Talk:Chris chan (CWCipedia) - Revision history

Anonymax: Reverted edits by Anonybot (talk) to last revision by Slimz

2012-04-24T19:34:57Z

Reverted edits by Anonybot (talk) to last revision by Slimz

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 24 April 2012
Line 49:		Line 49:
	*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)		*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much Fail! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)

	What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)		What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)

Anonybot: Robot: Unlinking "Fail"

2012-04-23T22:35:57Z

Robot: Unlinking "Fail"

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 23 April 2012
Line 49:		Line 49:
	*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)		*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much Fail! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)

	What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)		What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)

Slimz: /* Not so LULZY piping */ new section

2011-12-16T17:37:04Z

Not so LULZY piping: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:37, 16 December 2011
Line 65:		Line 65:
	**Duck, Tobacky, etc. were all intentional misspellings because Chris is too pussy to use cuss words. Santa Clause is probably either Chris trying to be clever or Chris succeeding in being retarded. That said, I think a Chris and Christmas article with mention of Santa Clause would be great!		**Duck, Tobacky, etc. were all intentional misspellings because Chris is too pussy to use cuss words. Santa Clause is probably either Chris trying to be clever or Chris succeeding in being retarded. That said, I think a Chris and Christmas article with mention of Santa Clause would be great!
	::P.S. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I know I remark on a lot of your edits, but it's because you're one of the most prolific editors on here, and our interests seem to overlap. I really do respect you, and I think you do a great job here. And as far as obsession with misspellings... Well, you are the one who wanted to make a list of Chris's misspellings, aren't you? :p --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 19:57, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::P.S. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I know I remark on a lot of your edits, but it's because you're one of the most prolific editors on here, and our interests seem to overlap. I really do respect you, and I think you do a great job here. And as far as obsession with misspellings... Well, you are the one who wanted to make a list of Chris's misspellings, aren't you? :p --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 19:57, 20 December 2009 (CET)

			== Not so LULZY piping ==

			This page contains a bunch of piping that is less thatn lulzy and in some cases not helpful or funny at all. Rather then me jo going in and fixing it or removing the pipes, i suggest that an admin (or someone with more clout than I) review it

Beat at 20:58, 24 March 2010

2010-03-24T20:58:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 24 March 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	** Wait, he considers God male? As if God has a human gender! What a bizarre view Chris has of religion. I don't think 100 [[Chris and Religion]]s do it justice. --[[User:OFSheep\|OFSheep]] 03:34, 19 December 2009 (CET)		** Wait, he considers God male? As if God has a human gender! What a bizarre view Chris has of religion. I don't think 100 [[Chris and Religion]]s do it justice. --[[User:OFSheep\|OFSheep]] 03:34, 19 December 2009 (CET)
	***Well, this belief isn't at least Chris-specific. It's quite popular amongst some conservative Christians. However, I doubt those conservative Christians act like Chris... --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:05, 19 December 2009 (CET)		***Well, this belief isn't at least Chris-specific. It's quite popular amongst some conservative Christians. However, I doubt those conservative Christians act like Chris... --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:05, 19 December 2009 (CET)
	****Typically god is depicted as male just because that's how they liked to paint him in the old days. I've been to a lot of churches (conservative and not) and pretty much all of them state that God doesn't have a gender. Of course, Chris doesn't get this. He ~~just thinks~~ of ~~god as~~ the ~~bearded dude Michalangelo painted~~, and therefore thinks of ~~him~~ exclusively in terms of an old white guy.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)		****Typically god is depicted as male just because that's how they liked to paint him in the old days. I've been to a lot of churches (conservative and not) and pretty much all of them state that God doesn't have a gender. Of course, Chris doesn't get this. He probably saw a picture of the Sistine chapel at some point, and therefore thinks of God exclusively in terms of an old white guy.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
	==Chris's readable writing==		==Chris's readable writing==

Beat at 20:57, 24 March 2010

2010-03-24T20:57:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 24 March 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	** Wait, he considers God male? As if God has a human gender! What a bizarre view Chris has of religion. I don't think 100 [[Chris and Religion]]s do it justice. --[[User:OFSheep\|OFSheep]] 03:34, 19 December 2009 (CET)		** Wait, he considers God male? As if God has a human gender! What a bizarre view Chris has of religion. I don't think 100 [[Chris and Religion]]s do it justice. --[[User:OFSheep\|OFSheep]] 03:34, 19 December 2009 (CET)
	***Well, this belief isn't at least Chris-specific. It's quite popular amongst some conservative Christians. However, I doubt those conservative Christians act like Chris... --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:05, 19 December 2009 (CET)		***Well, this belief isn't at least Chris-specific. It's quite popular amongst some conservative Christians. However, I doubt those conservative Christians act like Chris... --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:05, 19 December 2009 (CET)
			****Typically god is depicted as male just because that's how they liked to paint him in the old days. I've been to a lot of churches (conservative and not) and pretty much all of them state that God doesn't have a gender. Of course, Chris doesn't get this. He just thinks of god as the bearded dude Michalangelo painted, and therefore thinks of him exclusively in terms of an old white guy.--[[User:Beat\|Beat]] 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
	==Chris's readable writing==		==Chris's readable writing==

Clydec: 33 revisions

2010-01-03T08:42:30Z

33 revisions

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:42, 3 January 2010
(No difference)

VanKrause at 03:05, 21 December 2009

2009-12-21T03:05:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 20 December 2009
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)

			What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)

	==Starscream Troll==		==Starscream Troll==

VanKrause at 18:57, 20 December 2009

2009-12-20T18:57:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 20 December 2009
Line 61:		Line 61:
	As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	*A 'weird fixation'? In a Wiki dedicated solely to Chris? Unconceivable 0-: However, in this case, it's this specific misspelling that never fails to make me RAAAGE for some reason. I think I'm going to make a general article like "Chris and Christmas" or smth, and "Santa Clause" would be a section there. If you think we should ignore Chris's mangling of English, OK, but I thought we prefer using Chris's retarded terms here, rather than normal words (e.g., [[Duck]], [[Niggos]], [[Tobacky]] etc.)... However, it's not a very important issue, I'm fine with the normal spelling, too. JOLLY BUDDAH, dude! --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 18:08, 20 December 2009 (CET)		*A 'weird fixation'? In a Wiki dedicated solely to Chris? Unconceivable 0-: However, in this case, it's this specific misspelling that never fails to make me RAAAGE for some reason. I think I'm going to make a general article like "Chris and Christmas" or smth, and "Santa Clause" would be a section there. If you think we should ignore Chris's mangling of English, OK, but I thought we prefer using Chris's retarded terms here, rather than normal words (e.g., [[Duck]], [[Niggos]], [[Tobacky]] etc.)... However, it's not a very important issue, I'm fine with the normal spelling, too. JOLLY BUDDAH, dude! --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 18:08, 20 December 2009 (CET)
			**Duck, Tobacky, etc. were all intentional misspellings because Chris is too pussy to use cuss words. Santa Clause is probably either Chris trying to be clever or Chris succeeding in being retarded. That said, I think a Chris and Christmas article with mention of Santa Clause would be great!
			::P.S. I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I know I remark on a lot of your edits, but it's because you're one of the most prolific editors on here, and our interests seem to overlap. I really do respect you, and I think you do a great job here. And as far as obsession with misspellings... Well, you are the one who wanted to make a list of Chris's misspellings, aren't you? :p --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 19:57, 20 December 2009 (CET)

VanKrause at 17:08, 20 December 2009

2009-12-20T17:08:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 20 December 2009
Line 60:		Line 60:

	As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
			*A 'weird fixation'? In a Wiki dedicated solely to Chris? Unconceivable 0-: However, in this case, it's this specific misspelling that never fails to make me RAAAGE for some reason. I think I'm going to make a general article like "Chris and Christmas" or smth, and "Santa Clause" would be a section there. If you think we should ignore Chris's mangling of English, OK, but I thought we prefer using Chris's retarded terms here, rather than normal words (e.g., [[Duck]], [[Niggos]], [[Tobacky]] etc.)... However, it's not a very important issue, I'm fine with the normal spelling, too. JOLLY BUDDAH, dude! --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 18:08, 20 December 2009 (CET)

VanKrause at 16:23, 20 December 2009

2009-12-20T16:23:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 20 December 2009
Line 58:		Line 58:
	**I have to admit to not reading this yet (been under a lot of [[stress]]ful torture), but if there's new information or insights, maybe just leave those for quick reference? Maybe with a link to the section that part is in? It might help you pare it down a bit. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 13:32, 20 December 2009 (CET)		**I have to admit to not reading this yet (been under a lot of [[stress]]ful torture), but if there's new information or insights, maybe just leave those for quick reference? Maybe with a link to the section that part is in? It might help you pare it down a bit. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 13:32, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	***Well, I'm currently reworking the list into text form so it would be somewhat easier to read. I'll post the new version soon, and you can see what can be done --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 13:59, 20 December 2009 (CET)		***Well, I'm currently reworking the list into text form so it would be somewhat easier to read. I'll post the new version soon, and you can see what can be done --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 13:59, 20 December 2009 (CET)

			As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 24 April 2012
Line 49:		Line 49:
	*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)		*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much Fail! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)

	What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)		What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 23 April 2012
Line 49:		Line 49:
	*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)		*No offense dude but it's not too much, it's ''way'' too much. If a summary is as long as the thing it's summarizing, it fails to be a summary. Just saying.--[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:39, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)		:*Likewise, the solution isn't calling it an "analysis" (not targeting GokuGetEm, just whoever did the Analysis thing). What this article needs is a concise summation of the amusing things Chris says here, not to rewrite everything Chris said. A summary should also be like a Highlights sort of section like "This is important stuff to know" and ideally should be like "I don't feel like reading this shit, what's the jist of what Chris is saying?" --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 11:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much [[Fail]]! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)		::*Okay, yeah, I see that it's bad... But there's so much Fail! I feel like a kid in a candy shop! Anyway, I think I'll put most of the "insights" into appropriate articles, so they wouldn't be lost. I'll try to leave only the most outrageous stuff here. Ugh... what a tough choice --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 11:40, 20 December 2009 (CET)

	What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)		What about breaking this article in two? We could have the Summary/Analysis on one side and the historical document on the other. If we compress the analysis, who looks quite good right now, we do discredit to our mission to educate the public about Chris.On the other side, it would sacrilegious to edit the historical document. A two-page solution is a valid answer. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 04:05, 21 December 2009 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 20 December 2009
Line 58:		Line 58:
	**I have to admit to not reading this yet (been under a lot of [[stress]]ful torture), but if there's new information or insights, maybe just leave those for quick reference? Maybe with a link to the section that part is in? It might help you pare it down a bit. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 13:32, 20 December 2009 (CET)		**I have to admit to not reading this yet (been under a lot of [[stress]]ful torture), but if there's new information or insights, maybe just leave those for quick reference? Maybe with a link to the section that part is in? It might help you pare it down a bit. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 13:32, 20 December 2009 (CET)
	***Well, I'm currently reworking the list into text form so it would be somewhat easier to read. I'll post the new version soon, and you can see what can be done --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 13:59, 20 December 2009 (CET)		***Well, I'm currently reworking the list into text form so it would be somewhat easier to read. I'll post the new version soon, and you can see what can be done --[[User:GokuGetEm\|GokuGetEm]] 13:59, 20 December 2009 (CET)

			As far as misspelling Santa Claus, I realize that Chris misspelled it, and that you have a weird fixation on his misspellings, but I really think Cwcki's article on Santa should be under the proper spelling. Just my two cents. --[[User:Sonichuis44\|sonichuis44]] 17:23, 20 December 2009 (CET)