Talk:News and Projects - Revision history

Gryzor at 14:24, 16 September 2006

2006-09-16T14:24:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 16 September 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register!		:Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register!
	:Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? [[User:Gryzor\|Gryzor]] 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST)		:Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? [[User:Gryzor\|Gryzor]] 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
			::Ahhh I see what you mean - just read your WACCI/csa8 meeting entry; but, living in Europe (the vast majority of us anyway), we're all used to the DD-MM-YYYY convention - only the Americans use the MM-DD-YYYY anomaly, isn't it so? [[User:Gryzor\|Gryzor]] 16:24, 16 September 2006 (CEST)

Gryzor at 14:22, 16 September 2006

2006-09-16T14:22:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 16 September 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	We really should use YYYY-MM-DD format dates rather than confusing users with what might be DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY -- David Cantrell, 2006-09-15		We really should use YYYY-MM-DD format dates rather than confusing users with what might be DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY -- David Cantrell, 2006-09-15

			:Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register!
			:Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? [[User:Gryzor\|Gryzor]] 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST)

195.149.50.59 at 18:22, 15 September 2006

2006-09-15T18:22:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 15 September 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Please have a look at WikiNews, how news are managed. I tried to do it here in the same way. Would be cool, if we could do it in this way every time in the future. -- [[User:Prodatron\|Prodatron]] 01:57, 28 August 2006 (CEST)		Please have a look at WikiNews, how news are managed. I tried to do it here in the same way. Would be cool, if we could do it in this way every time in the future. -- [[User:Prodatron\|Prodatron]] 01:57, 28 August 2006 (CEST)

			We really should use YYYY-MM-DD format dates rather than confusing users with what might be DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY -- David Cantrell, 2006-09-15

Prodatron at 23:57, 27 August 2006

2006-08-27T23:57:35Z

New page

Please have a look at WikiNews, how news are managed. I tried to do it here in the same way. Would be cool, if we could do it in this way every time in the future. -- [[User:Prodatron|Prodatron]] 01:57, 28 August 2006 (CEST)