Talk:IFF

IIf?

IIf does not really fit in here, right? Give me some arguments, why it should stay - and it can stay. Otherwise I will remove it. Hi.ro 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried.... Per the style guidelines for common misspellings on disambig pages, I added this under a "see also" heading. Wangi seemed to disagree rather strongly and reverted my change. I've asked him about this on his talk page, and hopefully after hearing back we can resolve this. -Quintote 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, we're passed this. Wangi had simply misread the IIf and IFF, quite easy to do, and has removed it. I would've been okay with a "See also", but as long as it's not listed in there I'm good with it. ;-) -Quintote 13:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 November 2006

I have re-added all the erased links bij User:Wangi, because I did not quite agree with his method of working. Before "cleaning up" this disambiguition page, I propose Wangi to ask this first on the talk page. I do not follow his opinion. The more relevant links on a dis.p., the more relevant the dis.p. What do the others feel about this ? Berchemboy 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi did make some radical changes, but I'd rather not see things devolve into an edit war. I removed some of those links you added back. One of them, "In Flanders Fields, a freedom-loving flamingant weblog and webzine," not only sounded like an advertisement for a blog, but linked to the In Flanders Fields article, which is about the poem, not the blog. -Quintote 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]