Talk:Babel Fish

editing HG
But,HG, every time someone amends something of yours (or B*****'s) we get cries of "conspiracy" or "liberal swarm" people don't want to fuel your paranoia. (oops - that word again) Keepoff the grass 20:51, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Too late. XD --Kels 20:53, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Swarms aren't conpsiracies...they are swarms. Run on something akin to instinct.  Also, please be careful with the conspiracy and paranoia inuenndos...they are cheap shots.  This is not my wiki, so if you want to revert me, go ahead.  I got sick of the complaints in this case, and just took out the commentary.   23:26, 29 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I note that when I edited your work to remove unnecessary and frankly off-topic material while leaving your point intact, you reverted it without comment on the talk page. Your incessant ravings about swarms doesn't excuse you being rude. --Kels 06:40, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

EDIT WAR!!!
You're OK with me HG. It's a pretty picture. I'm turning in now (5:30 AM here) so Big Sister is not watching you. Night! Keepoff the grass 23:35, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Tower of Babel
I've created a separate article of this.--Bob_M (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Khalufid's Fork
Incredible. We're actually quoting CP as a reference for this??? Or did somebody sneak it in? ..... Now I do a bit of googling though I see that the CP article is an exact copy of the WP one.--Bob_M (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * As the article now says, this looks like a hoax. WP is worried about it but, not surprisingly, CP has no problems. Unless the original poster objects, or comes up with more data, I'll remove it from the article later - or perhaps include it as a separate numerous entry.  Unless somebody else does it first.--Bob_M (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmn, criticizing CP for falling for something that the WP, which is patrolled much more often, also fell for? Chances are the same prankster put both articles up.  16:05, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * "WP is worried about it" - what, all of it? Or just some smartarse who's read his Douglas Adams? Totnesmartin 16:14, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hehehe, I thought it was pretty apparent where the article came from. prettydilettante lies 16:21, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Honestly you guys. Whenever you see something with the CatWatcher signature on it, especially when it is posted on Cp, you gotta ask some skeptical questions, now haven't you. I originally wrote this article, and I also wrote the one on Cp! The one on Wp was posted some time later, by some guy called DumbleBore (I swear I never heard of him). I even left a clue in the text here "...although many have doubted that this is true." Whether or not it is true, depends on your point of view. If you are a Conservapedian, it is a truth that has been around for the past 4 months (almost), and has been picked over by three separate Sysops (in fact it got vandalised and reverted to the original by a sysop). Admittedly it has only been on Wp for two months, but in that time the article has been categorised as philosophy, it has been picked up and scrutinised by the Iran interest group, and has been categorised as 'low' quality by the | Philosphy Editorial Team (I was a bit miffed about that one!).  Since I have said that I didn't post it on Wp, I'm certainly not going to challenge it there. However, you take your pick here and on Cp.  Is it true, or isn't it?  When you have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how do you actually determine what is true and what is false; where is the line between truth and fiction, and how can you then trust anything? These are very important questions.--CatWatcher 09:16, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with your statement "how can you trust anything" and also apply that to other examples, such as PiltDown man. My main point, though, was that RW is critisizing CP but not WP, when WP should be in a better position to detect the BS.   12:31, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I think BobM mischaracterized it when he said WP is worried about it. The only one who seems to have noticed it is Totnesmartin.  Coincidentally, this happended right after an RW article was created pointing out the two articles were the same.  Really, neither site caught it.  It's harder to blame wikipedia, because you're talking about one article among 1,922,520 (the last time I checked).  At conservapedia, you're talking about 1 out of (according to them) 15,700.  However, sysops and other important people on both sites looked at it, read it, added to it, and missed the fact that it was fake.  Also, RW is not the one criticizing CP on that point, only a single individual.  ThunderkatzHo! 12:48, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
 * coincidentally? I checked the recent changes and found something I'd never heard of, then the penny dropped. But by Odin did I have to dig out the research. Well done Thunderkatz. Totnesmartin 15:00, 31 July 2007 (CDT) (goatspeed! you black emperor)

BABEL FISH R TASY
REALLLY I ATE 1 IT WASS G00D, !StupidIdiot

Has the above #really# been here for 11 1/4 years? Anna Livia (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's 10 years and 3 months from November 2007 to February 2018. CowHouse (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A long time anyway (and 'Mondayitis' - day of the week-itis/weather-itis etc are convenient excuses) :)
 * Is the statement 'daft enough to keep'?
 * Are there any longer gaps on talk pages? Anna Livia (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only where there is no datestamp in the section for the archive bot to detect. 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to use five tildes instead of four. CowHouse (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What happens if you do?
 * What are the vegetarian/vegan options to a Babel Fish? Anna Livia (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Audrey II, but you don't want to go there. Wilder Bicycle 18:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which question is being answered by the Bigly Beautiful (or possibly Beuatiful) Plant? Anna Livia (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)