This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) at 22:59, 20 November 2008 (→Our_Feature_Presentation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:59, 20 November 2008 by MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) (→Our_Feature_Presentation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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)