Talk:Area code 252

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area code 252. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map dispute à la Area code 609[edit]

Fourteen days ago, Kbrose reverted Nyttend and removed the map with "restore properly sized image". As usual, he removed it from one page only, a "pet" area code, while leaving it alone on five other articles. As usual, vague edit summary and no talk page message. As usual, completely ignores the possibility of using {{CSS image crop}} (even though it's pointless and there's nothing improper about the size of the SVG map). So Kbrose, what's wrong this time? Oh, and while you're at it, care to look @ Talk:Area code 609? I think I should just open an RFC to settle the issue because this extreme status quo defense is just getting pointless and petty. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. If no solid explanation is obtained, WP:ANI will be informed of WP:OWN. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]