| Revision as of 23:10, 20 November 2008 editSkomorokh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,990 edits →Our_Feature_Presentation: addressed← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:01, 21 November 2008 edit undoAndres Velasco y Coll (talk | contribs)70 edits →Thanks for the help!: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :I've the offending section, so you are free to merge the temporary page back into the original article, and copyright should no longer be an issue. Hope this helps, <font color="404040">]</font> 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | :I've the offending section, so you are free to merge the temporary page back into the original article, and copyright should no longer be an issue. Hope this helps, <font color="404040">]</font> 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Thanks for the help! == | |||
| Thanks for your help in contributing to the ] article. --] (]) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:01, 21 November 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I will not be in a position to actively monitor this talkpage for the foreseeable future; messages left may not be immediately read or responded to, alas. |
Our_Feature_Presentation
Can you clarify this? The editor followed the exact instructions at {{copyviocore}} to create a /Temp page. You then userfied it with the comment "sandboxes don't belong in the mainspace", when it was the copyviocore template that set its location. At it's new location, the {{Copyvio/preload}} template is now broken. Should copyviocore be updated to reflect that doing exactly what it says is considered wrong? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should, but you would be wise to get broader input. I have no objection to the page being moved back to ensure everything works this time, but I believe the template offers bad advice. WP:VPT might be a good place to ask. Regards, the skomorokh 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand what was done and why... and agree that the copyvio tag gave bad information... but I have noted on the original article's talk page the new location of the TEMP article and made the same clarification at the AfD. I feel confident that editors can now find the in-work article if they lok atthe talk page.. though the copyvio tag redirect will not take them there. Next question, how will I know when the "matter is addressed", and who will then remove the copyvio tag? Thanks, Schmidt, 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've reworded the offending section, so you are free to merge the temporary page back into the original article, and copyright should no longer be an issue. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!
Thanks for your help in contributing to the David Sirlin article. --nothingxs (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)