Talk:Caligan Courier/June'06

Could you plese post at every article who wrote it? Because Kamekaze seems to have more serious and indebt informaiton while talles has more gossip stories.

Actually, Kame wrote the first two, i wrote the last one.

Oh look! Copying us again, Talless! Tut, Tut. --The1exile 00:38, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

I would never copy the filth you write Alex. I did it out of respect for my elder.--Twinblade 15:12, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

The information wants to be free yo --Lumberjack 15:49, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

I was referring to the signing each article separately. --The1exile 19:24, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

Was it copywrited?? --Lumberjack 20:29, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

Copyrighting isn't invented yet. And with each separate realm having their own justice system I don't think anyone would enforce it. But you claimed we nicked your layout (We didn't! It was sirions!) I call that idea for Aurum. --The1exile 20:34, 9 June 2006 (CEST)

For the last time, it wasn't your format we used, and anyways I'm working on a new one. --The1exile 00:17, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Honestly, I don't think anyone would want to use your layout. The formatting is horrible, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion. Oh, and how exactly is this considered an article? And yes, it is "bashing" us *cough*IJARG*cough*. --Ichigo, Kurosaki Family 00:24, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

I'm going to try to say this very clearly and thoroughly once, so that hopefully I will not have to say it again.

1) My paper's layout was inspired, not copied from The Rampant Lion. It was also inspired by some things of the changes the OR paper did to the layout of The Rampant Lion. (it was also inspired by the layout of the news section of my high school paper, of which I was an editor at one point) Looking at the two papers for about ten seconds should be plenty to indicate to anyone that the changes I made to the layout were not insignificant. The widths of the "right hand box" and the main articles page are different. I use sections and subsections, along with a table of contents, for ease of navigation. Borrowing from OR's paper, we created a "Page 2" for the more in-depth articles. My paper also added its own elements. I divided "page two" into sections, like a real newspaper would (News, Features, and Opinions are different sections you'll find in many a newspaper, and I got the idea from my high school newspaper). We also mark each of our stories as such, like a real newspaper would. The latter two are original, so far as I know.

2) "Stealing" the layout doesn't matter. Even the editor of the Rampant Lion says it doesn't matter if I “stole” his layout. Even if I had outright simply copy pasted the layout, it wouldn't matter. What matters is what's inside the layout. I will match the quality of my articles against yours any day of the week. I happen to believe they are more interesting, more clearly and professionally written, and simply better. At least they don't have spelling mistakes left, right, and center. I won't even go into the atrocious grammar. But, harping out about the layout and trying to make a battle of it strikes me as very silly, where you could be talking about, you know, the actual *articles* instead. But considering what I've seen so far of your writing, maybe that's not such a good idea.

3) We cannot "steal" what we openly on our header admit to having borrowed from. The assistance of the Rampant Lion's layout is attributed on our page. I formally request you to redact or withdraw this statement: "The editor of Yssarias new paper, the "Red Star Courier", somewhat thinks alike Alex of the Itorunt Informer in stealing formats. But instead of stealing our format as Alex did, he stole The Rampant Lions. (Fact not Rumor)". This statement is at best an allegation made without any support, and at worst verifiably false.

Aeillien 01:37, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Talless, according to the IJARG i think we're not allowed to slander... I don't know for sure I could never be arsed to read it...But RSC is not in the IJARG so slander away I say --Lumberjack 09:57, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Okay I wont retract that statement, but i will reword it. And ill even let stand the many untruths in your paper after i take the time of reading it. But will be on vacations soon, i will be gone five days, my intern will be in charge as her final test. And also, the CC is working on a somewhat new format. It will be more of a Template change and some little add ons so everone knows when the article was written and what type it is. But the format itself will remain. The CC doesnt need fancy colors to attact its readers. Oh, and regardsless of what IJARG says. We ALL aggreed we could insult each other as much as we want anywhere other than our papers.--Twinblade 17:52, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

PROVIDED we give good reasons. Besides, the II has an almost complete new layout. --The1exile 17:54, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

I just realized somthing. The Red Star courier hasnt signed IJARG. Until then, my statement stands.--Twinblade 17:57, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

Twinblade, you really can't read. RSC doesn;'t need to be a member of IJARG, you still can't slander them. it's in Article I. --The1exile 18:02, 23 June 2006 (CEST)

I was uncertain myself if IJARG papers had to respect the terms of the treaty as regards papers that have not signed it. My own reading of the treaty leads me to believe that as it is written, IJARG applies to the articles written by its members period, whether written about non-IJARG signers or not. I was uncertain if that wording was the intention, however, since I wasn't around when the treaty was originally signed/discussed.

Regardless of whether your in violation of IJARG or not, it was my hope you would correct your statements regardless of any treaty you may or may not have signed, simply because they were false.

If my paper has, as you allege, false statements ("and ill even let stand the many untruths in your paper after i take the time of reading it."), point them out, here, or my papers discussion page. I'll be happy to look at them and respond to them, in one way or another. I will either correct them, or try to make convincing arguments as to their veracity, or reword them so that they more clearly fall into the realm of interpretation, rather than statements of fact.

I myself have been debating whether or not to sign IJARG simply because, from what I can see, the treaty does no good. Papers will either write mature articles about another paper, or they wont. They will either have a mature discussion in the talk page, or they won't. IJARG does not seem to change that. It seems to me that signing the treaty would simply encourage some people to play "gotcha" with any editorials I might write in my paper in response to articles written in someone else's paper, and if I point out violations of IJARG, those same parties would happily lawyer away at the meanings of the articles, or change the topic, or, in short, do anything but actually try and abide by the spirit and letter of IJARG. --Aeillien 18:56, 23 June 2006 (CEST)