User talk:Joshua

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 13:21, 7 September 2005

Hi. -- Joshua 22:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Stinkoman 20X6 sprites!

I love the animated sprites from Stinkoman 20X6 you've been getting. Are you planning on making any of 1-Up? Aurora the Homestar Coder 22:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, not at the moment. They're just for Stinkoman 20X6 Enemies, and 1-Up isn't in there. They aren't too hard to make, though. - Joshua

Marzipan's Answering Machine moves

Why did you move these? They were correct as they were. →FireBird

Beat me to it. I was about to ask the very same question. --Jay (Talk) 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like it and asked about it in the talk page, but when nobody responded, I decided to try it and see what the response was. I had every intention to change it back if it wasn't wanted, but it seems like you did that instead. -- Joshua 02:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If you watch the answering machines 9-12, you'll see that it says "Version #.2", but I'm sure you knew that. Thanks for understanding. →FireBird

Yes, but as I stated in the talk page, I don't like it, and if we do that, we might as well make all the others X.0. I just don't think it's nessecary, and I think it looks worse. I understand why it was done, I just think it needs to be changed. -- Joshua 12:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

We're just following what The Brothers Chaps do. If they decide suddenly to change all Strong Bad Emails to, say, "Strong Bad Email #5.8", we would, too. The other machine's don't need "#.0" on them because they don't on the offical site, yet the 9-12 do. Again, just doing what TBC do. →FireBird

Actually, they do have Version 2.0 and Version 5.0, in the same place where Version 10.2 is. -- Joshua 12:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Places Strong Bad Made Up

Hi there Joshua. If you are moving an article's content to the Places Strong Bad Made Up page, don't mark the article for deletion. Instead, just redirect to Places Strong Bad Made Up. Thanks. -- Tom 15:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Signatures

Just noticced the problem you're having with your sig. In your preferences, make sure the box is ticked that says "Raw Signatures (without automatic link)" or similar. This should fix your sig problems. --Venusy _{(Talk) (Contributions)}, 23:05, 6 May 2005 (BST)
EDIT: And put the font tag [[After the line|HERE]].

Thanks. I just figured it out. -- Joshua

Kewpie

Hey, Joshua. I was going to share this on IRC chat, but since Freenode is refusing my connection, I thought I'd share this with you for fun. I'm at Disney World, and I was at the Boardwalk, and this stand was selling Kewpie dolls. I immediately thought of Kewpie Dan. Just needed to say this. :-D --Homsar999^{ß 23:50, 3 Jul 2005 (EDT)}

Fanstuff Wiki

Hi, would you happen to know how to post a fanfic type thing at the fanstuff wiki? If you do, could you possibly help me, because I can't fuigure it out. Homestramy20 08:27, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

There, joshua, done and done. Now, do ya think you might be able to help me move it to fanstuff wiki? Homestramy20 00:51, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Message

I left you a message on your Fanstuff wiki talk page. H*R 700

I left you another message. I'm sorry. H*R 700

1933

Actually, it was not I who first noticed this, but Darklinkskywalker. — It's dot com 22:46, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If you're gonna put my name in the edit summary, notice the capitalization. I'd hate to be confused for a troll. ;) But you can call me "Dot com" for short, if you want. :)

But it was you who didn't want it to be changed to Old-Timey with everything else, because it had a verified date. - Joshua

Nah, I don't care about the actual date. 1933 just happens to be the name of the page for the pre-sound Old-Timey cartoons. That page could be called "Even More Old-Timey" and it would be just fine with me. Actually, that's a horrible title, but you get the point. My thinking on this subject is not very strong either way, but since 1933 is slightly more specific, I thought it should stay. I would, however, be interested in any suggestions or thoughts you have. — It's dot com 23:25, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, the page title itself reads "Old Timey." But as you said, I don't care either way. But do we even have proof that it was released in 1933 (2000)? It could very well be a 1934 thing. - Joshua

Like I said, the date itself isn't my area of expertise. Look at the Main Pages page again. I put in another link. Do you think that improves it? — It's dot com 23:51, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that's an improvement. Either link to 1933 or link to Old-Timey, but not to both. Remember that the 1933 blatantly links to the Old-Timey page anyway. Linking to Old-Timey in the description is like... linking to something in transcript dialogue. - Joshua

Well, I see you changed it back. I don't care about this enough to really put up a good argument, but I will say once more that you seem to be fixating on the year 1933, when I'm saying that I was just linking to the page with the title "1933", because that's the page for the soundless H*R era. It's just like how "Old-Timey" used to be called "1936". — It's dot com 22:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, that would have been a good arguement if it weren't for the fact that your "1936" thing is about a week late, and now supports my preference. - Joshua