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)

I1'l gve u a challegne mk? So yh i dscoverd i av Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism, sux huh? Solus  11:05, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry to hear that. I discovered you have an inconsistency in a parallel series. :) GrammarNazi 11:07, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Dam... you NEED this then.

Its spelt grammer, idiat &mdash; Skuld 11:10, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I also believe in a thing called love, but I suppose thats not entirely on topic. Oh, and spelling =/= grammar, but I still edit that anyway. Wee! GrammarNazi 11:12, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I have no idea how to align a Userbox, but I really want to put that in Solus. Halp :) GrammarNazi 11:14, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I guessed you meant align right? Check the page for my edit &mdash; Skuld 11:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Not that it wasn't obvious that I wanted to put the box on the userpage, but you used history to RV and align. I feel like you just dug up incriminating information from my wastebasket. GrammarNazi 11:18, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh thanks btw. Haha. GrammarNazi 11:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

"FOR SELL -- AN SYTHE 15<50 ALSO AN SHEILD W/ HELTH WISPER" /headdesk --Carmine 14:08, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I have no faith left in humanity. :P GrammarNazi 15:26, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Deep Wound RA Build
You mentioned this on the Arjok Ward talk page. Want me to take another look at it? I'm not sure which build you're talking about, as I've done a lot of work in that section, but if you provide a link, I'll look over it again. - Krowman (talk • contribs)  15:50, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Profession archetype guides/Guideline
Could you help get this in good shape? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  16:06, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yep, I'll get on it as soon as I have time :) GrammarNazi 20:46, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Damn! Looking pretty good so far, but it still needs editing, so I'll pull it into Word and go over it with a fine-tooth comb.


 * So far, the ideas are presented very well, but I think the chronology/order of importance is out of whack. You can start fixing these issues by examining each sentence in comparison to the last and seeing if they make sense with each other.


 * Remember: Readers don't read full paragraphs, they read sentences. That being said, you need to include signal words (like 'that being said' ;) ), or a key term from the previous sentence. If you do this, the guide will be much easier to read and that much more effective; also, it allows readers to more fully understand your points.


 * Until I can pop this puppy into a word processor, try working on that! ;)