This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 23 January 2007 (John24601 didn't sign: "→[]: +comment"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:54, 23 January 2007 by HagermanBot (talk | contribs) (John24601 didn't sign: "→[]: +comment")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Think Before Posting!
Please don't make posts that could be construed as harassment, personal attacks, or otherwise uncivil behavior.
 Archives |
Commonwealth vs. American English
Q:When are you guys gonna learn to spell ?
A:This grievance comes from those who aren't aware that British and American spellings sometimes differ.
We've been at the centre of some rancour, but we're not going to take offence or harbour any grievances. The catalogue of complaints won't colour this organisation's programme. It's a grey area anyway. And we don't want to labour the point.
Padding around signature
The added padding of bright color around your sig is kinda intrusive:( Could you re-consider? DMacks 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Using slang like "sig" and "kinda" is offensive. Could you reconsider? t h b 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"The added padding of bright color around your signature is very intrusive:( Could you re-consider?" DMacks 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could, but I'm not going to. Sorry if you're offended, that was certainly not my intent, especially since I don't know you. t h b 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks
kindareddish browny to me, not offensive at all! 8-)--Light current 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Light current, it's actually the internet equivalent of Tyrian purple, one of my favorite colors, and certainly not one that I ever thought of as being "bright". Glad to see you haven't left in disgust like some of the other editors, Light current.
t h b 11:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Nurse uniform
The article as written in a load of unencylcopaedic ranting which does nothing to actually describe the cause - I realise I was quite bold, but what is there on the whole needs to go and a properly structured article needs putting in there, which is what I was trying to do. --John24601 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with most of your deletion. Removing the content from an article and leaving subtitles only is different from rewriting it. Feel free to rewrite it. t h b 11:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article as is serves little value, however: the content is unencyclopaedic and unreferenced and needs to go, which is why I removed it. If you read my edit summary you'd have seen that I was infact planning to come back and flesh it out over the next couple of days, and invited others also to add. The fact that there is nothing to replace unencylopaedic content immediately doesn't mean that that content can stay until something else is ready! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John24601 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).