should concern date ''fragments''—when and how often they should be used, as per dabomb's summary, which summarised what came out of Cole's RfCs, (didn't it?)—not date autorformatting. Please let's not mix up the two. [[User:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 08:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :It's not clear if this response was meant for me, but if it was, it was irrelevant to what I said. —[[User:Locke Cole\|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole\|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole\|c]] 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ::Who, me? Yes, it was demonstrating why you were indulging in, at worst, a lie—just above—engineered by a skewed and fatally flawed RfC. Please don't keep claiming your cooked results as a true representation. [[User:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1\|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 02:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC) ==Wording and structural issues==

Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions