User talk:OhhhMyAxels

Stop changing the pages, faggot. --Noel Ari Paige 10:16, 17 November 2010 (PST)

Shit needs to get cleaned. Deal with it and follow the rules. --OhhhMyAxels 13:17, 17 November 2010 (PST)

Clearly if an editor disagrees with your edits, you don't keep re-adding it. Discussion about the edits should be opened up on the article's talk page. Further edit warring will result in bans for both sides. --Anonymax 14:08, 17 November 2010 (PST)

The direction the CWCki wants to take is one of less subjectivity, as noted by the message on the main page. All I've been doing is removing insults and unnecessary filler from pages. If you want me to stop, I will. I'm just trying to make the pages adhere to the rules set by the site owners. --OhhhMyAxels 15:02, 17 November 2010 (PST)

Well, there's removing conjecture and theories - and then there's sucking out the fun and facts in the way articles are written. Take this edit for example. Removing a link to Lie - big green tick. Removal of the lawn mower section - felt a bit too heavy handed. Conjecture is implied, but those statements reference other articles and facts. I'm undecided as to the last section - it didn't really add much to the article.

I think if you can remove clear conjecture, blatant insults towards Chris (which refers to things like "he is, in fact, sitting down the entire time, the lazy ass." - editors sometimes get carried away), without sucking the slight humour and occasional relevant trivia out of the articles, then by all means do that. --Anonymax 15:25, 17 November 2010 (PST)

Well my feeling was that the transcripts usually provided stuff like that, which is why I left those untouched for the most part. But I understand what you're saying. I'll be more careful and discuss aforementioned changes beforehand. --OhhhMyAxels 15:31, 17 November 2010 (PST)