Talk:August 17

Stack Appreciation Day
What on earth is a "Stack Appreciation Day"?


 * I don't know...I've reverted it pending a reliable source. Only annual official holidays should be listed here.  Fabricationary 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Fabricationary, I do not think there is anything wrong with making up new holidays, Stack anything on Stack Appreciation Day. plates, cups, C.D.'s, video's, newspapers, books, whatever, you can think of. I read in ' The Internet ' By: Angus. J. Kennedy that it is standard practice for Access Providers to supply the basic connection software- usually for free. However, because the internet is constantly evolving, no matter what you get, you'll soon want to replace or add components. It's not crucial to start out with what's state of the art, because once your online, you can download the latest version of everything - again, usually for free. Or you can get it in disc form as a cover-mount from one of the many Internet and computer magazine titles : just browse the racks to see who is offering the month's best package. pg. 45 Stack (four tildes )65.92.98.29 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 16 August 6:40 p.m.

High School Musical
I don't think 'High School Musical 2' is an important event in history, so I'm deleting it. 69.113.224.221 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, nameless when are you going to delete ' High School Musical 2' ? (four tildes) 65.92.98.29 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 16 August 2011 5:59 p.m.

Steve Gorman's birth date in 1965 is not shown in chronological order (mixed in among the 1964s) Unclemikejb2 (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

David Landes
@Rkieferbaum - instead of your latest edit, what you should have done is follow WP:BRD - first you were Bold, then I Reverted, now you should have started a Discussion. Seeing as you haven't done this, I'll revert your change again. Please reply here if you disagree, but please don't repeat your edit. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm sorry, but I think you're interpreting this the wrong way. I wasn't bold; I simply removed an external link that was incorrectly used as a reference. Normally, I would add it back properly formatted, but since our MOS doesn't require a source for each DOY entry, and that date isn't controversial, I left it without one. Your reversal (instead of correctly adding that URL as a reference) suggests that you might be looking for a conflict rather than aiming for accuracy in the article (which, I'm sorry to say, is confirmed by your latest action). I reverted it back, explaining why a reference was not necessary there, and with your reversal the article is now in an incorrect state with an unnecessary reference incorrectly formatted. Since I not only don't pursue conflict but actively avoid it whenever I can, I'll leave the article and this discussion as they are, and you can proceed as you see fit. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)