The Something Awful administrators responded by telling their users to post their support in the news. Thankfully, How does Joey react, despite the fact Miriam has no way to thank him, reward him, or help him in any way? I also ask you to keep in mind that you have a bias, just as I do. I have no wish for anything other than neutrality and truthfulness with regard to this article. I did not create this hornet's nest. This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's. Miriam's still , though she's lost her bag of books during the. Nothing worth writing about in the article.
But once again, it is not the focus of the site nor is it widespread, or even common. Freund posted on October 25, 2005. The sources check out and the information is verifiable. I also note that the numerous other edits I made appear to be accepted as constructive. Miriam's reaction is to beat her down. Material in the lead should summarize the article and give appropriate weight.
A psion who enjoys mind-control a little too much. It's possible that he had an article but it was deleted, and then redirected here. I would also point out that there are some users on here who are from Something Awful and are interested in either 'foiling' Tryptofish or are being protective of the article and should also take their edits with a grain of salt. Many of the administrators read it as well and if the conflict section returns it would be a good thing to mention. Is it the focus of the forum? Why don't you cite the forums position at big-boards. So 114,000 doesn't really tell you anything about anything.
In terms of organization, the article is still in a very fluid state, and as I've stated above, I don't know the best way to arrange it. Even when he agrees with someone, they often don't notice and lump him in with the rest of those who disagree. I use the external coverage criteria mainly to keep cruft out. I was happy to wait for other feedback rather than edit war the sentence, however it seems from recent edits that others feel that it should also not remain. Eventually, Kyanka contacted a customer service representative over the phone, and asked to have PayPal donate all of the money to the. As for all the rest, there are plenty of instances in the forums, especially in the Comedy Gold section. The was created on a thread in the Something Awful forum.
Can you convince me with something that explains why this particular forum member is of more significance than any other, as I have said all along? Syrg: Oh, the wine and I are going to have fun alright. So for example, the shooting deaths, as the most recent events, should go to the bottom. His third encounter has him taking a much more campy voice, which is lampshaded by everyone. I'd like for you to do the same. Perhaps it would be appropriate to add a mention of this to the page.
There are other sections that are uncited by third parties and completely non-notable your definition see the 'Public Appearances' section, which has a link to something awful and a link to YouTube as citations. A mute floating scarecrow wizard. After all this is a comedy related entry and the mangosteen fiasco was the funniest thing something awful generated. I mentioned earlier that I have serious reservations about using a music blog the cited source in the blog quote to determine the definition of a website on Wikipedia. He was permabanned cannot even get back in if you pay on November 2, following the murders-suicide which occurred on October 29.
Repeated violations will result in a ban. For example, he once got too close and personal with a dragon because it was a gold dragon, and tried to steal from a different dragon's horde when the dragon was right there. And I agree, that public appearances section probably could go away. Syrg: Goddammit, one of you assholes. The fact that it was a single user, as opposed to some sort of site-wide collaboration? To a lesser extent, Kensington seems to have become this after being. This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's.
I agree with Wafulz' logic that it doesn't meet the burdens of the definition of a blog, and is referred to more often as a website. The fact that the media didn't comment on it isn't surprising and there isn't a precedent for removing material based on a lack of coverage alone. Without some sort of secondary documentation, I can't see this type of material being included in any other corporation's article. If we're going to re-reference that discussion we had April, you did mention that there was too little information to verify anything or keep it neutral. Are we all missing something here? Without this I still dont see how this linkage is justified amongst any number of possible others. Other sections that have received significant attention such as the Katrina charity and ensuing Paypal bitchfest can have their own subsections. It does not meet encyclopedic standards.
Now the Microsoft example is one of actual criticism, whereas the sentence we are discussing here is not criticism at all. Something Awful had posted a humorous review that was critical of one of his films. Without that, arguing on the basis of looking at the forums list is , particularly if it is arguing that the source cited is wrong. I've seen you engage in revert wars regarding this specific phrase in the history of this page; can you tell me why it is so important? The significance of the 4chan founder lies in having founded 4chan, of course. Syrg admitted in the thread that it was a terrible idea which resulted in much yelling and nearly had a player or two quitting, and as a result, most of the events surrounding it were rendered.