Difference between revisions of "Talk:ROM/ISO sites"

From Emulation General Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== Regarding portalroms.com == I'd like to ask why Dipswitch is so hellbent on keeping portalroms, since it is a broken website that doesn't work with any web browser due to h...")
 
(Regarding portalroms.com)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Regarding portalroms.com ==
 
== Regarding portalroms.com ==
 
I'd like to ask why Dipswitch is so hellbent on keeping portalroms, since it is a broken website that doesn't work with any web browser due to how fuckily put together it is. Unless there are certain instructions on how to properly use the site, in which those should be listed. [[User:F0rZ3r0|F0rZ3r0]] ([[User talk:F0rZ3r0|talk]]) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (EST)
 
I'd like to ask why Dipswitch is so hellbent on keeping portalroms, since it is a broken website that doesn't work with any web browser due to how fuckily put together it is. Unless there are certain instructions on how to properly use the site, in which those should be listed. [[User:F0rZ3r0|F0rZ3r0]] ([[User talk:F0rZ3r0|talk]]) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (EST)
 +
 +
== Reverted Download Section ==
 +
When I checked this page today, a majority of the Downloads section was gone and what was there was repeated 4 times. I've reverted the changes as best as I know how to how the section  was before the change that removed -11,181 characters from the article.
 +
--[[User:ElizabethNoir|ElizabethNoir]] ([[User talk:ElizabethNoir|talk]]) 14:27, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Revision as of 19:27, 7 February 2018

Regarding portalroms.com

I'd like to ask why Dipswitch is so hellbent on keeping portalroms, since it is a broken website that doesn't work with any web browser due to how fuckily put together it is. Unless there are certain instructions on how to properly use the site, in which those should be listed. F0rZ3r0 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Reverted Download Section

When I checked this page today, a majority of the Downloads section was gone and what was there was repeated 4 times. I've reverted the changes as best as I know how to how the section was before the change that removed -11,181 characters from the article. --ElizabethNoir (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2018 (EST)