Template talk:Admin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:48, 8 January 2006

After Mistress Selina Kyle moved what was previously on here to Template:User admin2 [1], she put content here that resembles what is currently on Template:Admin2. I prefer we only have one template and merge one to the other. The question is: should the format be the one here currently on Template:Admin or the one on Admin2? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't really appropriate for {{admin}} to be merely a userbox template, to fit in with the other similar templates like {{user}}, {{vandal}} etc - For now I've redirected since this one, I think, is better as it shows both the "normal user" info and the admin detail: If anyone has any probs tho feel free to discuss or whatever

I didn't know at the time there was another similar template, but this one is better I think. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe vs. bullet

I just thought the bullet looked better. The pipe looks out of place to me. But, it's not a big enough deal, I just figured I'd leave a note in case it comes up again later. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Edit warring in itself is bad, more so in a widely used template, due to undue database churning. Please discuss proposed changes (and the merits thereof) on this talk page, rather than in your edit summaries. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:52, Jan. 8, 2006

MSK is trolling by trying to add a block log link to the admin template. Trolling, I say. -- Netoholic @ 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:52, 8 January 2006 edit Freakofnurture (talk \| contribs) 36,981 edits Protected ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:48, 8 January 2006 edit undo Netoholic (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 39,907 edits →‎Protected Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Edit warring in itself is bad, more so in a widely used template, due to undue database churning. Please discuss proposed changes (and the merits thereof) on this talk page, rather than in your edit summaries. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/\|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture\|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>03:52, Jan. 8, 2006</small>		Edit warring in itself is bad, more so in a widely used template, due to undue database churning. Please discuss proposed changes (and the merits thereof) on this talk page, rather than in your edit summaries. — '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/\|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture\|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>03:52, Jan. 8, 2006</small>

			: MSK is trolling by trying to add a block log link to the admin template. Trolling, I say. -- [[User:Netoholic\|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic\|@]] 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)