| Revision as of 10:38, 30 March 2009 editZvika (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,937 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:07, 1 April 2009 edit undoSapphic (talk | contribs)6,851 editsm →Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| Old messages are archived (see link at right). Feel free to leave a new message here. --] (]) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | Old messages are archived (see link at right). Feel free to leave a new message here. --] (]) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --] (]) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:07, 1 April 2009
I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
Please watch this page if you comment.
 Archives |
Old messages are archived (see link at right). Feel free to leave a new message here. --Zvika (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses
Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --Sapphic (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)