Schrei, schrei, schrei...[]
Schrei, the language, please. Don't use terms like "Wigger" in an image's title. - AJHalliwell 04:02, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken, although I thought it was perfect for Jeffrey. Also, start your own conversation area next time - don't hog someone else's. :P --Schrei 04:05, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"Emissary"[]
I'm glad to see you took my suggestion on the talk page into consideration. :P I actually think that's a fine choice because it's the result of community effort and a compromise on the length issue. Also, thanks for opposing it and sticking to your guns, since I think a lot of us were too eager to rubber stamp it (ie the act issue). --Schrei 01:28, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- What does "rubber stamp it" mean? I agree that ""Emissary"" is a good article, but so is TATV. It doesn't matter that one is really short and the other is really long - they're both really good articles. --Defiant | Talk 01:43, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree completely about TATV, although to be honest I don't prefer long summaries (despite writing several). I ranted once about needing to stop writing novels but that was more my mood than my opinion. It's personal preference and not grounds for automatic disqualification. And rubber stamp means you blindly approve it. --Schrei 01:49, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Then I slightly disagree - I even nominated "Yesterday's Enterprise" for featured status removal, as it doesn't have Acts. I like the diversity of articles (some have Acts, some don't - that's cool!) and different writing styles are encouraged by the guidelines, but I nominated "Yesterday's Enterprise" for featured status removal because most people seemed to prefer the Act structure. However, the nomination was objected to - an indication that not everyone "blindly approves" of the Act structure.
- In regards to TATV, I know that the article will likely be featured eventually because I'm willing to do whatever it takes to see that it is, even if it takes the next ten years of my life! --Defiant | Talk 02:04, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Rest assured that you have my vote (assuming I get around to reading the whole thing). ;) --Schrei 02:08, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"Wikifying"[]
Thanks for your opinion. I hope you don't get annoyed by inconsequential things too often. :P -- HobbesPDX 2013 hrs, 2005-10-19
Re:"Urgent police question"[]
Very sneaky, lol! Okay, first question: when you go to the creation page (for creating an article that doesn't exist) for an article that was previously deleted, there is a link at the top that asks if we want to restore however many revisions there when it was deleted. For example, if there were three edits made to an article called, say, "DuckTales", and it was deleted but the need somehow arose to restore it, we could go to the page for creating the article and it would say "Restore 3 revisions?" at the top. Got it? Of course, only admins can delete articles, so... yeah, lol!
Okay, second question: I'm doing fine. College is kicking my a$$, but I'm managing. How's it going in your new place? (Don't answer that here, I'll get on AIM and we can talk there, lol!) Anyways, nice hearin' from ya again. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:09, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I just realized you said you weren't on your computer, lol! Anyways, hope everything's going okay. You know where to reach me when you're all set again. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:18, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)