Talk:Making Out - Revision history

Lustmyeyes: /* Making Out With Tawny? */

Lustmyeyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:28:23 GMT

Making Out With Tawny?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 28 May 2008
Line 55:		Line 55:
	This should probs be fixed.		This should probs be fixed.

		+	Wish we knew the rest of the bands name.
	--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-	~~Wait.. did someone just change it, or was I imagining things??!~~
-	~~--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)~~

Lustmyeyes: /* Making Out With Tawny? */

Lustmyeyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:26:25 GMT

Making Out With Tawny?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 28 May 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:

	--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	Wait.. did someone just change it, or was I imagining things??!
		+	--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lustmyeyes: /**/Making Out With Tawny?

Lustmyeyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:22:02 GMT

: Making Out With Tawny?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 28 May 2008
Line 44:		Line 44:
	::::::I agree with Firebird on this. However, we should bring the conversation to somewhere more noticable to get into an agreement on stanard use. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)		::::::I agree with Firebird on this. However, we should bring the conversation to somewhere more noticable to get into an agreement on stanard use. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::[[Twin Characters]] has a good, unique format. I'm going to try it here and see what happens. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)		:::::[[Twin Characters]] has a good, unique format. I'm going to try it here and see what happens. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Making Out With Tawny? ==
		+
		+	Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tawny the drummer of Advantage?
		+	And doesn't Gary say "but if their guitarist is better than me, there's no way I'm making out with her."
		+
		+	Or something...?
		+
		+	Unless we're mistaken in thinking red-headed Tawny is the drummer...
		+	This should probs be fixed.
		+
		+	--[[User:Lustmyeyes\|lustmyeyes <3]] 10:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Joshua: /* Bold/Italics? */

Joshua — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:21:28 GMT

Bold/Italics?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 2 January 2006
Line 43:		Line 43:
	:::::Well, the old way looks fine by itself, but when there's a large list with big discriptions, it becomes very hard to just look at the all the appearances without having to fish through all the text. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		:::::Well, the old way looks fine by itself, but when there's a large list with big discriptions, it becomes very hard to just look at the all the appearances without having to fish through all the text. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with Firebird on this. However, we should bring the conversation to somewhere more noticable to get into an agreement on stanard use. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)		::::::I agree with Firebird on this. However, we should bring the conversation to somewhere more noticable to get into an agreement on stanard use. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::::[[Twin Characters]] has a good, unique format. I'm going to try it here and see what happens. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Salty: /* tags. */ talks

Salty — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:49:49 GMT

<nowiki><small></nowiki> tags.: talks

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:49, 30 December 2005
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::::I'll do [[Pie]]. No one bother it, please. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]]		:::::::I'll do [[Pie]]. No one bother it, please. --[[User:DorianGray\|DorianGray]]
	::::::::Ok, I'll try not to ;). I bolded Duct Tape. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)		::::::::Ok, I'll try not to ;). I bolded Duct Tape. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
		+	[[Powered by The Cheat]] was like this. I changed it lots. {{User:Salty/sig}} 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Bold/Italics? ==		== Bold/Italics? ==

Lapper: /* Bold/Italics? */ reply

Lapper — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:47:02 GMT

Bold/Italics?: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 25 December 2005
Line 41:		Line 41:
	::::I'm not sure. I've never liked bold text in articles (not to mention a huge chuck of bold), because it's very distracting. In fact, I'm fine with the way we used to do it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		::::I'm not sure. I've never liked bold text in articles (not to mention a huge chuck of bold), because it's very distracting. In fact, I'm fine with the way we used to do it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Well, the old way looks fine by itself, but when there's a large list with big discriptions, it becomes very hard to just look at the all the appearances without having to fish through all the text. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		:::::Well, the old way looks fine by itself, but when there's a large list with big discriptions, it becomes very hard to just look at the all the appearances without having to fish through all the text. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	::::::I agree with Firebird on this. However, we should bring the conversation to somewhere more noticable to get into an agreement on stanard use. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Joshua: /* Bold/Italics? */

Joshua — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:11:48 GMT

Bold/Italics?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 22 December 2005
Line 40:		Line 40:

	::::I'm not sure. I've never liked bold text in articles (not to mention a huge chuck of bold), because it's very distracting. In fact, I'm fine with the way we used to do it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		::::I'm not sure. I've never liked bold text in articles (not to mention a huge chuck of bold), because it's very distracting. In fact, I'm fine with the way we used to do it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::::Well, the old way looks fine by itself, but when there's a large list with big discriptions, it becomes very hard to just look at the all the appearances without having to fish through all the text. - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

FireBird: /* Bold/Italics? */ Reply for Joshua.

FireBird — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:09:47 GMT

Bold/Italics?: Reply for Joshua.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 22 December 2005
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:::This was the second solution, as people with small resolutions had trouble reading the small text. - 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		:::This was the second solution, as people with small resolutions had trouble reading the small text. - 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::I'm not sure. I've never liked bold text in articles (not to mention a huge chuck of bold), because it's very distracting. In fact, I'm fine with the way we used to do it. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Joshua: /* Bold/Italics? */

Joshua — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:07:24 GMT

Bold/Italics?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 22 December 2005
Line 31:		Line 31:

	::Me neither. It's ugly. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		::Me neither. It's ugly. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
-	:::When there are a list of appearances with descriptions, there needs to be a way to be able to easily go through the appearances while ignoring the descriptions if someone wants to. ~~The original solution was to do this~~:	+	:::When there are a list of appearances with descriptions, there needs to be a way to be able to easily go through the appearances while ignoring the descriptions if someone wants to. Here are the ways it has been done:

		+	* Email [[do over]] - It is implied that Marzipan made out with The Cheat, dressed as Homestar.
	* Email [[do over]] - <small>''It is implied that Marzipan made out with The Cheat, dressed as Homestar. ''</small>		* Email [[do over]] - <small>''It is implied that Marzipan made out with The Cheat, dressed as Homestar. ''</small>
		+	* '''Email [[do over]]''' - ''It is implied that Marzipan made out with The Cheat, dressed as Homestar.''

	:::This was the second solution, as people with small resolutions had trouble reading the small text. - 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		:::This was the second solution, as people with small resolutions had trouble reading the small text. - 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Joshua: /* Bold/Italics? */

Joshua — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:06:12 GMT

Bold/Italics?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 22 December 2005
Line 31:		Line 31:

	::Me neither. It's ugly. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)		::Me neither. It's ugly. {{User:FireBird/sig}} 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::When there are a list of appearances with descriptions, there needs to be a way to be able to easily go through the appearances while ignoring the descriptions if someone wants to. The original solution was to do this:
		+
		+	* Email [[do over]] - <small>''It is implied that Marzipan made out with The Cheat, dressed as Homestar. ''</small>
		+
		+	:::This was the second solution, as people with small resolutions had trouble reading the small text. - 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)