Talk:Anti-graffiti coating

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Graffiti (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graffiti, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GraffitiWikipedia:WikiProject GraffitiTemplate:WikiProject GraffitiGraffiti articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

September 2009[edit]

Under permanent coatings the term "elbow grease" is used. Having watched a Star Trek earlier in the day, what came to mind was if Data saw that, he would promptly bug someone over what it was. But for more practical purposes, with 7 billion plus people on the planet, I can guarantee you only small fraction know what "elbow grease" is. Under these grounds, I have changed this POV writing error. -Fletcherman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.252.17 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Is Correct[edit]

Thanks to the editor that reversed the text covering the vandalism aspects of public spaces of which the extant article addresses mitigation processes for. If the editor who waishes to suggest that such crimes are "art" would visit the Graffiti article, you will find that the artistic aspects are already well covered there. Damotclese (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism is incorrect, it is ideological in nature, and choosing to use it with no allusion to the nature of conflict surrounding this product is an ideological choice. also, yeah this is a pointless article, delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.33.160 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objecticism/significance?[edit]

Much of the article seems to be written like a persuasive piece against graffitti rather than an informative piece on Anti-graffitti coatings. Also, the artical is of dubious significance. Should be either rewritten or entirely removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.185.230 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal 24.210.33.160 sanctions[edit]

It looks like we should probably get the vandal at 24.210.33.160 blocked. Damotclese (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-graffiti coating. 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) 14:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]