Well so ive got a question for Tagalongpam, do you really think that ONE bad edit is liable enough to get an INFINITE ban? cause frankly this seems to be a bit of an overreaction. sure i deserve a month or two ban for the bad edit, but forever? come on i think that isn't fair at all. And what of Bellaluna? Is she on any of the recieving end? cause she heaped a whole lot on the sending end. Metaron Isard 13:54, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- The edits that you made to the Edward Cullen page tell me very clearly that you are not on this wiki to contribute constructively. If you can give me reason to believe otherwise, I will give you a second chance and decrease your ban length. -TagAlongPam (talk) 19:36, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, i did the edit as a favor to a friend of mine who is still in high-school. so i really meant no ill will.
I'm just curious here, but if someone vandalizes as a favor to a friend, how does that make them innocent? If you spray paint the side of a building for a friend, aren't you still the one responsible - no matter the motivation? I'm not championing the banning of your account, it just seems like an odd line of reasoning to me. As long as the vandalism stops, I'm happy. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o297/SCOTIMUS76/MS_av1_sig.jpg TLG 00:08, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
You have my word,on pain of infinite banhammer. Metaron Isard 01:36, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
So uh tagalong, what have you decided Edit
- Ok, I'll take your word that it won't happen again and decrease your ban to 1 month. But the next time you vandalize this wiki (whether for yourself or for a "friend"), I will smite you with the infinite banhammer. -TagAlongPam (talk) 04:49, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Swahili My boy Edit
You have made you're father proud.
oh, good GOD!!! you are both just haters!
and it's lunabella!!!
Greetings, you must excuse my sons, the can tend to be a bit zealous in their work. they mean you no harm, at least not physically.
Lunabella, stop being a hater, your thirteen,
what? you scared of the little lolita princess?
I'M a hater!? you're vandalising twilight!!!
Re: Stephanie Meyer Edit
Okay, thanks. I would go with Stephanie Meyer's site because she is more reliable. Wikipedia has so many edis a minute that they are lost and sometimes never fixed. Thanks for your source :D! You can go ahead and post it! --TheLunarEclipse
- Concerning this, Wikipedia's value is correct if you are referring to how many query letters Meyer sent out for the book. The reason her site also says "7 or 8" is because that many of the responses were outright rejections, but there were also a few that were simply never answered. Basically, she sent out 15 letters, 9 sent back rejections, 5 didn't answer, and 1 accepted it. However, none of this has to do with the film and so should not be included on the Twilight (film) page. -TagAlongPam (talk) 03:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
i don't know what you mean.
KINDLY--ASK--KMANWING--TO--LOCK--COMMENTS--BY--UNREGISTERED USERS... IM ABOUT TO SCREAM WITH THE IDIOCY THAT THEY ARE SAYING. Metaron Isard 01:54, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
oh, well i didn't think they were being stupid...
i guess i could ask about that.
sowwy, i don't speak adult fluently.
- While I agree that it is VERY annoying and stupid, you should run it through TAG before we do anything. (talk) 02:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
- She and i arent exactly the best of friends. Metaron Isard 02:11, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Re: Excuse meEdit
The article talked about reanimating people into zombies, with "all but the essential functions for movement and communication gone and having very little purpose but to feed and infect others". You also mentioned fangs a number of times. Explain to me how this is related to Twilight? If you want to re-create the Venom article, make it about venom as it is known in the series, using only information provided in the books or by Stephenie Meyer. Thanks. -TagAlongPam (talk) 04:45, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the apprehension to that comes because there are things that even she did not explain. As in, it states that vampire hearts cease functioning after transformation, does it not? How again, in the name of all things sensible do bella and edbar copulate? As i said, No Heartbeat, no boner, no creeper hybrid. Besides, what female or male as it occasionally seems would want to procreate with a 117+ year old Corpse? Of course i forgot, everyone here is either a Necrophilliac, a partaker of bestiality, or an advocate of pedophillism. Im sorry, to the untrained eye that might seem a bit odd, but you guys know the real deal, cause its true love! and its like the love of loves! even though in my own god granted free opinion feels that H.P. Lovecraft's left nut has more creative ability than Smeyer and her ravening horde. Cthulhu F'tagn 13:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with the article that you wrote? Whether you agree with what is stated in the series or not (or even whether Meyer has explained everything) is completely irrelevant. This is a wiki about Twilight, and that is what the articles should be about. The end. -TagAlongPam (talk) 02:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Every fluid in a vampires body is recreated with a type of venom. Saliva, blood, seminal fluid... all fluids are a venom, however only the saliva is contagious. This venom does flow through the body and the venom allowed Edward to become erect and impregnate Bella. (talk) 02:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)