Difference between revisions of "Ghyll talk:Quezlarian Ooo"
PhineasCrank (talk | contribs) (Going once...) |
PhineasCrank (talk | contribs) m (Going thrice?) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST) | So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, scholar comments at the bottom of an article are non-canonical/authoritative, so just because you're saying it down there doesn't make it Truth. But, I'm (personally) more inclined to just let the scholar comments point out the problem, and let it be an inaccuracy that can be fixed at a later date by a normal person (I have no intention of using Stottlemeyer again). --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm good with that. So, I'm assuming, based on this, that someone may completely strike the article as total heresy? That's cool, as long as I still get "credit" for not having missed my turn. If I'd caught the earlier reference, I would have written a different article, obviously, but I've had a lot going on in my personal life and just didn't quite keep up. --[[User:PhineasCrank|Doctor Phineas Crank]] 10:19, 10 Feb 2005 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 February 2005
See also Talk:Harrabloon Bank. --Morbus Iff 09:35, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)
Bloody hell! There was no link to this entry from that one, so I didn't catch the connection. Now what? Do I rewrite the whole damn thing? --Doctor Phineas Crank 10:40, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)
So, I take it that you all are okay with this amazing inconsistency being blamed on my favorite scapegoat? --Doctor Phineas Crank 06:28, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
Well, scholar comments at the bottom of an article are non-canonical/authoritative, so just because you're saying it down there doesn't make it Truth. But, I'm (personally) more inclined to just let the scholar comments point out the problem, and let it be an inaccuracy that can be fixed at a later date by a normal person (I have no intention of using Stottlemeyer again). --Morbus Iff 07:07, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
I'm good with that. So, I'm assuming, based on this, that someone may completely strike the article as total heresy? That's cool, as long as I still get "credit" for not having missed my turn. If I'd caught the earlier reference, I would have written a different article, obviously, but I've had a lot going on in my personal life and just didn't quite keep up. --Doctor Phineas Crank 10:19, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)
