Talk:Liquid Generation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Concerning the name
Should the article really be called LiquidGeneration.com? I think it would be better if we called it Liquid Generation.--BlooWilt 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sabotages
There really should be a sabotage section on here, that's one thing that they're extremely famous for. Shinobi101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shinobi101 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll get straight to that! --70.109.89.229 18:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, it looks awesome now! -Shinobi101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shinobi101 (talk • contribs) 0:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I think this could also use a picture. --BlooWilt 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Very true...but what to use? -Shinobi101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.140.97 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- How about, a picture of the mainpage as of the date you took it on. --BlooWilt 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Someone wrote "illegal movie and music download flash games", yet they're sabotages. I even changed it to sabotages, but they changed it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlooWilt (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It has both elements of somewhat a game, and a sabotage; it's kind of a hybrid flash creation. It suprises people, but not like a screamer would. -Shinobi101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.100.140.97 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of LG policy...
Does anyone have any information or substantiation that LG spams people incessently? I realise that of course I am not unique, but my Googlemail account started to receive messages mere hours after activation. Should this be included in the article? KethKinsey, 219.51.124.56 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you, or others, can find verifiable information published by a secondary source, and can present it in a fair, proportionately-balanced, and unbiased manner, then by all means, it should be included in the article. But only if it is published by a verifiable secondary source. --Iamunknown 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Updates
This article really needs to be updated. It's been a month since the last update. Which was in October. I don't know what to put in. BlooWilt 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
