User talk:OptimisticFool
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(→Wrongs making right) |
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (→Wrongs making right: outside the scope of this thread) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::::That wasn't my intent at all. "Hang on now" is just a yellow flag. It could be read as "Yikes, you're making a lot of what seem like unilateral changes in a short amount of time. Has there been a discussion I missed?" — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ::::That wasn't my intent at all. "Hang on now" is just a yellow flag. It could be read as "Yikes, you're making a lot of what seem like unilateral changes in a short amount of time. Has there been a discussion I missed?" — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
So, anyway, I'm past all that. Do you understand now why I made those changes? Do you now feel that, overall, the wiki is improved, or damaged by them? {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | So, anyway, I'm past all that. Do you understand now why I made those changes? Do you now feel that, overall, the wiki is improved, or damaged by them? {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | :The substance of the edits is outside the scope of this thread. If that is to be discussed (which I don't think is a bad idea), it should be on [[HRWiki talk:Standards]]. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:37, 15 November 2007
Contents |
Cup of Stew
Hey Fool to the Optimistic. You've been making really good edits. So with further ado, I present The Iron Cup of Brunswick Stew!
This award, the first on HRWiki, is given to recognize good contributions and to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. It was given to The Cheat by Strong Bad for his good work on New Boots.
Keep up the good work OptimisticFool! 
Sam the Man 
22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- ———
- Buttdance, buttdance! I just can't get enough of that! And, thanks for the stew, Man to the Sam.
OptimisticFool 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
userboxes
How do you make custom user boxes? My favorite characters are the sad children. — Haldo
- Answered on your talk page. OptimisticFool 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Under Construction
Tú lo pediste, tú lo tienes!
Subtitles:underconstruction/es
--[Lt. Dicai] 02:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
WIN!
YOU WIN THIS:
  HAJ 
|
Pizza Trophy
I'm my favorite user, so I'm giving myself a pizza trophy! Yes! 
OptimisticFool 05:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sig Question
Hi there. Since you seem to be well-versed in the HRWiki, can you tell me if my signature is "legal"? I wanted it to be fancy, but I haven't been able to (easily) find a rule on images-as-your-name. Thanks! → 
… Y'all biscuitheads! 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page. OptimisticFool 06:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrongs making right
Hang on now. Where does it say that it's wrong to bold list items? Also, by your edits it looks like the practice is widespread. In fact, there's so many, how do we know that it's not the unbold ones that are wrong? (On a side note, you keep saying "X0+ wrongs don't make a right" in the edit summaries, but you don't say what you're actually doing with the edit; it would be more helpful if you described what kind of changes you were making.) — It's dot com 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- It took me a good long time to find those 10 bold lists, amidst dozens and dozens of unbold lists. I started with categories Inside Jokes and Running Gags and went through them all. Anyway, maybe the bold is the right way, but I'd hate to be the guy to switch all those other lists to bold. I was just going for consistency, and non-bold seems to be the way the community prefers it. (Also, I almost never find bolded periods; was it really important to do this partial revert? There's another non-bolded period right there on that same page. *shrug*) OptimisticFool 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your tone seems to indicate that you are attributing malice to my remarks, when I'm just asking questions and making observations. (To answer your question, in running text, punctuation takes the attributes of the text that precedes it, and it looks better for the period to be bolded in that case. On the other hand, I specifically did not bold the period after the link because the dark black looks weird coming right after the bold blue.) — It's dot com 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your tone seemed to indicate that you were attributing malice to my changes. The phrase "Hang on now" in particular. Seemed condescending, anyway. Irritated me, for sure. OptimisticFool 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That wasn't my intent at all. "Hang on now" is just a yellow flag. It could be read as "Yikes, you're making a lot of what seem like unilateral changes in a short amount of time. Has there been a discussion I missed?" — It's dot com 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your tone seemed to indicate that you were attributing malice to my changes. The phrase "Hang on now" in particular. Seemed condescending, anyway. Irritated me, for sure.
- Your tone seems to indicate that you are attributing malice to my remarks, when I'm just asking questions and making observations. (To answer your question, in running text, punctuation takes the attributes of the text that precedes it, and it looks better for the period to be bolded in that case. On the other hand, I specifically did not bold the period after the link because the dark black looks weird coming right after the bold blue.) — It's dot com 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So, anyway, I'm past all that. Do you understand now why I made those changes? Do you now feel that, overall, the wiki is improved, or damaged by them? OptimisticFool 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- The substance of the edits is outside the scope of this thread. If that is to be discussed (which I don't think is a bad idea), it should be on HRWiki talk:Standards. — It's dot com 20:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
