User talk:Human/Archive14

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 May 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <0>, <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, (new)(back)

Sysopship[edit]

It just occurred to me that the reason we can have a policy like "PMOTF" is because sysopship is nothing too special here.

On Uncyclopedia, admins are nominated and then approved by democratic vote. Adminship is seen as a statement of trust. Admins trust each other to not abuse their block power, and assume good faith for all blocks. Even if another admin takes issue with a ban, they don't undo it. On the flip side, if the banned user personally appeals to another admin, and has their ban repealed, the other admins (including the one who banned the user in the first place) trust that admin's judgement.

On RationalWiki, sysops are unilaterally appointed based off personal initiatives. We don't have a system, we have personal actions and reactions. As a result, we get controversies like these. (Not to say that Uncyclopedia doesn't have fights over bans like we do. They just have them far less often.) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Because of the approach we take for "demoting" sysops, sysops cannot claim any real authority here—the community needs to be able to trust sysops before that can happen.

Originally, the founders sought to make sysopship here the opposite of sysopship on Conservapedia, by making it super-easy to get one. While philosophically different, it is operationally the same as Conservapedia: a user possessing the power of demotion/promotion (ASchlafly there, a few users here) unilaterally, without input from the community (no, fellow cabalists do not count as the "community") decides to promote/demote a user. The community is then expected to trust the newly "demoted" sysop not to abuse their powers. Even worse, on RationalWiki the community is supposed and expected to pretend that the new sysop has no degree of authority, in spite of the fact that that is exactly what block, lock, and deletion powers are. Power is by definition wielded by authority.

In trying to avoid the mistakes made by Conservapedia, we have instead emulated them. We should have done what Conservapedia failed so spectacularly at: democracy. We should elect sysops, not by fiat, but by popular vote. Would that not be the ultimate repudiation, of the autocratic culture Conservapedia has bred? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, does that mean we'd "grandfather" the existing sysops and have a vote for the new ones, or would there have to be a vote acclaiming all the current ones (except for TMT, since that would be kinda silly for him not to be a sysop)? --Kels 17:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, in order to be as fair as possible, I figured we should put up every current sysop (except TMT, like you said). I mean, being a sysop just because of membership in the cabal undermines any legitimate authority behind sysopship, because, like it or not, it just boils down to "they're my friends, that's why", which is little better than nepotism. As for them getting elected, they will all be shoo-ins anyways. And, yes, I would be up for election, too. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
RA, You keep on suggesting votes for things, who would be eligible to vote and what would their vote be worth? Would e.g. Human's vote carry the same weight as e.g. Lily the pink's? (no particular reason to pick these two!) Or would votes be weighted by , oh I don't know, number of contributions; time on site or some other criterion? On one man one vote: what if someone signed on, over the next week, with 37 identities (like this one) (no checkuser remember) they'd probably be able to take over the site! Knewell 17:42, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
No, I mean a straight-out democratic vote. No one's vote is worth more. Any registered user can vote. True democracy. Ain't it great? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:45, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Knewel points out the wekaness of a wiki relative to "democracy". RA, please try to define "one person", or create a "voters list" in a way that has any rational underpinning to see how hard your wonderful idea would be to do in practice. humanUser talk:Human 17:48, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
See that's 2 votes knewell/carbon tet's got! Carbon tetrachloride 17:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I and all of my socks would vote for me, so I would win handily. OOf, Yes He CAN!! DogP 17:52, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Personally , I think it should be more like a shareholder's meeting. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:16, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Simple voting wouldn't work, but RA's on the right track here. We've gotta stop just assigning anyone without particular discussion to be a sysop. Sure, they're janitors in the sense of deleting pages and blocking vandals, but they're effectively the wiki's security too, and the ones who have the responsibility to step in and make sure people are getting along, not edit warring, using the talk pages instead of just going ahead and deleting stuff, etc. So let's start by clearing house. De-sysop anyone who's just on the sysop list for a laugh, folks who don't contribute anything at all. Like, you've got people like Pretzel who haven't edited for a month on the list, so let's tidy things up, make the sysop list a bit tighter. Maybe set up a page where each of the current sysops have reasons for/against their continuing, and something similar when someone's going to be a new one. --Kels 18:07, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you'd find people voting on grounds of: A thinks like me so should be a sysop; B thinks other than me so shouldn't, regardless of there suitability for sysophood. (thats 3 knewell/carbon tet/milquetoasts) Milquetoast 18:48, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
As usual, people are discussing five things that must follow each other all at the same time. How about step one: decide whether to desysop inactive sysops? humanUser talk:Human 18:52, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
yup! Desysop anyone who hasn't edited within the past insert time period here.Milquetoast 19:00, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think we should desysop inactive users.-αmεσ (soldier) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, as I said (I assume Milquetoast was talking about my suggestion since you replied to me) I wasn't talking about a vote at all, but a discussion. Like on WP, sheer numbers would be meaningless since you can just sock up twenty or thirty times and you'd have an army of support. I'm more thinking laying out the facts, one way or another, and seeing what it looks like.
As to inactive sysops, we should talk about that, yeah. In Pretzel's case, he made it pretty obvious that he was leaving. We've had a few lulz appointments in the past too (Bodhan, etc.), that probably should be purged from the rolls. --Kels 19:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
It would turn into a RationalWiki Talkfest & nothing would happen. Milquetoast 19:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
And the alternative you're suggesting is? I may have missed that part. --Kels 19:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Status quo! (Sorry Kels, I wasn't trying to put anyone down - just stating what I see as facts) Milquetoast 19:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Well, the whole point to this is to try to get something done, status quo doesn't really help. If we can get "talkfests" to have some real effect, then we're getting somewhere. --Kels 20:07, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

As one of the least properly "demoted" sysops here... am I considered moderately trustworthy by the community? I hope so... after all, I surely haven't made any unfair bans within the past five minutes. UchihaKATON! 20:08, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Voting Rights[edit]

I see the question of voting has come up above. It seems to me that a system of weighting votes in favor of major contributors would have merit. It would favor those who have made the most contributions to, and have most interest in, the site; it would reduce the possibility of sock voting; it would remove the (perhaps remote) possibility of - say - a group of YEC's quickly registering and voting something in; it would eliminate IP voting.--Bobbing up 06:15, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Broadly speaking I would agree, however, even that comes with its own problems. Sure, there are the "obvious" contributors who have edited thousands of times. And the obvious ones with hundreds of edits. But where do we draw the line? If the bar is low enough, "trolls" could still game the system by making "x" number of edits at some point and then lurking. Even saying the edits have to go back in time wouldn't defend against that. And we'd "have to" vote to accept whatever standard we agreed upon. In the end, no matter what we want, this whole process has to be bootstrapped by a dictator or dictatorial committee (some one or group that lays the initial rules). The hard part is making the leap from intuitive observations (so and so is obviously a voting contributor) to clear definitions. (example: I had a fairly clear decision making process for sysopping people - first I had to "trust" them as an editor, meaning I wouldn't look at their edits unless I thought they would be funny or enlightening, then I'd see them up against a vandal on their own. But nobody else could see rhyme or reason to my "method", and it still can't be easily quantified as a "rule"). I would be very interested in seeing how any other wikis with "open" membership have achieved democratic forms successfully. humanUser talk:Human 11:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Hate to say it, but I'd trust: Human, Ames & AKj to act as a triumvirate. There's gotta be someone in charge & I think they're both rational and disparate enough. (Human for the Lulz, Ames for the Legals & AKj for the philosophy. Anyone ...?SusanG 11:56, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, you can just go to WP, the decision isn't made with sheer numbers, it's made with content. What are the compelling arguments one way or another, in any number of contexts. The important part is to have the conversation out in the open, and keep obvious trolls like TK and Bodhan from hijacking the proceedings with irrelevancies. --Kels 11:51, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Right. Only those who gladly drink the ratwiki kool-aid should be allowed to vote. TmtamesP 14:24, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Have some...it's good for you... --Kels 14:28, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Gross. I'd rather drink whatever wikipedia offers. TmtamesP 14:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
OOOOOHHHHHH, YEAH! --Kels 14:48, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I knew that. However, they have (by now, at least) clearer and stricter definitions to work with as to what are trolls, and they use checkuser to stymie puppeteers. They aren't a democracy at all, they are a kind of dictatorship of merit when it comes to decision-making - the case that is made best "wins", not the one with the most votes. Is this a model we would want our "dictator" to initialize? humanUser talk:Human 11:59, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we have a one-month waiting period before new users can vote, then? In general, the ones who only signed up on a whim but don't care as much have faded away by then, and the ones who actually care about the sight stick around that long. I would also point out that most sockpuppets and trolls are fairly easy to spot (e.g. TK's NightTrain and Bohdan's Locke). Additionally, we could always have a rule stating that votes must cite at least one specific example of why the user in question should be entrusted with sysopship (i.e. "They were very helpful when I interacted with them" or "They've made a lot of good articles"), which would weed out most of the trolls and socks by itself. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:16, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

The trouble is it still creates a loophole for dedicated people who want to hurt the site - all they have to do is sign up, make some edits, and wait. And, yes, if we get down the road to the point where we are actually using a system of some sort, simple "yes" or "no" comments don't count, a reason must be cited. humanUser talk:Human 12:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
On Uncyclopedia, they rarely had any problems with socks when it came to voting. So why don't we try it anyways, and if problems emerge, we can hammer things out? We spend all this time sitting around talking about things, and talking about the problems with changing things, that we never actually get around to changing them. Let's just try voting. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:32, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Getting back to regular editors. Say that each complete hundred edits got you one one voting point. We could calculate this quite easily from the new table. That would mean that those who had contributed the most to the community would have the most say in what it did. In actuality the Wiiki is the active users anyway so this would seem quite sensible. It also occurs to me that those who are involved ion the pi pledge should have a say. Perhaps three voting points for each pi pledge - the pi pledgers would have to be revealed of course. That would mean that those who support the wiki by contributing to with either time or money have a bigger voice in how it is run. At the moment a new user could sign up tomorrow and have the same voice in how the community is run as an active user.--Bobbing up 12:46, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I am not trying to be a party pooper with my "negative" comments, it's just that the more we think of that might go wrong in advance (loopholes, as it were), the more likely we are to prevent too many problems. Do you have a good link showing an example of democracy working on UC, and also their policies regarding such, because I'd love to read them. So what if we confer voting rights on anyone with over thirty edits that are at least thirty days ago, and then give it a trial on the question "should we desysop inactive sysops, but leave it open to them if they return?" (How do we decide whether or not to vote on that? hehe) humanUser talk:Human 12:48, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
no-one's commented on my triumvirate idea above. SusanG 12:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't think anyone took it seriously. But, now that I stop to consider it, having the three of them in charge would be a pretty good idea. They provide a nice balance. I assume you meant them as the only bureaucrats/oversight? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:59, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
What's wrong anyhow: if it aint broke- don't fix it! SusanG 13:27, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Plenty of people see the mobocracy as broken. AKjeldsen[1], Editor at CP[2], Genghis Khant[3], Shagie[4], and me all see the current system as broken, not to mention any other editors that feel this way and haven't said anything. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:59, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Break[edit]

(undent)
Susan's concept has merit, but why limit it to the three of them? How about we just take the Cabal, who up to this point has tried to avoid much in the line of actual power, and have them do something? After all, these are the people who founded the place in the first place, and of those, the ones who have stuck it out certainly have credibility. Put some restrictions on, and a requirement to listen to the users, but generally have that as the overall decision-making body? Then you've got a group that can take submissions on how to set up a blocking policy and so forth. So you've basically got a small mob (the Cabal) who makes policy decisions based on the will of the large mob (everyone), and go from there. That way you've got a lot of points of view, but still have a group who can resolve conflicts and prevent stalemates. And making it necessary take the mob into account (which has already been happening anyway), then the mob has a voice. --Kels 14:36, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Who will enfore the restrictions? Who will make sure they listen to the masses? What will prevent an oppressive oligarchy and an eventual decline to tyranny and fascism and inevitable genocide? TmtamesP 14:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Who will rid me of this turbulent priest? SusanG 14:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Welcome back! TmtamesP 14:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I like the idea (doh...). I think the choice of the three was good (covers age, relative belief issues, and we get a free lawyer to slow things down). Three is also a good number for the basic anchor of operations. All that the triumvirate would decide woudl be "fundamental" issues - like how to vote & who can vote, that sort of thing. After the "meta" framework is in place, all voters in most cases (some might just be sysops) would be involved. And, TmtamesP, genocide is the goal, what's your problem? humanUser talk:Human 14:46, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I personally don't like the idea of a group of three ultimate arbitrators.--Bobbing up 14:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Nonesense Bob. With those three, you will still get all the kool aid you want. What is the problem? TmtamesP 14:59, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I think all The Trinity would be there to do is 1. write the rules for the Convention, and 2. if there is ever a constitutional crisis, the mob can turn to them for fundamental rule clarification. Kind of like a US Supreme Court after the first step - only deciding things brought to them by the resulting system. humanUser talk:Human 15:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree, Human. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Personally I think three is too narrow. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:36, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Five? Seven? Nine? Remember, this group will have very little to do, but when they do it should be efficient. 3 = 5% of active users. 9 = 20%. By the way, I think that however small this Board is, the members shoudl have rotating terms, hopefully with their replacements elected by the current sysops. humanUser talk:Human 17:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Reminder[edit]

Hey Human, don't forget to upload that thing you remembered last night about side-by-side tables an' stuff. DogP 21:08, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Dog, take a look below the gibberish here, tell me what you think. Every section is its own discrete table, so a TOC works, and when editing you see both sides at the same time. humanUser talk:Human 22:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh wow, that looks hella simpler than the current scheme, no? DogP 22:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, that was what I was hoping. The old one was tough even for table-savvy editors. This even allows non-side-by-side sections to be placed in the middle, if we ever need to. I should move it to its own template space and get some more commentary before replacing the old template, I suppose. humanUser talk:Human 22:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I put it here, and added a blurb to main talk to get some comments. humanUser talk:Human 12:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Request[edit]

Hello, Human. I would like to request that you block me for two months, at both RationalWiki and RationalWikiWiki. Thank you. Dark Matter Glaucopis 16:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll do this for ya on this end. Please e-mail me if you'd like it lifted. I hope you come back!-αmεσ (soldier) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I'll get it done at RWW. Likewise, email me here when you want it lifted. You are "Nepthys" there, right? Oops, you can't respond here... ;) humanUser talk:Human 18:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you. I am indeed Dark Matter Nephthys on RationalWikiWiki. It appears I can still respond here. Dark Matter Glaucopis 18:20, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Is there a problem? Dark Matter Glaucopis 19:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I successfully blocked you at RWW (oops, for 3 months not 2, but you'll tell us when you want back in, right?). I guess AmesG did not actually do it here. I shall go do the dirty deed for you now. Hope to see you again when you have more time, DMG! humanUser talk:Human 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Human. However, you blocked me at the exact moment that I attempted to edit an article. If it isn't too much trouble, could you please fix the "http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php" link in Discordianism? Dark Matter Glaucopis 19:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
If you have any parting advice in the meantime, I'd like to know... did we do something bad :-( ?-αmεσ (soldier) 17:02, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I think he needs some time to to overcome his OCD. I can empathise with his predicament. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Do not worry, AmesG. It is just that I have a great deal of work to do at the moment. Thank you for your concern. Dark Matter Glaucopis 17:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Hope I didn't offend DMG but I have noticed your large number of edits and guessed that you needed a break for your own good. ;) Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
You have not offended me, Genghis Khant. Dark Matter Glaucopis 17:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I vote we block Radioactive Man too, for his own sake. He's already had his internet yanked, soon he'll be getting a good spanking and sent to bed with no tea. And no Wii. So we should banhammer the guy, to save him from himself. DogP 18:01, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You make a good point. We might actually be bad for him, as much as he does for us. Shall we terminate the block upon evidence of a 3.5 GPA for a term? humanUser talk:Human 18:10, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
see my note on his user page. SusanG 18:46, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Much as I hesistate to endorse any ban on me, given my involvement in the Constitutional Convention, I do feel I need it for my own good. Well, poo! I guess it would be too much to ask you to hold off making any decisions without me, eh?  : ) Oh, and on the infitesimal chance that we put all sysops through election, I ask that someone shill for support for me, as I won't be around enough to do it myself.  : )
P.S. Uh, expect activity at RationalWikiWiki to drop off, too. Let's just say I was one of the few really active people there... --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Something like that should only be done upon and after the request of the user.
Haha, so that was you, eh? ;) humanUser talk:Human 13:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Yup. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
That's who I thought. humanUser talk:Human 15:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Dang. I need to work on being more subtle. What gave it away? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Information! We want information! humanUser talk:Human 00:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
No understand. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:59, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
2+2=3.14159, much as teh assfly would deny it. Or would he? humanUser talk:Human 01:05, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Un frijoles in my pantaloones? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Hugh[edit]

You no longer respond to my emails. Since I have proven that I am Hugh Powell, will you please rename my account to "Hugh Powell"? HughP 19:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

How on earth do you think you "proved" that is your name? I invited you over, since you claim to be local, and you ignored that email. May I suggest "Anders Schlafly" as a great username that would not provoke any conflict? humanUser talk:Human 20:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Who on earth is "Anders Schlafly"? Also, I am currently in Vermont, so no we cannot meet. Please rename me Hugh Powell. HughP 20:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
No. humanUser talk:Human 20:49, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
You are a very difficult user. First this, then you restore your insulting message on my talk page? This isn't how you treat a fellow liberal. You act like a cp admin. HughP 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, are you going to rename my old account "Hugh Powell"? As strange as it may seem, you are not the only HP in the world. I know most conservatives like you only care about yourselves, but its true. There are more or us. HughP 22:31, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Hello[edit]

I was here for a second and thought I'd pop in to say... well... the headline puts it well enough. ГдлессЛиберал 20:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi GL, how's the term going? Better than it has been for RA, I hope! Thanks for thinking to stop by... humanUser talk:Human 20:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
It's going all right... 30 days left! Or something like that. ГдлессЛиберал 21:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm, by then the snow might be melted! Hope we'll see you around a bit more over the summer, in the meantime, best of luck! Check out our new side-by-side if you have time, it's at Expelled:Leader's Guide. humanUser talk:Human 21:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

reanme[edit]

Title = epic fail (meant to be "rename")

Can you rename me to "Tlr.mjk"? I just get sick of this name, I guess --Ryan 07:53, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I believe you would then beat out "Pinto's5150", "Stile4aly", and "Zmidponk" for most nonsensical name. What's it mean? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Hey Ryan, are you serious? (I always ask you again, because you change your mind a lot ;)) Just confirm, and I'll do it. humanUser talk:Human 14:09, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
[extremely late reply] Yes, I'm sure. And RA, not really sure, "mjk" is part of my old online ID backwards, and "tlr" is just "Taylor" with many letterts removed, I guess. --Ryan 06:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

rename[edit]

I have secured Interpreted's blessing for the "Wikinterpretererer" rename. Please proceed. Thanks, TmtamesP 13:20, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I see at your talk pages that he did, indeed. I will proceed apace to rename you. One thing you should do after it is done - re-register your old name, since it will be vacant and anyone could register it and pretend to be you. humanUser talk:Human 14:07, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
It is done. humanUser talk:Human 14:08, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
PS, I registered TmtamesP to protect it, email me and I'll send you the password so you can change it. Or don't bother, if you want, since I won't use it anyway. humanUser talk:Human 14:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled[edit]

I've overridden the Random dpl to force Expelled onto the front page. I've also upped the CharCount to 2000 Revert if you want. SusanG 19:32, 4 April 2008 (EDT) F*** Tried to <noinclude> the TOC but the first <noinclude> didn't Effin' work - it just sat there & transcluded as bare text !!! I've reverted but left the code on Template:Coverstory. (To add insult to injury I got a "Network Error" on RW while I was doing it & got to throwing mouse out of window stage. (Why isn't that wikilink showing as a wikilink? Think I'll switch off % restart - could it be my characters that've gone weird?)— Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs

Even worse... your tildes did not translate into a signature! I just checked the main page and it's still random... I'll go see what people said on main talk now. humanUser talk:Human 20:40, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
You left a "nowiki" tag unclosed... humanUser talk:Human 20:40, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Looks as if I might have been a bit too clever for my own good! :) SusanG 20:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, yeah, I guess maybe :) Anyway, go see how I added it to the main page (just like I described on main talk). humanUser talk:Human 20:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Your backyard[edit]

Since you live so near a power plant, let me add a couple of points.

The power plant[edit]

First, the power plant. The only way that it can harm you is a Tchernobyl kind of accident: melt of the core, failure of all safety procedures AND of the Severe Accident Management procedures (which didn't exist back then). Any other kind of leak has negligible effects if compared to the natural radiation of the earth. I don't know where you live, but I guess you take 1-2 mSv per year.

A Tchernobyl event is basically impossible for your PWR type power plant (I honestly believe that the probability of it is significantly less than 1 in 10 million per year), but let's play that it happens. You live out of the red zone. That is, if Tchernobyl happens, you just go inside and close the windows. Try to avoid the cloud if it comes into your direction. Open TV and radio and listen to their instruction. At 20 miles there is no direct risk. In the days after, listen to the instructions. It is possible that some significant radiation has deposited on the earth around you. People will come and measure it. For the next few years, DON'T drink milk by cows who live in that area. They eat contaminated grass day after day, and it tends to accumulate in them and their milk. If you lived much nearer, and you had small children, I would suggest keeping iodine tablets at home for them: thyroid cancer for young people is the only directly measurable effect (apart from some poor chaps at the power plant). Luckily, it usually isn't fatal, but not nice either! The fact that you are not particularly at risk at 20 miles has a drawback too: the radioactive cloud can come to your house also from a Tchernobyl event from plants much farther away. Again, if something happens, just go inside and listen to radio.

Waste by the plant[edit]

Then, waste. It comes in two flavours: the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel, and low-radioactive contaminated material. The latter consists of everything that comes into contact with radioactive material or high radiation. It is stored somewhere at the plant and it will eventually be buried somewhere. There is a third type of intermediate radioactivity: after the plant has shut down, it will eventually be demolished. Some parts, such as the reactor, will be quite radioactive. These will be buried somewhere too. Anyway, you don't have to worry of low- and intermediate radioactivity. And when I say "buried", I really mean safe, controlled procedures.

Instead, spent fuel is highly radioactive. Once a year about one third of the fuel is changed away from the reactor and new fuel put in place. At the moment the spent fuel is probably stored in water tanks in a facility by the power plant. A few meters of water make it possible to walk there and watch the fuel without significant radiation (but take your meter with you). It will be stored there for at least 20 years, and in the meanwhile lose most of its radiation. The radiation it loses heats the water, which is constantly changed. Short-term storage of spent fuel is an important operation and completely falls under the laws, rules and procedures of the power plant. After Tchernobyl and Three Mile Island, some of the most significant accidents have dealt with spent fuel by the plant: one in Japan, another the PAKS accident in Hungary, IIRC. After those 20 or more years, the fuel should be transported to its final destination. But it is possible that given political situations, intermediate storage sites be used instead. The transport will probably happen by a special truck, but train is also a possibility. Some countries have special ships. No real problems here, not even in case of accident/sinking. And the procedures will be rigorous. At this point YOU are safe, because Yucca Mountain is far from your house, isn't it?

Final disposal[edit]

Now I'm talking more about the European experiences, since I'm pretty ignorant about Yucca Mountain. Anyway: by the final disposal site there will be an encapsulation plant. Four to twelve fuel assemblies (each consisting of a few hundred fuel rods put in a regular array) will be put inside a canister (a container). A typical canister consists of both copper and cast iron, will be more than a meter in diameter, four to five meters long and will weigh up to 25 tons. When the canister will be closed, its radiation level will already be quite low. Procedures will not allow it, but you could walk by the canister. Every canister will be accurately inspected and monitored. Every canister will be able to resist both shock loads (falling from height) and pressures in case of geological movements. Before criticizing the canister's safety, read some of the papers on it.

The final disposal site will be at about 4-500 m underground, in a geologically suitable location. Most important is to avoid "water passages" (I don't remember the term). At the disposal level there will be tunnels with a hole for each canister, each hole some 20 meters apart: the main "problem" is the heat caused by the remaining radiation, which could alter geological conditions. In the hole the canister will be surrounded by a special material, probably bentonite, which acts in two directions: a barrier against radiation from a faulty canister, a barrier against humidity etc. reaching the canister.

When the final disposal site will be full, each tunnel will be closed, again with bentonite or a similar material. The studies for the most suitable materials are still going on. Eventually, all the accesses will be closed, but not in an irreversible fashion. The law, at least in some European countries, requires that the final disposal site must be accessible in case of need.

I didn't list all the barriers, but the concept is clear: safety is given by a series of safety barriers, like Russian Matryoshka dolls. If one fails, there always is an outer barrier. Still, if every barrier failed, the risk of having significantly contaminated water is very low, if compared to the natural radiation levels.

Let me add that we, as rationalwikians, know what radioactive decay means. Much of the radiation is already gone in those 20 or more years by the plant. On the links I gave you'll find tables and graphics giving radiation or danger levels in function of time. Conventionally, 100 000 years is the design time. But much before you could remove all safety barriers and take a fuel rod in your hands without risk.

There still is the political problem. Well, take the two most advanced countries from a spent fuel disposal point of view (Finland, Sweden): both had a couple of possible locations, and municipalities were almost fighting to get the place (exaggerating a bit). Now, all the possible locations were places with existing nuclear power plants: not only from a logistic and administrative point of view, but because those municipalities have already learned that nuclear energy is not the monster people think, and gives jobs and (some) wealth instead. Sure, Northern Europe is geologically and socially lucky, but possible sites are everywhere, the only problem being local politics. Editor at CPfor a change 07:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Responses[edit]

First, thanks for taking the time to answer in detail...

As far as the nearby plant, it's as safe as houses, as far as these things go. Chernobyl was not built very well (little things like no containment...). Seabrook Station, which I believe was the last US plant to go on-line, was probably the safest nuke ever built up to that point. Hell, for the first ten years of construction all they were doing was digging a very big hole and lining it with concrete (the containment). So barring "freak" (TMI...) accidents, the "generation" portion of it's existence isn't really a worry. My other local "nuke" is a Navy nuclear sub overhaul base. While it is probably very difficult for a civilian to ascertain the risks involved in their materials handling, one hopes the standards of safety are very high (don't say Thresher), so the basic operation, again, is not a worry.

On to section three, whihc is the sticky point. Both facilities, under current conditions, are also de facto long term "short term" waste storage facilities. "Short term" because, of course, they are the locations where "spent " fuel and low-level waste are taken out of service. "Long term" because... Yucca Mountain is at best, so far, a dream. Yucca' neighbors don't want it. It is also unlikely that the neighbors of every major highway or rail route between the country's waste generation sites and Yucca want "mystery traffic" rolling past their houses. Note that in your explanations of what happens to the waste "long term" - ie, safe, permanent disposal of high and low level waste, everything is theoretical. IOW, all nuclear waste generated in the US is still "on site". As far as the politics, it's one thing to say Seabrook 1 is a safe facility (2 never went online, which partly contributes to our .12/kwh prices), but convincing people anywhere that the surface aspects (at least) of waste disposal are safe is a tough sell. By surface aspects, I mean that one might be able to become comfortable with "pellets" of sealed waste being buried 500 meters under the nearby White Mountains, but the waste must be handled and travel on existing roads (or rail, which we don't have much of), through fairly dense population centers, to the burial site, and then be sunk into the "mine". During this transportation phase the waste is subject to the same risks as any other transport (hmmm, interesting how the topic of incoming fuel never seems to get discussed out loud, since obviously the same issues apply!) - weather, traffic accident, and of course... terrorism (hah!). Italicised because I think it the least likely problem.

The problem may be 95% politics and 5% engineering, but the political problems must be overcome. There is a sticky issue in that both of these facilities are on the coast in the middle of a fairly densely populaed area. The Navy, of course, could do anything they wanted (basically slowly turning a "shipyard" into a nuclear overhaul facility), but Seabrook was a dumb idea.

Anyway, the issue remains waste disposal here in the States. It's one thing to have developed a plan and be executing it successfully if new waste generation sites are proposed. It's another when every site is also a de facto long term storage site as well. And whether the danger window is 100,000 or 10,000 or even 1,000 years, we really don't have models in place anywhere on the planet, at any time in human history, of that kind of time-frame of political stability. So if generations from now there are upheavals, disruptions to the political/social order, there will be stranded waste locations that are no longer secure - short term at generation sites, and materials "in transport" or just not buried yet. There may even be burial sites that are not really secure because they haven't been sealed and capped yet.

While we are almost certain to see more use of nuclear power over the next, say, 50 years, as we come to grips with declining fossil fuel reserves (and, probably, many more filthy dirty coal burning plants - in the US we have lots of dirty coal...), I think the emphases really need to be on broad conservation techniques (efficiency & population control) and alternative, ideally localized (microgeneration) techniques. The impact of roofs redone with solar cells, even considering the energy and resources needed to build them, and a "windmill in every backyard" (why do people think they are so "ugly"?) is much less worrisome in the long term.

I do hope that this likely coming period of much more reliance on nukes will see a decline in their use and safe burial of a very high percentage of the waste before any huge social or political upheavals expose the flaws in the system. However, considering our track record with fossil fuel use (burn it all, then worry about what comes next, instead of using it as a capital account only to be used to build an income account of energy sources), I worry about how responsibly we can do this.

Which reminds me, I should get my hands on one of those "hand generated" radios ;) - since the odds are that if Seabrook goes down hard, the power will be off for the duration, and once I burn up whatever gasoline I have around in my generator, the pumps won't work to get more. And I'll need to know when and if to take my iodine tablet and "close my windows".

Oh, and there are other risks that may have low odds, but aren't really "prepared" for - things that could possibly breach at least the "short term" stored waste at either of these two facilities - earthquakes (we don't really get them, but we are on a dormant fault), plane crashes (KC130 full of fuel from the, again local, air national guard unit), tsunamis, and, again, the minuscule (hmm, FF likes it spelled that way. You learn something every day!) possibility of some form of terrorism.

Just some random thoughts in reply to your comments. Now I'll try to find where this discussion started and go read your links about the decay of the waste products :). humanUser talk:Human 12:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

A couple of shorter observations[edit]

Sure, waste disposal is still in its design phase (but in some countries it will be reality quite soon). It has to be done one day though, for all the existing waste, therefore I don't see it as a good reason to keep nuclear power in check.

Transportation: I tell you just this. All of those: accidents, weather, terrorism, have been accounted for. This is valid for new fuel as well. But you are right, it must not be discounted.

Seabrook I don't know, but the best place for a nuclear power plant IS by the sea. Preferably not very near to a big city - if anything happens people WILL panic and jam the city - but not too far away: electricity should be generated as near as possible to the where it is used.

The issue of political stability is not really an issue. These canisters are NOT so dangerous. If they are kept in a less safe storage, so what? You can't make bombs with spent fuel. The idea of the disposal site is that it does not need to be monitored. There is UN and IAEA and they'll have more and more power in the world. If a new Saddam will not build a disposal site for his spent fuel, it's his problem. But even he will abide by IAEA guidelines regarding waste management - at the same time building an atomic bomb, which is a completely separate issue.

The problem today is that of pollution. For that, there is exactly one solution at the moment: nuclear (fission). Wind and solar will not be a solution. They need back-up. Industry needs 24h uninterrupted, safe supply. Wind and solar can't provide that, while they can help you or your city, no doubts. Today, the choice is between traditional methods and nuclear. And the lifecycle impact of a nuclear power plant (from building the plant, to mining uranium, to operation, to decomissioning, to waste disposal) is much less than wind or solar, at the moment. The same goes for the footprint required.

All those low odds risks have been taken care of. A power plant has to precisely calculate a) the risk of core melting and b) the risk of "substantial" leak of radioactivity outside the plant. As I told, the probability for the latter must be less than 10-7/year. In these calculations "everything" is accounted for. From a terrorist attack to a meteorite impact to Homer Simpson or Mr. Burns becoming crazy, to impact from an Airbus 380 or a Mig-29. Those calculations must be conservative: if you are not sure that a door will stay closed in one chain of events, you can't assume a 50 % probability that it will stay closed, but you'll have to assume zero probability. Just to say, all our designs had to be checked against a design earthquake. Look for yourself how many earthquakes have there been in Finland.

Don't worry about radios. I have faith EVEN in the US ability to provide assistance, Katrina or not. But really, even if your power plant made a Tchernobyl, even if you stayed outside and breathed with all lungs the toxic cloud, your increased risk of cancer or death would be almost negligible. Tchernobyl was terrible, and 4000 victims is a big big number. But it's a calculated number on the hundreds of millions of people living in Europe. Of those alive as of today, half will get a cancer and a fifth will die or it. The reasons are many, but pollution is one of the biggest factors. Compare that to, let's say, 1 death every 10 000 inhabitants because of Tchernobyl in the most contaminated areas. I'd say that every nuclear plant saves more lifes in its operation time than the victims of Tchernobyl, but I haven't calculated it though.

The choice is not between nuclear and renewables. The choice is between nuclear and coal. Nuclear and renewables can, and must live together. And if you want to save our planet, think carefully. Unfortunately, the situation is critical, whatever CP or Bush say. Editor at CPfor a change 12:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

My thanks to you both for fantastically erudite commentary. Despite really wanting to engage in this issue - one I consider crucial for the rest of my natural lifetime and that I once studied at great, great length - I spent an AWFUL lot of time on RW this week, and I do really need to 'step away from the computer' and not get into this, for you both know the infectious nature of excellent point-and counterpoint.  :-) So I will simply boil my own lengthy response down to "I agree almost entirely with Human's comments". The problems are principally the short-term storage issues, long term storage political and geological issues (I interject the word 'groundwater' here, and point you to the ongoing Hanford/Columbia River problem, which may become very serious indeed in a few years), transport issues and future societal issues. Most other issues are not quite so relevant. And with that, I bid you adieu and am going to go tend to my garden. DogP 16:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm off too. I left the nuclear industry with a bitter taste, and I defend them only because of my strong environmental beliefs. My adieu: "you are wrong, Dogged. What harm can happen in your worst-case scenario (and how probable it is? There are numerical data out there)? Tchernobyl was a catastrophe. Another Tchernobyl won't happen. Evil spent fuel can never, as much as it wishes, have a fraction of the impact of Tchernobyl on human beings and the environment. Opposition to nuclear power kills thousands of people every year and is a direct contributor to global warming. And now back to WIGO and the like. Editor at CPfor a change 16:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I have changed[edit]

Human, overnight I have changed. I am no longer a vandal. To reflect my new status as editor, I humbly request a new username, SHahB. Please honor this request for a prodigal editor. And I must come clean, Hugh, Hugh Powell, and Huey Powell were all me. Sorry, TmtamesP 15:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I have done so, copying the new user name exactly as you typed it above. You might want to change your sig now, and go fix user:TtamesP so it's not a double redirect. humanUser talk:Human 17:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you. SHahB 17:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
You're quite welcome. humanUser talk:Human 18:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Hugh[edit]

is not the "English" spelling of your name, its the correct spelling. There is a difference. SHahB 00:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Sound it out, beotch. H-u-g-h vs. H-u-w. There is no "G" sound in mah naim, you silly Dane. humanUser talk:Human 01:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
The "g" is silent, moron. SHahB 01:13, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
What about the "h", Child of the Low Cuntries? If you only had a clue... humanUser talk:Human 01:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
What? Are you still drinking? Just change your name to what its meant to be please. Thanks in advance. SHahB 01:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
This is an unhealthy obsession you have, shabby. Rational Edevidence 10:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
PoorEd, as a SCIENTIST I am obsessed with SCIENCE and RATIONALITY. And the TRUTH. But mostly SCIENCE. If this is unhealthy, then I don't want to be healthy. SHahB 14:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I guess it's only Huw-man to be a little obsessed, eh? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Is that gutter-Danish for "human"? SHahB 14:31, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yup. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:34, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
How uncouth. SHahB 14:36, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Quick! Raise the Huw and cry! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:39, 16 April 2008 (EDT) Ok, that didn't make a whole lot of sense, but I like the pun. Bear with me.
hehe... it was funny. :p Refugeetalk page 15:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Colour (color)[edit]

Tomorrow, OK? - off to bed SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Start by mining here: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Help/wikisig#Pretty_colors which gives a good start. humanUser talk:Human 20:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm hurt that you think that I don't know all the help files inside out. :-) SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, no offense intended :) I only pasted it in because I already had it open... mea culpa... humanUser talk:Human 11:56, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I just sent you a mildly un-important e-mail regarding my identity on the forums and how there is no super secret attempt at infiltration going on here by CPomunist spies.[edit]

- Icewedge 21:10, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, thanks for massaging my paranoia ;) I just made a mildly un-important tweak to the forum user permissions that no one will really notice. humanUser talk:Human 21:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

name[edit]

Its different when you post it all over the wiki yourself. And you have never said anything about it. But since you have requested, I shall stop using it in our conversations. SHahB 00:47, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I defy you to find one place where I posted it on the wiki myself (the most that exists are my links to my other sites). Agreed, I never "complained" about you or Susan's "stalking". Actually, I would have used my real name on here, but for continuity after my banhammering on CP, I used my CP semi-anonymous handle. YOu can call me whatever you want, on here, I answer to anything beginning with "H" - or, "h". humanUser talk:Human 00:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
You have it on your luser page: "PS, my real name, for those three of you who do not already know, is Huw Powell. Feel free to use it in place of "human" any time. ". SHahB 00:52, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Did I do that? Well there you go, you're right. I ought to check out my user page, I haven't visited it in a while... Hmmm, and I know you didn't just add that, because your limited (by definition as a Dane) skills would never have led you to the mention of "ap". By the way, that's not exactly "all over the wiki" - you could have been more accurate and said "when you put it on your luser page yourself". But, eh, oh, nevermind. For now. humanUser talk:Human 00:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, nearly every page on this wiki links to your luser page. Almost all roads lead to that statement. And there you go with the anti-Danish sentiment. Not funny, not cool. SHahB 01:01, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

WTF[edit]

WTF? I had one typo, and why not have up to date stats? 124.183.96.59 22:30, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Better question: Why didn't Conservative, a.k.a. Newton do it himself? Same answer as to the question why he keeps posting his shout-outs on CP instead of just logging on with his account here (and to the question of why Andy and the others just post on the "Bias on WP" list instead of trying to fix those things themselves): He's an attention whore who needs to jump into the spotlight on CP. Rest assured, he masturbated to the sight of "RationalWiki suddenly bowing down after the public shaming" or something ;) --Sid 22:37, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm just confused about why Human reverted it, this only serves to justify Conservative's claim that he would be "censored". 124.183.96.59 22:41, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Probably for the humour factor of watching Ken become more and more a parody of himself in response. I know I'm amused. --Kels 22:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
*shrugs helplessly* Well, Human will likely reply to that once he swings by again. (Note after the edit conflict: The guess made by Kels sounds quite likely.) I just know that it's silly and futile to react each time Conservative feels like calling out The Gentlemen At Another Site Which He Somehow Never Calls Out By Name. Any time you react by reporting or "fixing" whatever he feels like pointing out, he comes up with something new. It's trolling in its purest form, aided by the fact that pretty much every RW member is perma-banned on CP. If he actually felt like being so open and uncensored, he wouldn't do it in a way that lets him censor or ignore any comment he wishes. But that's just my rambling side note. I'll let Human and others take the stage from here on since it's fairly late here. --Sid 22:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Human responds: your edit was full of typos and random changes. Bunchesofnumbers get short shrift here (ie, if a bunchanumbers edit looks like crap, bye bye), sorry dookie. Hell, I had no idea of "who" the illiterate who made the edit was, it was just too much of a mess to fix. Is that bunchanumbers Ken? How am I supposed to know that? I can barely keep track of Trent's IPs!
And as far as the edit, in general - sure, that section needs to be brought up to date. But some random IP changing all the numbers doesn't really "help". Moving the older observations to the past tense, good move. I had no idea I was brewing a tempest in Boston Harbor (vive la expensive tea, gentlemen!) humanUser talk:Human 00:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
PS, glad I amused, you, Kels, you know I live for that shallow pleasure. Hi Sid! humanUser talk:Human 00:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

In name of old-fashioned library card-catalogs![edit]

Hey, I just created a handy index of our scattered conflict resolution-related pages. Whatcha' think? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Cool, you even almost alphabetized it. How about making it into a template instead, that autoincludes a new category that can go on all those pages? humanUser talk:Human 14:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Done. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:46, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Template:turdblossom

Wait—were you thinking something more subtle? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:49, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
No, that's fine. Ideally, it will add a category, and also list all the articles in that category (perhaps restricted to the RW namespace). Should go at the bottom, not the top, of articles. Like the navboxen Susan has built a few of. humanUser talk:Human 14:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't you have your face in a book or paper, RA?  :-) DogP 14:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

All work and no play fries RA's brain. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Sysop[edit]

I noted in Removed line User:Bob M removed, “A good skill in a Sysop is the ability to combine the strengths of others in a single coherent task, to motivate and include users, draw them out.” . Is it time to put that back in yet? I’m a sysop on 3 other Wikis, One is here (2 are under a different user name). I hope I can make a contribution here. Can you advise me how to develop the skill in drawing people out? Proxima Centauri 09:56, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

It's just not something we charge sysops with doing on here. On most wikis they are the leaders, I guess, but here they are just janitors. The italicised skill described above is something that any or all of us should aspire too, I think. As far as developing it yourself, I suppose it's mostly a matter of encouraging, say, shy people who post on the talk pages (or appear to know more about something) to dive in and improve articles. What are the other wikis you are a sysop on, out of curiosity? humanUser talk:Human 14:12, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
They're just small scribblewikis. Proxima Centauri 15:11, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
Ah, those can be fun... humanUser talk:Human 15:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
They're sometimes fun. A vandal once really had a go one. By the way my user name there is personal Proxima Centauri 19:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

British Spelling[edit]

HEY! The British government do secret torture, too! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:50, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Then we should have a section on how they practisce it, too! humanUser talk:Human 23:26, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
With "-re"s and "-u-"s and "-ise"s all over the place.. that's how they practise it! :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
It took me about 30 years to learn that when I thought a word ended in "ise" it was supposed to be "ize". Unless it was supposed to be "ice" ;). One fun part is that many British spellings are "acceptable" US spellings and get by the radar, while others aren't. Wie can't we awl joust gette allong??? humanUser talk:Human 13:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
I love pissing off spelling nazis with "spelt", they're all "IT'S SPELLED!" and then I tell them to look at a dictionary and they come back pissed at me. >_< pedantism is a horrible curse, hehe. Oh btw, the Cinco de Mayo isn't Mexican Independence day... in fact, it celebrates a battle that they lost... of course, expect Americans to know anything about it... I'm not sure how to change the holiday notice though on the "my watchlist" page. :( --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 13:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
It's generated here. Please preview carefully before saving, and don't muck up the "/noinclude/noinclude" tags that cause it to be visible where the template is transcluded. It could always just be reduced to the "Tequila Day" part... humanUser talk:Human 13:47, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm: "The holiday commemorates an initial victory of Mexican forces led by General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín over French forces in the Battle of Puebla on 1862 May 5" humanUser talk:Human 13:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I chopped off the erroneous part. It should be more like "Happy Mexican Heritage Day, USA!" but why bother... humanUser talk:Human 13:50, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Looks tons better... calling it "Tequila Day" gets rid of like all the "blah blah blah it's blah or blah" hehe.. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
You're welcome, and thanks for catching that before we got mocked mercilessly at CP's WIGORW article ;) humanUser talk:Human 14:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
One of my favourites is grey - I always used it until about ten years ago and then somehow, without realising it, converted to gray, which still shows up as a misspelling on firefox. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
That word is a bit of a grey-area in spelling... haha, GET IT?!? GET IT?!? *seethes back into the darkness* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Al Franken[edit]

You're a neocon right? Please stop slandering Franken's name. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

You're a name, right? Stop slandering neocon Franken's please. humanUser talk:Human 13:07, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Sir, at least at conservapedia the responses given are coherent. Would you care to justify you slander? Or is that too much to ask? Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:11, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
You've really not got the hang of this site, have you Doc? SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
DCB, your comment wasn't coherent to start with. What are you talking about? humanUser talk:Human 13:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh I see. Now you slander my name. Well sir, maybe this website isn't all I thought it was. Please read this, and reconsider your actions. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:29, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Hand.jpg

Until you make some sort of sense (IE, tell me what you're talking about), it's gonna be hard for me to respond to your comment, Delta Charlie Bravo. humanUser talk:Human 13:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
You sir, have called Al Franken a "flag-hating baby killer"(!) because he is moderate, and can be considered a conservative on many issues. Have you no shame? Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Ah, thank you for being clear. If you're having trouble parsing the phrase, please imagine it preceded by a "sarcasm" tag and followed by a "/sarcasm" tag. See, the ultra right wing (talk radio types) refer to people like Franken as the "extreme left", and indeed would tend to refer to him as a flag hater, and as a baby killer. If the humor is lost on you, I'm sorry, most other people "get it". humanUser talk:Human 13:51, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

You're no fun![edit]

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=2000_U.S._Presidential_Election&diff=156304&oldid=156288 :P — Unsigned, by: Eira / talk / contribs

Aw, sorry, but if we reverse the colors that are the de facto (silly) standard for representing US electoral college results, readers' heads will asplode! Howzabout we change them to green and orange? humanUser talk:Human 15:04, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I was just trying to make people's heads asplode... however, I'm for using green and orange, as a completely arbitrary usage separate from "traditions" etc. Anyways I was really just trying to asplode some heads... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 16:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikification[edit]

I appreciate your spending time to wikify my contributions. I could help if you could give me a clue how to quickly determine when wikification of a word in the article won't result in a red link (other than searching for each word on the site one at a time). Rational Edperception 14:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. There are a couple of parts to answer your question. They are (1) already knowing the article exists (like the states, since I made 'em), (2) experimenting with "preview" - try the link, if it's red, remove it unless you really think it should be an article, and (3) if it came up red but you think it exists, check "all pages" to see if the title is off a little bit different from what you thought ("search" can also help, I guess). I use #2 a lot - if I'm editing something heavily trafficked I'll often just try a couple of links as my only edit to reduce EC's. If I think I'm working off the beaten path, I'll link like crazy while editing and then preview to make sure I didn't hit too many reds.
PS, if you create a red link and want it to stay or become an article, you can always leave an html "comment" next to it mentioning this to future deredders. Html comments look like this: <!-- if you edit this you'll see a real one --> humanUser talk:Human 14:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Firesign photo[edit]

Phil Proctor just sent me a publicity photo of the group taken last weekend. It is over 400K and I got a warning message when I tried to upload it. Should I reduce the size and try again, or override the warning? Rational Edperception 17:17, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it because it's very large in dimensions, or just not compressed much? Just click "ignore warnings" and load it up, can you then give me a link and I'll see if it can be made smaller without deteriorating it. (by the way, nice score! I assume he also gave permission to flog the group use it?) humanUser talk:Human 17:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I asked him to send a photo to use in an article in Rationalwiki about the group. I'll upload it with the name image:firesign05-08.jpg Rational Edperception 17:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Awesome. As I suspected, it could be compressed a lot more. It's a "very high quality" jpg. Want me to make it go under 100k? Gawd, they are some funny looking people. Surely they did some video work... humanUser talk:Human 17:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll leave it up to you. Yeah, a couple of them actually look as weird as the caricatures on their album covers. Rational Edperception 17:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I d'led it, opened in PSP and hit save. Presto, 105k. I think I save jpgs at 25% compression, it tends not to be noticeable. I'll upload the "smaller" version now... humanUser talk:Human 17:41, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Template stuff[edit]

Nice, but you should really make the picture left-aligned. Insomnia much?— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 21:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, good point. At least it "looks" about right. I had to pick a random screen width, and it won't look right for people using other skins either, but what the hell. The only thing missing is to figure out how to override the page name at the top, since "DISPLAYNAME:" doesn't work any more :( Oh, and it wasn't my idea, someone else started with the text you had on your user page. Gee.... humanUser talk:Human 21:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm fairly certain I made that text. Radman copied it a few times, though.— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 21:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I think it was he who created the template, yes. I just spiffed it up with a screen shot and some more of the text one gets when editing. humanUser talk:Human 22:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
And all to make me look like an anonymous editor! Mwahahaha!— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 22:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
You thought you were "anonymous"? Hahahaahahahaahahahaahahaha! humanUser talk:Human 00:22, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Pseudonymous, maybe. I hope you're not suggesting I'm a sock of Susan.— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 00:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
No, of course not, she doesn't bother to sock. But you smelled like sock since day -1. Phew! Anyway, I hope Operation Underlord that you have going is working well, and almost ready to overwhelm the site? humanUser talk:Human 00:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Um. At this point I'd just like you to clarify that you're not really accusing me of being Kenservative. Just for my peace of mind, you understand. And I could easily be a practised lurker instead of a sock, couldn't I?— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs 00:43, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
No, Kendoll is running Operation Overlord. The cabal which may or may not exist is running Operation Underwhelm (among others) (perhaps). The third covert plan being executed by yet another cabal which may or may not exist is Operation Underlord. If you don' tknow what it is, you don't need to know. If you do know, pretending you don't is the time-honored tactic. Oh, and it is unlikely a pure lurker would really be well practiced, although wiki-experience elsewhere could make up for that. humanUser talk:Human 12:38, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for Kenservative to run Operation Underwear?  : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey[edit]

How's it going? I'm good, thanks.

Say, could you restore Template:Continue in the name of humor, and then move it into my userspace?

Thanks pal.

SHahB 03:41, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat me to the punch, sport. Glad you are feeling swell, I'm just peachy myself. So long! humanUser talk:Human 12:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Hello[edit]

How are you these days buddy? AceModerator 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hanging in there... trying to move some goods on ebay... cut my wrist and got lots of suggestions regarding therapy and the value of life... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Can I be of assistance? I know the worthlessness of life very well and it gives me hope and joy. AceModerator 22:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully I'll end up with an awesome scar. I heard they mucked up the latest HST-based film, even with JD on board. Pity, that, but I'll have to watch and judge myself. Life's meaninglessness and worthlessness are two of its redeeming qualities. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, The Rum Diary. I hear it ain't so grand. Speaking of HST I bought an original Ralph Steadman print, taken from F&L in Las Vegas. It is at the framers currently. AceModerator 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ooh very nice! Post pic ASAP! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It is this one. But in colour. Sky is blue and the red shark is red. I'll post a pic once I have it hanging. AceModerator 22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Is the wrist-cutting comment for real? Hope you're OK, Huw. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It was an accident! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Human, the first step to getting is admitting you have a problem. - π 23:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Getting what? Speaking of which, where's my badge? I hear we have badges now... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The username Human[edit]

I'm to lazy to do research and it's interested me a little, is Human a reference to anything or just the word you picked?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's everything. A nickname, mostly due to my trademarking it. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Change your signature to teh Assfly's signature for April Fools![edit]

I would like you to act like teh Assfly for 4/1/13! Include redirects so that nobody viewing the source will know you're Human! BootMii 05:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For renaming me! Again. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, easy to do for old friends... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)