| Revision as of 09:57, 28 August 2008 editGiggy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers30,896 edits →Majorly's RfC← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:32, 28 August 2008 edit undo214.13.162.2 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ==You're Awesome == | |||
| I am totally on your side for wikikingofmiskawaka. This guy needs to stop posting child pornography. Thank you for your support ] (]) 12:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Pre-FAc copyedit/final review == | == Pre-FAc copyedit/final review == | ||
Revision as of 12:32, 28 August 2008
You're Awesome
I am totally on your side for wikikingofmiskawaka. This guy needs to stop posting child pornography. Thank you for your support 214.13.162.2 (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Pre-FAc copyedit/final review
This article has undergone a peer review and massive copyediting. I think you'll be right to finish it off. Cheers, --LordSunday 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um... OK. What gives you that idea? —Giggy 03:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- I meant could you look over it, sorry, lol. --LordSunday 12:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um, giggy, are you gonna look over it? not to sound hasty, but Serendi and I would like to get it done ASAP. Thanks, --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Probably not. Telling people that they have to look at an article because you think they're the right person for the job (hint: I know very little if anything about the subject matter) is a sure fire way to get a "no". —Giggy 08:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um, okay... I asked someone more experienced with the subject matter to do the job, thanks anyway. --Lord₪Sunday 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Probably not. Telling people that they have to look at an article because you think they're the right person for the job (hint: I know very little if anything about the subject matter) is a sure fire way to get a "no". —Giggy 08:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um, giggy, are you gonna look over it? not to sound hasty, but Serendi and I would like to get it done ASAP. Thanks, --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I meant could you look over it, sorry, lol. --LordSunday 12:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thriller lead
Hi Giggy, I've left a message at the FA assessment, not sure what you think. I'm quite happy for you to alter the lead to how you like it, I'm not too OWNy with the article. You did a good job fixing the lead to Discipline (Janet Jackson album) when that was at GA so I trust you can do a better job than me :-) — Realist 15:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Made corrections. Cheers. — Realist 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Date autoformatting in Acid2
Hi Giggy,
Please feel free to remove the date formatting from all the dates in the Acid2 article, excluding the ISO-format dates used in the references. I don't really like date autoformatting and would be happy to see it go. At the very least, could you point me towards the tool you mentioned that can delink the dates automatically? —Remember the dot 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Majorly's RfC
Hey there Giggy, Nice summary of issues for Majorly. I had been thinking about one as well, but hadn't decided one way or another... and was probably going to let it die because he disappeared. (Which is probably because of the RfC, and he is showing a sign of maturity.)---Balloonman 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Greeting Giggy. Glad to make your acquaintance. Thanks very much for the reply to my question, I posted a brief follow-up at the same spot. Take good care, HG | Talk 07:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response there. Just wanted to let you know that I looked over some of the evidence and left some comments that are critical of your evidence. (Also brief not in the RFC/U Talk.) Nothing personal, I hope you understand, just did the best I could. Be well, HG | Talk 09:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Noticed that. Will try and get a response up as soon as possible. —Giggy 09:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)