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

Revision as of 18:07, 16 March 2009

Revision as of 18:43, 16 March 2009

Line 119:

*I think he's not around much until 20 March. I completely agree with Sssoul, that it's rather insane to link "April Fools' Day" to "April 1" as a slavish matter of course; the ''option'' of doing so is just another compromise the community seems to be making. I suppose it's worthwhile to keep the peace. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::thanks for responding -. i'm not trying to argue anything or change Dabomb's analysis - i simply want to know what the perceived value is. i did ask on Dabomb87's page a while back but no one clarified it. it seems like someone should be able to state what the rationale is. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

::* Well, I don’t see the value either. I don’t look forward to reverse engineering Dabomb’s analysis and wading hip-deep into the old RfCs. Dabomb (bless his heart) did all this for us and worked hard to memorialize it all into a well-organized summary. But he also did some arm wrestling with Locke over the results and he certainly might have caved and added concessions that can’t be supported by the RfC results. Rather than second-guess Dabomb, I suggest we give him an opportunity to explain why that bullet point is in his summary. I might add that wording like this in [[Cinco de Mayo]]: