User talk:Xenwolf: Difference between revisions

Line 309:

Continuing our discussion from [[Talk:5/4#"classic"_misleading|the 5/4 talk page]], do you think my proposal for new interval categorizations is at least half decent? I mean, if "classic" is too ambiguous, we need to find better descriptors for intervals like 5/4, don't we? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 16:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

: Sorry, I'm not in the mood to participate in this discussion right now. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:56, 9 October 2020 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,920 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:36, 9 October 2020 view source Xenwolf (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, Interface administrators, Sysops 8,705 edits m →New Interval Categorizations: better not Newer edit →
Line 309:		Line 309:

	Continuing our discussion from [[Talk:5/4#"classic"_misleading\|the 5/4 talk page]], do you think my proposal for new interval categorizations is at least half decent? I mean, if "classic" is too ambiguous, we need to find better descriptors for intervals like 5/4, don't we? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)		Continuing our discussion from [[Talk:5/4#"classic"_misleading\|the 5/4 talk page]], do you think my proposal for new interval categorizations is at least half decent? I mean, if "classic" is too ambiguous, we need to find better descriptors for intervals like 5/4, don't we? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

			: Sorry, I'm not in the mood to participate in this discussion right now. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)