Difference between revisions of "Ghyll talk:Conflict That Is Not Happening"
m (Fixing my name) |
m (Fixing my name) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This was my first attempt at a comprehensive survey article. --[[User:Jcowan| | + | This was my first attempt at a comprehensive survey article. --[[User:Jcowan|John Cowan]] 10:07, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT) |
I ''really'' like this style- it really brings out the best in the game. Thanks for the example (and I hope you don't mind if I lift it :) --[[User:Joe Bowers|Joe Bowers]] 11:20, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT) | I ''really'' like this style- it really brings out the best in the game. Thanks for the example (and I hope you don't mind if I lift it :) --[[User:Joe Bowers|Joe Bowers]] 11:20, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:29, 11 June 2005
This was my first attempt at a comprehensive survey article. --John Cowan 10:07, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)
I really like this style- it really brings out the best in the game. Thanks for the example (and I hope you don't mind if I lift it :) --Joe Bowers 11:20, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Bravo. Excellent article, and fantastic coverage. Many points made are sure to generate debate for many moons. --DrBacchus 14:03, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Fixed serious blunder
I had originally written of "the foolish notion of Oblibestircus" etc. etc., because Oblibestircus was already established in Aquentravalkeration as a foolish scholar. But it's Rancticirchiretic who believes in a connection between aquentravalkeration and the Paramount Queens. So I corrected the former to the latter here (this does not result in any global conflicts): even someone as brilliant as R. can be allowed one or two foolish notions per lifetime! --John Cowan 11:17, 17 Feb 2005 (EST)
