Talk:Sbemail 136 Alternate Versions

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 01:32, 1 June 2010 by Defender1031 (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Source of these versions

The transcripts of these alternate versions are taken verbatim from a couple of Word rich-text format files that the Chaps emailed to us admins over the weekend. Aside from the noted formatting tweaks, they have not been (and should not be) changed in any way. Fun facts, categories, templates, etc. are all fair game though. — It's dot com 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Man, you are lucky that the Chaps seem to know you. I've emailed them numerous times and they haven't replied.
  2. Any news on any other future updates?
  3. Unless the Chaps actually post these files somewhere, should this article actually be here? RickTommy (edits) 06:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Yes. — It's dot com 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you give us any proof that this is real? And should it be on the wiki at all if it's not on YouTube, H*R.com, ect.? --Sbemail Checker Dan
I agree. I realize it was made by an Admin, but still a scan or something would be nice. Stev0 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. At the very least, it should not be listed on the main page under the section for updates to the official H*R site, as it is definitely not. 76.26.71.32 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither was the They Might Be Giants and Homestar Runner, Variety Playhouse. It's just a way of saying "Hey! It's us, TBC! We're not dead, and we haven't given up on Homestar!" And besides, while I don't know their true intentions, I'm sure that they must've been thinking "Why don't we send dot com some rough drafts of these toons? He could make a wiki page about it and everybody would think it's cool!" StrongAwesome 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dan, Stev0, anonny: If people are going to know about it, then it has to go on the main page. The Chaps sent it to us so that we could release it as a fun, behind-the-scenes tidbit for dedicated fans. It might not be on the official site, but in my mind it carries the weight of an official update. As for proof of its authenticity, I think you're gonna just have to take our word for it. I could print out the RTF files, scan them, and upload them, but I don't really see what that would prove. After all the years I've been contributing to this wiki, either you trust that I wouldn't make something like this up or you don't. Besides, have you read it? It's pretty obvious it's legit. — It's dot com 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it should be here even if it's not officially published. It's definitely interesting. I'm glad I get to read it. Also, we don't just use the "What's new" section for official page updates even if it says so. It's been used for unofficial footage of gigs before, for example. It's an interesting, relevant piece of information. Why shouldn't we document and promote it? Loafing 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"I could print out the RTF files, scan them, and upload them, but I don't really see what that would prove." Uhhh, it would prove that these alternate versions are REAL? Besides, anyone can make up an email, just look at some of the emails on the currently blocked SBEmail game on the forum. How is it "obvious" it's legit? --SBE-mail Checker Dan 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on Earth would an extremely trustful admin who has been here for 5 years make up such an elaborate fan fiction and claim it's real? And besides, when would he have the time to make it up? What, with dealing with the fanstuff closing, and probably a bunch of other admin-type stuff, that's why it's obvious it's legit. StrongAwesome 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying it's obvious because the Chaps have a distinct sense of humor that is recognizable. The files they sent us are essentially plain text. Anyone could copy and paste the text from the article into their favorite word processor, print it out, scan it, and upload it just as easily as I could. It wouldn't prove anything. I suppose could paste the email headers, but I'm not going to do that because they contain private data. You know that the Chaps use our site as a reference, right? There's no reason to risk my reputation by faking alternate versions of emails that they would then deny. You can choose to believe me or not, but I'm telling you earnestly that this is real. — It's dot com 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to question It's dot com's integrity, that's why I ignored the request in my previous post. It didn't even cross my mind to question the authenticity of this. Loafing 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great article, and I know It's dot com is 100% trustworthy. However, I was thinking about J. Random Casual User who comes across this; It's not ME, PERSONALLY who wants proof, it's THEM. Stev0 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a line to the intro saying that it was an email sent to the wiki admins. It's true, it cites its source, and it makes sense to have. — Defender1031*Talk 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It's not really material to the article itself, so I don't think it should go in the intro. Maybe the fun facts? The reason I posted it on the talk page was that it seemed too meta for the main namespace. — It's dot com 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We mention the source in the intro of pretty much every other thing aside from toosn and games that appear on the main site... so what makes this one different? — Defender1031*Talk 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools