Editing Talk:Conrad Slater

I didn't write this page but i DID add the picture XD --[[User:Conradslater|conradslater]] 13:20, 14 August 2007 (PDT)

lol, what the hell? XD [[User:Stegblob|Steg]] 13:25, 14 August 2007 (PDT)

Holy crap XD--[[User:BigMarioandTailsfan|BigMarioandTailsfan]] 13:27, 14 August 2007 (PDT)

== Feature ==

I feel that this is unworthy of a nomination, due to bad grammar spread throughout. If the grammar and writing were to be improved, I would accept its nomination, on the grounds that it is otherwise well written. It has a sufficient amount of information, and has a wee bit of humour. 

And please don't feature this article for the wrong reasons. It should be featured for quality writing, not importance of the described subject. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 15:58, 11 July 2010 (CDT)
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 And please don't feature this article for the wrong reasons. It should be featured for quality writing, not importance of the described subject. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 15:58, 11 July 2010 (CDT)
-:It really shouldn't be featured just because of notability. It's not a role-model article, so I'm against it. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 17:33, 11 July 2010 (CDT)
-:All right, I fixed that grammar issues that "Sonrad Clator" did.
-::[[Kinghomer45]] is not a role-model type of YouTube Pooper, and yet we still allowed him in. Besides, why not feature the guy who originally created this website in the first place? - [[User:Crazy Luigi|Crazy Luigi]] 18:33, 11 July 2010 (CDT)
-:::Kinghomer the ''person'' isn't a role-model (at all), but the article was well-written and the stuff he did was memorable. This article could use a ''lot'' more information. Just because he created the website doesn't give Conrad a free pass. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 18:49, 11 July 2010 (CDT)