Talk:Time beacon

PNA-inaccurate: This article is chock-full of speculation. --Alan del Beccio 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ill give you that, but in some special circumstances that there has been a lack of on-screen information some very carfully based conjucture is i think appropriate until something may come along to change this formualry. what i put down on this page has been thought out and seems to be a resonable assumtion for a time beacon, if you have any ideas on what a time beacon may be other than what i speculated i would be willing to colaborate on hammering out a better worded artical, until then what is the policy on a red link of which there is not enough canon to make an entire artical?.Its Time For The White! 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) see also duckblind i have done something similar to that page as wellIts Time For The White! 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is justification enough to speculate an entire article. In fact, I know it's not. --Alan del Beccio 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont know what you mean, could you werite the artical here on the talk page and show me how you would have done it? it seems to me that a red/dead link is worse than a faithfully supposed artical that to me anyway seems to be pretty accurate, the artical doesnt state any thing as fact, so it shouldnt be inviolation of our canon policy...i think lol Its Time For The White!  =/\=Talk=/\= |undefined 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)