Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gu1dry"

From WiiBrew
Jump to: navigation, search
(Release names)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
It's been agreed upon by others to change to <<app>> released by <<user>>. Please leave this as is. Thanks :) --[[User:Tantric|Tantric]] 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 
It's been agreed upon by others to change to <<app>> released by <<user>>. Please leave this as is. Thanks :) --[[User:Tantric|Tantric]] 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 
:This is so it's easier to see ''what'' was released (the main thing people would care about). --[[User:Yossi|Yossi]] 06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 
:This is so it's easier to see ''what'' was released (the main thing people would care about). --[[User:Yossi|Yossi]] 06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 +
Hey, it's me bullying you again ;) Could you please also leave the archives for the homebrew releases alone? The same argument applies there: It's more important to see *what* was released and not *who* released it. I know that most archive pages still have the old format and I therefore understand why you wanted to change those new releases back. But it would be rather inconvenient if one had to rephrase the release before adding it to the archive. It also looks weird to have two different formats. Thanks. --[[User:Svpe|Svpe]] 13:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:37, 6 December 2009

Hey Thanks!

Thank You For Helping Out On My Wii Bash Page! - Mellon!

Mellon! 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

bold italics v.s. bold

why are you changing every page to have it's own name in bold italics? the point of self linking with [ [ and ] ] is so that if the text is ever copied somewhere else, it will still link back to the original page. as it happens, the wiki software chooses to render a self-link in bold only. --Yossi 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in having piped links of the article within the article, it's redundant. And why would some copy the intro text to somewhere, that makes no sense, if they do, they should at least be start enough to pipe link the article.「ɠu¹ɖяy」 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
a) those were not piped links. b) you were right anyway :P [1] --Yossi 19:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Release vs Update

In the case of my application, release is not an accurate word to use. Release's connotation implies that I am made making a first time public release. I am not. I am making an eighth public release for crying out loud! Update's connotation implies that I am making at least a second release. Thus, release is an inaccurate term. I don't give a rats @$$ if its more common, clearly so is human stupidity. If you update my release notice again without my permission in a manner against my will, I will seek a sysop to take action against you.--Arikado 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Release names

It's been agreed upon by others to change to <<app>> released by <<user>>. Please leave this as is. Thanks :) --Tantric 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is so it's easier to see what was released (the main thing people would care about). --Yossi 06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's me bullying you again ;) Could you please also leave the archives for the homebrew releases alone? The same argument applies there: It's more important to see *what* was released and not *who* released it. I know that most archive pages still have the old format and I therefore understand why you wanted to change those new releases back. But it would be rather inconvenient if one had to rephrase the release before adding it to the archive. It also looks weird to have two different formats. Thanks. --Svpe 13:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)