User talk:Kai Neah Nung

GJ with the template for the drinks. :) --Karlos 23:23, 2 July 2006 (CDT)
 * On that, you should check out this discussion: Talk:Levels of drunkness and give us some insight on your good lookin' table. Cheers mate. --Xasxas256 22:22, 4 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm readding the above comment, as a general rule you shouldn't remove other people's comments from discussion (including user talk) pages, an exception would be if someone wrote some vandalism. In fact you shouldn't even remove your own comments; you use strikeouts for stuff you wish to withdraw or is no longer relevant. The reasoning behind this would be that discussions wouldn’t make sense if certain comments were removed along the way. Any edit made to an ‘’article’’ can be edited, rewritten, removed or however butchered to improve the quality of the article but we don't normally touch other people's talk page edits; you are signing off on what you wrote, alone. Even obvious typos we don't touch. An exception would be if somebody wikifys/links to an article that is renamed, the link can be edited.


 * Given the comment you removed is pretty innocuous I readded it largely as a matter or principal but it is also somewhat important because I promised on Talk:Levels of drunkness that I'd leave a note here on your talk page. As you said nothing in your edit summary, I think it was probably just that you didn't know exact details of how talk pages operate. If you want to archive things that you consider concluded, you're welcome to do that and there's information on how to go about it on my user page. I'm not having a go at you, I'm just explaining why I'm readding my comment, thanks again. --Xasxas256 09:19, 9 July 2006 (CDT)
 * If this is a rule here then maybe this wiki (or maybe all wikis) should think about those things again. Of course everyone's comment must remain unmodified. BUT isn't it enough to just let the sense unmodified??? I personally think so. In my opinion it should be our highest goal to provide high-quality information and as a part of that faultless and up to date information. Even if that is not common sense I hereby allow everyone in this wiki to change my posts as long as the sense is changed in no way.
 * Concerning this special case: I left a note over at Talk:Levels of drunkness after you posted here. Everyone who wants to blame you for not posting here could simply watch the two historys and will eventually realize that you did a good job. So in my opinion your posting was obsolete and I wanted to clean up my talk page. I'm sorry if that insluted (that was an original typo, see the advantage of editing???) you but in my mind it is neccessary to keep things comprehensible.


 * I noticed you added the red note on your user page and was about to post except the site then had some problems so I haven't been able to post until now. If I'd had my time again I wouldn't have written such a stupidly long explanation, I would have simply asked "how come you removed my comment?" but it's too late now for regrets, what's done is done. I'll give you a case in point on not editing someone's talk page post, we use the unsigned template when someone has left off their sig. Even for something as trivial as that we still make it abundantly clear that it's not the original poster who added the sig. The problem is, if you can edit other people's talk page comments so the "sense" remains the same, where do we draw the line, how far can you go and still keep the "sense" in tact? Even just fixing a typo say, "Teh Bomb"; the original poster may have actually intended for "the" to be spelt "teh". To me I'm not sure why you'd ever want to edit a person's talk page post, if you agree or disagree or don't like the way it's worded etc. then you should say so in your own comment! I'm glad you brough this up, my above explaintion comment was very clumsy and I get the feeling that things are not "all good" between us yet. --Xasxas256 21:23, 9 July 2006 (CDT)