Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

message: How annoying.  This is protected.
Please let's get rid of the Gdańsk nonsense in this template.  It should simply say Gdańsk. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)
:you are right! the misleading template should be deleted.--Witkacy 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How annoying 

message: Shouldn't Reverts to confirm be Reverts to conform? RJFJR 15:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should; I came here to ask for just that fix, but I see that in the year since you've pointed it out, no one has changed it.  Binabik80 03:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling confirm/conform 

message: This template needs to be categorized, and should be made smaller - it is an ugly thing on many talk pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and changed it to conform (mostly) to the style of other talk page templates.—Random832 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I’d like to express my feeling of appreciation for the input of so many editors in a survey from February, 2005, I do not recognize the interpretation of the vote-count by moderator who arbitrarily excluded 12 votes regarding the period from 1466 to 1793, swinging its outcome. Such decission can only be seen as an outrageously successful attempt at fixing the results. And yet, it was performed in plain view of others. Please note: between 1466 and 1793, the community preference (without bias) in a vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote was Gdańsk. --Poeticbent talk 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, voting on issues involving two countries, with one having population 2x the size of others, and allowing admins from one or more of those countries to count votes and exclude some, is not a recipe for a perfect system :> That said, it is an old story, and fortunately one that does not cause much conflict those days. I am looking forward to the day there we can mark this page historical and simply use WP:NCGN, but until than, perhaps we should just let the sleeping dogs lie. And de-uglifing and minimizing this template is a step in the right direction.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minimizing inconvenient facts is not an option. Also, regarding the recent moving frenzy to double naming in article names by User:Space Cadet, I doubt very much that this is covered by the vote. -- Matthead  DisOuß   04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No content was altered to my knowledge. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PP, if you get locked up in a prison, your content is not altered either. -- Matthead  DisOuß   06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 
Please remove the uncategorized template tag as it has two categories.  Thanks --Thetrick (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Done –  01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Uncat tag 

message: (Uncontroversial): On the third bullet point, please italicize the 2nd to the last word, "Danzig" for consistency. Cheers, --Storkk (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|sudo}} italics consistency

message: To avoid confusing jargon, "3RR" should be spelt out as "three-revert rule" and linked to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule -- Gurch (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected edit request 

message: This template is protected, so I cannot add a TFD template, but I'd like to nominate it for deletion. I feel it's a big slap in the face of a number of pretty binding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including: WP:NOTVAND ("persistent edits may be dealt with as vandalism even when they're not"), WP:VOTE ("this vote is absolutely binding even though votes are normally not"), WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus is not in numbers ("this is consensus measured in numbers, even though consensus shouldn't be"), WP:3RR ("the three-revert rule is generally a bright line where edit warring is clear, except here").
Please advise me as to the correct course of action to list this template for deletion.
--LjL (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What to do with this template has been occasionally discussed at WP:NCGN. A deletion discussion would be interesting (I am not sure how I'd vote), I suggest you prepare the nomination and ask for an admin to post it via WP:AN.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion 

message: Requesting sync with Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice/sandbox to split the category to a /doc sub-page and allow for documentation to be written. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split docs