Replying to Article On Wikipedia For Reloaded

Posted 09 September 2006 - 05:36 PM

Posted 09 September 2006 - 04:19 PM

No, I'm sorry. I should have made myself clearer.

Posted 09 September 2006 - 12:01 PM

Abi79, on Sep 9 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

She meant that AB is notable even by Wikipedia's ridiculous criteria.

I see.  Another proof that my English is really bad  
Sorry  

Posted 09 September 2006 - 11:58 AM

Posted 09 September 2006 - 11:53 AM

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 9 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

Well, there's no doubt about AB being notable even by their ridiculous criteria.

But I am still curious. What rediculous criteria you find at Abandonia  

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:26 AM

Romano, on Sep 9 2006, 09:10 AM, said:

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 9 2006, 09:08 AM, said:

Well, there's no doubt about AB being notable even by their ridiculous criteria.

You know that my English is disastrous but I will understand this message as your way to say "thank you"  

Of course, what else?

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:10 AM

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 9 2006, 09:08 AM, said:

Well, there's no doubt about AB being notable even by their ridiculous criteria.

You know that my English is disastrous but I will understand this message as your way to say "thank you"  

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:08 AM

Well, there's no doubt about AB being notable even by their ridiculous criteria.

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:02 AM

Congratulations  
It was very hard to gain keep decission so the final success is even greater then for Abandonia.
Keep good work  

Posted 09 September 2006 - 06:37 AM

A. J. Raffles, on Sep 9 2006, 05:59 AM, said:

Moogle, on Sep 9 2006, 01:56 AM, said:

Long read =\

Aw, go on, Moogle, the average Wilde play is longer than that.

I suppose this is good news, but it can still be merged with the AB article, right? If that happens, will the entire article be moved or will everything need to be squeezed into two short paragraphs?

Yeah but Wilde is more interesting than just "zomg delete"