60
edits
Line 1,382: | Line 1,382: | ||
In other words, the descriptions for all these pages are ''already'' agreed, so there's no point in moving everything to the talk page. Please can you unprotect those five pages and move the descriptions back to their correct place. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 07:24, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | In other words, the descriptions for all these pages are ''already'' agreed, so there's no point in moving everything to the talk page. Please can you unprotect those five pages and move the descriptions back to their correct place. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 07:24, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Hi I've not been much involved in the debates about those wikis and I cannot see any explanation for cutting their articles to their talk pages. Do you think you could add a note to each one explaining why their contents were moved to talk? Cheers.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 15:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | :Hi I've not been much involved in the debates about those wikis and I cannot see any explanation for cutting their articles to their talk pages. Do you think you could add a note to each one explaining why their contents were moved to talk? Cheers.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 15:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::(Mark's response copied from my (Bob M's) talk page) Hello - here is a bit of an explanation about [http://www.wikiindex.org/User_talk:This_is_not_the_solution#Thanks_to_everyone_for_the_cooling_off_-_here_is_my_idea_on_how_to_move_through_this. current decisions]. Best, [[MarkDilley]] | |||
::::Hi Mark. Thanks for coming back. The link goes to a rather involved and heated discussion and is a bit hard to follow. My point is that it would seem to be a good idea to explain on the talk page of each of the wikis involved what exactly the problem is, and what action needs to be taken to get the description back. At the moment, any innocent party landing on any of those pages will be left wondering what is going on.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 08:36, 7 September 2009 (EDT) |
edits