User talk:Caithe/Archive 1

Too 1337 to de1337?
My userpage has been tagged for 10 days. I'll just copy the old one over here instead of moving, but was just wondering why it hasn't been deleted in so long. Rose Of Kali 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, so after 10 days, I get an EC with a page deletion. :P Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * :P I don't normally look at user page edits from RC.  If you had mentioned "delete" in your summary, I probably would've seen it.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't someone supposed to watch the category? Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 16:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Derp. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha! Btw, thanks for the account merge. What does it do, exactly? I just saw that my new account now has all the contributions of the old one, is that all? My number of edits is still at just 24. :P Oh noes! What happened to the other 11 thousand? :O Seems like it's only my preferences page that shows my edit count as 24. Special:Editcount says my new name has 11k. :D Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no.
The male images have the right hat. The tux has the top, as does the wedding attire, the formal attire has the short hat.--Łô√ë îğá †ħŕášħ 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'll have to double check that, I could have sworn the tall one was only for the wedding tux. I guess they did that to pretend the sets aren't duplicate. :P All the trivia notes need to be fixed either way. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I double checked, and I'm glad I'm not crazy this time. :P Dapper Top Hat = Formal Headwear = short. Thus the two suits are identical. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 01:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, I could have sworn they were different. I must have gotten confused while taking pictures at some point.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg|Ho ho ho!]]îğá †ħŕášħ  02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't blame you. I just spent 5 hours on the female galleries, and my vision is trying to play tricks on me too. x_x Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

omagawd
Bot flag, we nust give you one o.o

Quest Reward Accepted: RC Dominance You receive 9001 wiki points. O.O &mdash; Scythe   20:30, 14 Dec 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! I sense a userbox. :P Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ^__^ &mdash; Scythe   21:28, 14 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Armor Galleries Question
Are the guidelines for displaying armor very strict and inflexible? Specifically, if an armor gallery is perfect but "enable post-effects" is on/enabled, does that part need to be retaken and replaced? Or is it "good enough"?--BladeHanover2 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way. We (or specifically, I, as I can't speak for others) strive to be good, not just good enough, so if there is a noticeable flaw, then there is room for improvement. I consider post-processing effects (glow effect), aliasing (heavily jagged), bad compression (blurry), too small size (not able to zoom in at all), and really bad shot angle (big head tiny feet) to be noticeable flaws, ones that can and should be improved on. Thus "perfect but enable post-effects" is a self-contradictory statement, because post-process effects blur out details and change lighting, making it not perfect. If the flaw is very small and not easily noticeable, then I wouldn't worry about it, this isn't rocket science. And lastly, "good enough" is always better than bad or none. I hope this makes sense. Rose Of Kali [[Image:Rose Of Kali SIG.png]] 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound like your usuall self. Completly geek. Man, I wish you where my age.... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Geeks are fun to be with at any age. ;-P --◄mendel► 19:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)