User talk:GW-GrammarNazi

reworded it, User:Skuld removed it again -_- take it up with him now, im jumping out of this conversation and going to bed. -- Xeon 10:50, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Holy crap recent changes flood! &mdash;Blastedt&mdash; 21:02, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Sorry! Can we still be friends?
 * .... &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 21:06, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Rofl. I don't think anyone has a sense of humor around here. Ironic coming from me whose name is GrammarNazi. GrammarNazi 21:07, 24 January 2007 (CST)

The vetting system is idiotic, I can't wait until the builds wipe. Seriously, all these people do is go around builds, find one thing they dislike about it, unfavor it and go on. They don't even spend time testing it, they don't even read it carefully! I mean, this stupid thing says "people are not trying to criticize your ideas, they are trying to help you." Yeah, really, how are you helping when you don't even test the build? All they do is just comment, but their comment means so much as to whether it's favored or unfavored. They just waste their time.

Thank goodness there's people like you.

-- Nova   --  (contribs) 19:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The vetting system may be idiotic, but so are a vast majority of the builds - and their posters. You don't have to test a crap build to know it's crap. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:06, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * "Please test builds before voting" has translated into "please leave a poorly based comment in the vote section and go on." Thank goodness for the build wipe. Some builds may look horrible on sight but might work really well in trying. This is not a build-look-pretty wiki section, this is a build-that-works wiki section and the policy needs to be changed to reflect that. The majority of votes nowadays are "not tested" and weakly based but it will take hours to get an admin to remove every single objectionable vote, even from one build, since they have other things to do already. People are bending, bending the policy and it needs to be fixed up! -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 20:39, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Profession Guides
Can you read over this and clarify/reword any sections that are unclear? I have tried to do my best, but since this is the first policy I have written, I would like to make sure it is alright. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Working on it now :) Thanks for the heads up! GrammarNazi 11:15, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright, its all edited. Lemme know what you think. GrammarNazi 15:41, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks a lot. I was just reading it.  I may tweak the introduction a little because it sounds a bit forced as is, but otherwise great job!  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The edits I made to the introduction were done for conciseness' sake. Keep it short since your Proposal needs nothing elaborate since its fairly self-evident :) But do whatever you want to the wording! GrammarNazi 15:47, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

What the devil?
What are you some kind of... Grammar.... Nazi? Lol thankyou though, I always have a few errors. Solus  11:02, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * ;) That's what I'm here for! GrammarNazi 11:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)