Talk:Indestructible ink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

from VfD:

Not encyclopedic, archaic info from Ye Olde 1881 Cyclopedia. Joyous 02:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ye olde Delete. Davodd 02:43, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Some of this stuff must have been used on my college transcripts. I can't seem to change them, no matter what I do. Transwiki and Delete. Geogre 04:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Class of 1885)
    • What's your rationale?
    • Sorry: Rationale for deletion: the material here is out of date. Secondly, it's a how-to. So, it is telling us how to create an ink that is no longer the permanent inks that are used in the trades. It could be sent to Wikisource, however, as it would be interesting to collect the how-to's of home encyclopediae from the 19th century. Geogre 12:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Indestructible ink. Encyclopedic and still workable olde stuffe. Needs some work, though. Mikkalai 06:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Indestructible ink. Agree with Mikkalai. Encyclopedic per definition (see source text ;-) ) Kim Bruning 20:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Indestructible ink. Why? Because I just like it, that's why. "Indestructible by any process." "Indestructible by any process." And better yet "will not equally destroy the material on which it is applied." So, I can paint that on my no-wrinkle shirt and it will deflect bullets? Without "equally destroying" my shirt? But, O my goodness, what happens if an indestructible ink meets an irresistable eraser? But just maybe it's no more indestructible than my wrinkle-free shirt is wrinkle-free. Maybe it should be moved to "destruction-resistant ink." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. I really am voting for "keep and move to Indestructible ink" just in case it isn't clear... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it too. Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move It is how-to, and it may be outdated... but it's good. Moving to Indestructible ink would work as well. Possibly add a entry in the beginning on it's source, just to clarify for wikipedia readers?
    • this was --Asmodai 08:18, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Has been copied, a copy has been put on Indestructible ink. Dralwik
    • Your intentions were good, but I believe the GFDL gurus say this is wrong, since the copy does not contain the editing history of the original. I admit to utter confusion on this point myself. I think that, if the consensus turns out to be "move," then at the expiration of VfD the sysop acting on the vote should delete your copy, then move the original. Not a big deal. Maybe you should blank the page, allowing a speedy delete, because it could get complicated if someone does any meaningful edits to the copy before VfD expires. Others, thoughts? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I've done a delete/move to keep the edit history sane. I leave it to the VfD participants to make good any further editing/renaming necessary. - TB 11:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndestructible_ink_fc60.html"