User talk:Aamp

amp 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)If you're going to be making a lot of small edits on a page, it's better if you use the main Edit link to it all at once, rather than section by section. This keeps the "recent changes" and history pages from being cluttered up with lots of minor edits. Thanks! -- Repowers 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I was breaking it up to make it easier to keep track of, but I'll edit the whole thing in a big chunk from now on. Thanks for the heads-up - I don't want to be a pain in the ass. amp 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your approach isn't totally wrong; breaking up the page edit into sections is useful when the page is very extensive, like Optimus Prime's or Starscream's. For most pages, though, it's like Robert says: Better to edit them as a whole unless you know you only need to modify one section.--Apcog 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Righty-o. I can see where the masses of infinitesimal edits could get to be a real irritant. I'll do 'em page by page from now on. (Except for maybe the massive pages where there are lots of errors to be corrected, if that's cool.) I'd prefer to be a help, not a cluttering jerk. I appreciate the guidance~ amp 03:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And we appreciate the help. Cheers.--Apcog 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to apply my monomania to a worthy(ish) task. ^_^ amp 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fresh hot small square

? -hx 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, "Fresh hot small square" was (is?) the catchphrase to an advertising campaign for the White Castle-esque southern steamed burger chain Krystal. It referred to their eponymous burgers, which are hot, small, and square. (The 'fresh' adjective can't really be applied even in moments of extreme generosity.) The phrase was re-appropriated to apply to me by some cohorts of mine years ago in reference to my diminutive stature and quick temper. The square bit has to do with a running gag of stuffing me in boxes, but really isn't funny enough to expound upon now (it was funny at the time). amp 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

heh heh. i eat there more than any sane human being ought to. which is to say "more than once a month." -hx 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, if I was a snarky person (heaven forbid), I might say that "more than any sane human being ought to" would be "ever". To be honest, I've never met anyone who has, unironically and of their own free will, eaten a Krystal. What are they like? I'm very curious. Not that I'm throwing stones from my glass house - I have plenty of, er, questionable culinary practices. There's no one alive who can convince me that 340mg caffiene and instant ramen isn't the breakfast of champions. Or at least the breakfast of those who want to make it to the semi-finals. amp 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<raises hand> We got our first Krystal in town a few years ago, and some of the guys at the office went nuts about it, going out and buying family-packs to share around the office. I tried 'em out. Eh. Not bad, but not very flavorful. The onions on the burger weren't strong, but I tasted them almost more than I tasted the meat. I haven't been compelled to go back and buy my own, but more from apathy than active dislike.--Apcog 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

mmmMMMmMMm steamed meat... Okay, confession time: I admit my somewhat skeptical viewpoint on the subject of The Krystal might be influenced by my being: a) a professional cook, and b) a 15-year vegetarian. Not that I object to them solely on the basis of being meat-based (I cook meat, meat's fine) - it's just that meat just shouldn't be the scary gray color that I remember the Krystal patties being. Ideally. (Funny that you mention onions, I also remember a wierd onion-y smell.) Also, I haven't lived in a place with a Krystal in years, so my memory might be off. Mostly, the somewhat anachronistic nature of the chain struck us as funny. I mean, do they still have those little aluminum ashtrays? Back then, when being klepto was cool, we used to steal those things and give them to each other as gag gifts. amp 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mechanics"?

When you say, "Minor mechanics corrections", what do you mean by "mechanics"? (Whups, forgot to sign. JW 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

I mean the mechanics of writing, i.e. grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, word usage, typos, etc. I haven't thus far really edited for content, I've just been trying to make things a little clearer and cleaner. Hope I'm not stepping on toes. My intention is just to help an already-excellent Wiki about a subject that's near & dear to me put its best foot forward. amp 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated. Feel free to call it "grammar" or "cleanup", though. "Mechanics" in a Transformers context always makes me think of, well, actual mechanical stuff. JW 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh. Y'know, I never thought of that, but now that you point it out I can see the potential for confusion considering the subject matter. I'll alter my vocabulary accordingly. Do please let me know, though, if/when my obsession with minutiae becomes a hinderance or an irritant. ^_^ amp 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, every time you fix some spelling, Baby Primus smiles. Keep it up. JW 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, and every time an apostrophe is misued, a spark is extinguished forever. If there's ever something specific that needs doing, let me know. In the meantime, I'll keep nitpicking on behalf of the Baby Primus. Thanks~ amp 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

s's

Please don't remove the extra "s" after an apostrophe if the word isn't a plural. —Interrobang 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. - Chris McFeely 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've been under the impression that all my extra s after apostrophe removals have been in plural words, or words that end in 's', and therefore get the apostrophe after the s. amp 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah? I'm asking you to not do the latter. —Interrobang 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure why, though, as posessive words ending in 's' traditionally by the rules of grammar, get the apostrophe after the final 's'. amp 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in the case of nouns ending in s, no (like Rodimus). They get 's, like everything else. Unless they're Biblical. - Chris McFeely 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh, I'm not trying to be combative, but, to quite the wikihow: "Place an apostrophe before the "s" when you are indicating a singular possessive, unless the name or word ends in "s," in which case either is correct. (James's dog or James' dog, Dickens' novel or Dickens's novel)" So, technically, both are correct, but the form I was always taught in school was to use the apostrophe after the 's' in the case of singular plural nouns. In fact, in most places on this wiki, that's how the apostrophe on singular nouns ending in 's's are used. amp 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I was bit blunt. Yeah, both are correct, technically speaking. But I'mma quote Wikipedia itself and point out that: "Most respected sources require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe," with the exceptions being Biblical names, or results that are awkward to pronounce. Me saying this is, a'course, a product of being a person whose name is affected in this way, and I hhhhhhate " Chris' ". - Chris McFeely 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm errr argh...I guess I can stop doing it (sort of unhappily), though I have to admit, it looks ugly and awkward to me - I guess I just had it drilled in as a kid. *sigh* I guess, the question is then, do we want to go back and change ALL the uses of the apostrophe after the s in the singular? Argh. I gotta say, this kinda makes me bummed. amp 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)