Comments |
- IT is a redundant warning template, and the instructions say its only a userspace template now. (I assume that is because of an administrative ruling of the cabal) We have a {{rewrite}} template. We don't need "psuedo-rewrite" templates that do same thing, only confusingly, inconsistently, and without the auto-categorization. And I changed by mind on this one. --Mnbvcxz 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment FIRST of all, don't wave your little finger at those of us who have been around for a long while about this template. Secondly, the most irritating thing about this matter is that this template has been placed on VFD how many times (?) and it has survived. At this point whether it serves a purpose or not, I will defend it because this Nom is a PIECE OF CRAP itself. (PS, its that time of the month!) Hugs, Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- First off, I regret voting keep last time. And, it survived last time (or at least got as many for votes as it did) because of a lack of a valid template. Second, was there a good reason for the previous consensus? (as I said before, I regret my vote on the issue) I know bringing up the same issue over and over gets annoying. However, alot of the active users now weren't around or didn't know what they were doing when the current "consensus" was formed. --Mnbvcxz 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is NO WAY that VFD should adhere to the opinions of the past. Articles change, userbases change, opinions change, and because of this VFD should be kept elastic at all times and not be based on mere tradition, let alone user annoyance and menstruation. PP's reason to keep is about as legitimate as me saying "Yo, fuck that article Sergei Rachmaninoff, I hate Russians, their accents are annoying." Additionally, this template has NEVER been used for its intended purpose (as a warning template), only as a vehicle of space-occupying and page-uglifying. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that this template has been voted to be kept at least 5 or six times in the past, and it not being an article and underwent not changes whatsoever, I think it's a valid reason to stop voting on it for the seventh eighth and ninth time. There is plenty of crap out there people can nominate and vote on without beating that poor horse every time. ~ 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- VOTING CLOSED. And stop nominating this template. As per PP, it survived I can't count how many times in the past already. ~ 11:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Voting opened, 3-3 is not a quorum for keep. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is when you have people nominating the bloody thing every other week. ~ 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- The last time this was nominated was nearly 3 weeks ago. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- And the matter was DECIDED three weeks ago, and even before that! Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- This should be irrelevant, anyway. If it was meant to be kept this time it should have recieved an overwhelming majority as it did the last time(s) it was nominated. However, we are deadlocked currently, so neither side has a quorum, so this remains open. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, well I can just keep indenting my comments further in that you, Nah! Besides, now there is a quorum of four votes to save. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Slim majority is not a quorum >:| give me 5-3 and I'll be happy. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- You know TKF, I'd expect you to drop me a line on my talk page before reverting me, we never had problems talking before. Just a thought, I don't remember me reverting you in the past. Also, the deletion or the lack of it thereof is due to the admin doing the maintenance better judgment. I did a judgment call, you should have left it at that. ~ 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|