Difference between revisions of "CWCki talk:CWCki is"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (1 revision) |
(→CWCki is a handbook?: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Not ED== | ==Not ED== | ||
Someone, try and round off what I started on the Not ED. Rachmanov, I'm looking at you. --[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 14:15, 18 October 2009 (CEST) | Someone, try and round off what I started on the Not ED. Rachmanov, I'm looking at you. --[[User:Champthom|Champthom]] 14:15, 18 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
== CWCki is a handbook? == | |||
This is just a suggestion. | |||
While it's true that the cwcki is not ALWAYS right, most of the time, it is. The CWCki is used as a reliable source of information by everyone, from PVCC to /cwc/. The CWCki is almost always the final authority on the facts of Chris. While the information on talk pages are almost completely erroneous, the articles of the CWCki are held to a high standard. | |||
or something along those lines, something to be a counterpoint for CWCki is not always right, and something about the important role the cwcki serves in trolling Chris. --[[User:Megaman|Megaman]] 00:00, 8 September 2010 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 02:00, 8 September 2010
Not ED
Someone, try and round off what I started on the Not ED. Rachmanov, I'm looking at you. --Champthom 14:15, 18 October 2009 (CEST)
CWCki is a handbook?
This is just a suggestion.
While it's true that the cwcki is not ALWAYS right, most of the time, it is. The CWCki is used as a reliable source of information by everyone, from PVCC to /cwc/. The CWCki is almost always the final authority on the facts of Chris. While the information on talk pages are almost completely erroneous, the articles of the CWCki are held to a high standard.
or something along those lines, something to be a counterpoint for CWCki is not always right, and something about the important role the cwcki serves in trolling Chris. --Megaman 00:00, 8 September 2010 (PDT)