User talk:134.211.96.1: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
It's only been suggested once that you should be banned. DOnt get worked up over it, if you can justify what you're doing then no one will complain (editing the FAQ wasn't a good way of doing this) |
It's only been suggested once that you should be banned. DOnt get worked up over it, if you can justify what you're doing then no one will complain (editing the FAQ wasn't a good way of doing this) |
||
---- |
|||
Mr too-ashamed-to-sign-your-name, |
|||
While articles about sca people (Rudolf) and sca terms (stickchick) may be useful (with humor sure, but with a little less potential offensiveness might be good - see stickchick), I fail to see what benefit an article that defines 'fish' is to us. Sure, link to recepies for cooking fish, articles about medieval fishing, types of fish and how they were kept or eaten in medeival times, how pictures of fish were drawn on stuff, heraldic fish, how fish are in medeival stories, etc any of those and more would be useful (and most only require a little web reading, others are as simple as doing a search for the term fish being used elsewhere in cunnan), but we all know what a fish is. (yes the definition can stay, but please add some body to the article - even if it is just links to fish-related things in other parts of the wiki.) |
|||
[[User:Tiff|Tiff]] |
|||
Revision as of 12:45, 4 December 2003
Don't take it personally - I'm just editing new stuff as it pops up in Special:Recentchanges. It's just how a wiki works - everybody corrects everyone else. Feel free to fix up anything I've done. Morgant 15:45 4 Aug 2003 (EST)
You're doing good work editing articles but could you please hold off putting things such as "- to give oral sex and use foul language." on article pages? Even if this was relevant Cunnan isn't a dictionary (though I'll admit some dictionary style pages are needed for terms only used in the SCA). I dont like seeing people banned but if you do this often I or one of the other admins will take away your right to edit articles - Tobin 14:35 6 Aug 2003 (EST)
- That wasn't a challenge. I don't dispute what you're saying but it isn't relevant to Cunnan. If you can put to gether a paragraph or two about the use of "French" to mean oral sex in period then it can be included. Otherwise you should add it to the Wikipedia of Wiktionary (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/French and http://wiktionary.org/wiki/French) - Tobin 14:48 6 Aug 2003 (EST)
It's only been suggested once that you should be banned. DOnt get worked up over it, if you can justify what you're doing then no one will complain (editing the FAQ wasn't a good way of doing this)
Mr too-ashamed-to-sign-your-name, While articles about sca people (Rudolf) and sca terms (stickchick) may be useful (with humor sure, but with a little less potential offensiveness might be good - see stickchick), I fail to see what benefit an article that defines 'fish' is to us. Sure, link to recepies for cooking fish, articles about medieval fishing, types of fish and how they were kept or eaten in medeival times, how pictures of fish were drawn on stuff, heraldic fish, how fish are in medeival stories, etc any of those and more would be useful (and most only require a little web reading, others are as simple as doing a search for the term fish being used elsewhere in cunnan), but we all know what a fish is. (yes the definition can stay, but please add some body to the article - even if it is just links to fish-related things in other parts of the wiki.) Tiff
