User talk:Merranvo

TPS Report
Now that you went and started a new article without any discussion, please be so kind as to fix the mess you made. I already added the seealso and a GFDL split notice. You can fix all the incoming links. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
And if you were the one who brought User:Sarah Ewert into this, I thank you. I did need to calm down there. Went a little overboard. I was taken aback by what looked like a random attack (since I didn't even know who you were until checking the history). We do have our differences, but I hope you agree Wikipedia will be better if we just set aside that and leave each other alone. Thus I do officially apologize for badgering you. And thank you again if you brought Sarah into this. (And I've thanked/apologized to her as well.) That situation needed a cool head in the mix. Take care. -WarthogDemon 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For later, if needed
I don't "really" know where a complaint of this form would go, but the users repeated changing of the icons HAS to stop. The only result of the repeated and indiscriminate changing of icons is mass confusion. Resolution by consensus would likely be flawed as Wikipedia is not known for its transperancy, the underlying network below the front is very hard to find, let alone navigate.

The fact is repeated modification of default icons should NOT be allowed. The addition of reflective effects to an icon does not make that icon any more representive than without the effects, and in some occasions it makes it more difficult to understand what the icon is trying to convey. Similarly, replacing the icon with an icon that is vastly different than the original not only confuses those who identify certain templates with the icons that support them, but is completely unnessicary.

All icons, once their initial form is decided, should be locked from being changed. Similarly, all templates, once their initial form is decided upon, should be locked from being changed. The point I make here is that unless there is a reason, exclusive of astetics, to change a "official" part of wikipedia, it should not be changed.

As I said before, I do not know where this "should" go, and I'm not one to try and work the system to get my way. If this is read, I would prefer it to be placed in the corrosponding location rather than me attempt at putting it where it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.179.195 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)