User talk:Human/Archive16

This is an archive page, last updated 7 May 2023. 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>, <14>, <15>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>

, (new)(back)

Reply to a now archived converation

What I meant is that I live in Utah, almost no strategic targets excepting Dugway Proving Grounds and Hill Field. Therefore, the best chance of getting glassed is if the Mormon's (Missionaries) made it to Russia, 'cause we all know how irritating missionaries can get. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 15:18, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ok, thanks. Yes, surely there are/were many "low target density" areas in the States - if weren't for the three hotspots I had mentioned, all we'd get hit by here are missiles that strayed wide of Boston. ħuman 15:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Input needed

See Template talk:Stub. Sterile^snore! 16:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

#

Make me not a bot. Or I will leave messages with odd, counter-intuitive headers. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Say please (in botese). ħuman 18:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Pease. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ides? Cool. How do I get to the supersecret bit, then? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You'll need some superstring. It's folded into the 7th through 10th dimensions. ħuman 18:54, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not a very helpful answer. Don't make me hound you. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 19:05, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Rename pleeze

Warning: Extreme Incoherency

At least one of the editors involved in this article/discussion was under the influence of:

• prescription medicine

• alcohol

• illicit drugs

• lack of sleep

• power, absolute power!

• the sheer joy of discovering that an article mentions dinosaurs

• all of the above

and has lapsed into incoherency. Mind this in bear.

Could you please rename me "Professor X"? Thanks a bunch, SHahB 18:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You'll need more than a bunch of bananas... can't you come up with something better than that? ħuman 18:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I want something that says "I am a SCIENTIST and I am proud". Do you have any ideas? SHahB 18:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

On behalf of Occam's Razor, I humbly suggest "Proud SCIENTIST". <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Sure, edit your signature? So it says: SHahB^{I am a SCIENTIST and I am proud} ? ħuman 19:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not one of those lusers (no offense) who has a fancy signature. SHahB 19:06, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I sensed a pang of jealousy there. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:16, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict -- damn you RA!) I felt a little offence there. You really need a better candidate than "Professor X" though, Shabby. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 19:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

The new name has to have "professor" in it. SHahB 19:19, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Professor Oak. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 19:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Nay! Professor Elm! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Hold it right there, infidel! What's so great about Elm? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 20:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Elms make great clogs. If they aren't Dutch. ħuman 20:18, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Professor and Mary Ann? ħuman 20:10, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Pro and Con Fessor? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 20:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Jellyfish: What? Do you like Professor Birch better? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:56, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I despise Elm and his sycophant followers. Either Birch or Oak are better. O person with no life. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 21:58, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I got it: User:Humanspeakers. SHahB 22:00, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Unlikely... ħuman 22:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

How about "Ash"? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You mean Red, obviously. I know of no "Ash". <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:04, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Gary? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:06, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You mean BLUE. Gahh! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Some of us payed attention to the options for naming characters at the start of the game, BON. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:12, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I know, but Ash and Gary were the worst possible options. Come on. Red and Blue are the defaults, and the closest thing to canon names (I can't believe I'm debating this) Hence the naming of the NPC "Red" in Silver and Gold.

I feel dirty all over. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:16, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, then what about Gold?Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:19, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand. What about Gold? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

As in the player's name in Gold Pokemon. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It's "Gold" I believe. And, I don't know what lame version of the game you had, Jellyfish, but I had Yellow version, wherein the default name is Ash, and the default enemy's name is Gary. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You got the novelty version, Radman. I'm afraid the naming conventions on that can't be seen as typical for the series :P Yellow was fun... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

In red and blue they got them the wrong way around. Was very happy when order was restored for Yellow. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

What? What was the wrong was round? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Jellyfish, however much marijuana you're smoking right now, you need to cut it by half. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Stoppit. There was nothing the wrong way round in Red and Blue! And, furthermore I can't believe we're arguing about Pokemon! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:35, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I can. Aren't you a bit old for this sort of thing, Jellyfish—how old are you? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Some arcane jellyfish age, probably :) Feel free to later describe this as a "coy refusal". <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing you're about my age. Or you're a creepy older person with a weird obsession with children's video games. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

"You must be about eleven..." —85 25 151 22

Add about eight to that figure and you'd be right. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Based on your typing, I'm sticking with eleven :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:48, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

A very intelligent eleven, of the sort that goes to Harvard. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

You are a clever boy, then. Apart from your ENDLESS EDIT CONFLICTS. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Edit conflicts are a myth propagated by Satanists. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberaldeceit! I wish we were still talking about pokemon... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 23:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

There comes a time in every person's life when they must move past Pokémon. Fortunately, that time has not yet come!  ^labacnamuħ   23:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

There is no such time! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 23:48, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Bothan template on WIGOCP

Well, I thought it was witty... and no, I still haven't gotten any sleep, so this still applies... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 01:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

You're doin' ok, but, no it just cluttered it up and really didn't say anything. Sorry... ħuman 01:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Pulling a Ken

I have just sent you a very important email and feel the need to brag about here so everyone knows about it... thereby defeating the total anonymity that comes from Email in the first place SirChuckB^{That is all} 03:22, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I have received your Very Important Missive, and come the Ides, I am sure it will end Young Earth Cretinism as we know it on the internets! ħuman 01:47, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Hilarious phrase

"Hew Hampshire". LOL! SHahB 01:02, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

"Sir Henry and his Butlers". LOL! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:30, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Sir Henry and his Butlers is the name of a pop group. SHahB 01:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Their big hit: "Bring Me Some Food! No! What Is it Good For? Hah!". Also, it should be Hew Nampshire, you clumsy oaf. Yes, even oafs can have Butlers. And Harems. And, of course, Eunuchs. Or be them. ħuman 01:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Uh-oh. You've been drinking again, haven't you? Its gonna be a long night. SHahB 02:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

SHahB, anybody would start drinking if they had to deal with you regularly. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

RA: thank you for your opinion. But Hew has been drinking for far longer than he has known me. SHahB 02:09, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but surely you've noticed that it's been getting worse since he met you? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

ROTFLMAO! ħuman 02:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I believe this confirms it. SHahB 02:44, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Confirms what, that Tamara Slobich is not the singer you wish she was? Silly sabot, no windmill! ħuman 02:50, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Its worse than I thought. SHahB 02:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

You waste time on "thought", Slimy Hilda and her Bandages? ħuman 02:55, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Last user talk page standing!

From special:statistics:

Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? (332,319)

Main Page (195,143)

Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP? (148,083)

Agnostic Atheism Wager (58,420)

Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia (34,629)

Conservapedia (28,672)

Flying Spaghetti Monster (27,399)

Talk:Main Page (26,690)

Poe's Law (24,420)

User talk:Human (20,046)

We are becoming a mature wiki! - Icewedge 16:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Mature? Does that mean the site will become all wrinkly-pruny? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Mature in that my talk page is one of the 10 (well, 10th) most viewed pages? Or that there is only one left? </joking> Let's post some more bizarre and interesting threads here... Hell, one of the above ones had nothing to do with me, as I recall. ħuman 19:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Leave us in peace and go dominate some other wiki

Shouldn't you be editing RationalWikiWiki? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Why, nothing's happening here to report on there... ħuman 23:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

You can go whine about the creepiness in the "RWians by Edumacation" article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:10, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Or I could whine here about the utter NastinesS of this section header. But I won't ;). I will continue my liberal tradition of "last wordism" ((c) Andrawn Badly) on every friggin' page and talk page on my watchlist. Just because. ħuman 00:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I went and bored myself at RWW. Now what? ħuman 00:16, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Ide

I have enabled my email, now. Hit me with it. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 09:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

*hits Jellyfish* Are you happy now? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Your email still no work Jelly Bag and Tentacles. Have you tried to email anyone else? I think that is an effective test. ħuman 15:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I've emailed Radioman, and it seems to have worked. Are you sure you can't get through? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:12, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Strange. I just tried again, no joy. Isn't Radiocrackers, um, using the same computer as you, though? Can't you just pass notes? ħuman 20:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

That had better be running joke, Human. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It's wearing a bit thin, if it is.

Human, perhaps I should just email you? Then we can establish a dialogue accordingly. Please humour me by responding "negative" or "affirmative". <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 20:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It's more of a walking/wriggling/floating joke... Yes, 85ish person, I don't know why you haven't done that yet. Oh, er, "affirmative". ħuman 20:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I did so just after I made the suggestion, actually. Tell me all! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 21:02, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Technology!

You know how these clever progs can read the track details off CDs? Well, I'm ripping a load to this effin Vista laptop & all goes well until I put in: Classical Collection Volume2 (no, I haven't done vol 1 yet) containing Strauss, Beethoven etc... and the list it comes up with is "Crest of a Knave" by Jethro Tull. It only has 9 tracks of course & flags the remaining 4 as "unknown". Ain't technology wunnerful?   ^Contribs_Talk 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it doesn't read the details off the CD itself, it gets them from the interwebs. In general, no information apart from the music and the track divisions is on the physical disk. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 18:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Discs can also contain artist, title, and track names. I know because mine does. The web feature you mention, of course, is probably much more powerful - and useful on CDs that don't have any info embedded. Yes, Susan, technology is wunnerful! ħuman 20:02, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Some do -- I've had a couple myself. But it is quite rare. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 20:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm starting to sense that you don't like Vista. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I have heard it mentioned by people who know how to use computers that Vista is a disaster. ħuman 20:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Are you implying that I don't know how to use a computer? Because I have yet to have a debilitating problem with it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I wasn't, but your second sentence does :P ħuman 20:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, maybe if I was a self-employed New Hampshirite I'd have the time to work out every new operating system's flaws : P Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hehe... I am usually a "very late adopter" of software stuff. That is, I wait until some friend gives me a copy of a cracked version, usually. They usually work better ;). XP pro is pretty impressive (by microsoft standards - ie, it doesn't crash daily!). I'm surprised the Linux people haven't really bridged the gap to people like me who would want to keep their computer running pretty much the same except on Linux, though I guess it's a lot of hard work... ħuman 20:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I know that Jelly; didn't xpress it well because of this awful Vistulated Lapppppptop!

Thing about Microstupid is they have to keep making money so they have to obsolescencerise things so they can replace them. Vista, as far as I've heard, filled no niche that wasn't already catered for in one way or another - it just forced peepl to learn more crap and to unlearn the last lot of crap. And at regular intervals it demands that I shut down to install essential updates! And this effin laptop takes every gentle caress of its touch pad thingy to be a left mouse click except when I want it to. And I'm fed up and I wanna go home! (yes, I am at home but I'm fed up!)   ^Contribs_Talk 22:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I hated Vista when I first got it, but now I'm more or less OK with it. The only thing I still hate is the things they've taken out for no reason. I liked being able to open folders in new windows! What possible reason could they have for taking that feature out? And why is everything designed to happen automatically rather than at user request? I don't want the computer to shut itself down (or play CDs, or download updates) without permission. Who would?

Thanks, Susan. Now you've made me rant. Need to sleep. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 22:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, microsoft has always "pretended" to try to help noobs, by "doing what ms thinks they want to do". In the process they made it harder for people who "know what they want to do" to get it done. It's very tiresome. ħuman 22:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh...

You broke my video game. tmtoulouse ^heckle 19:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, were you having fun? I'll plug it back in if you like... ħuman 19:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! Rdbot 19:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Welcome Template

Didn't know that was there. Way to go: send someone off to WP with the welcome template! Too true it wasn't needed!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

That's what I thought. Considering that we have fairly decent editing help files, we sure don't need to send them away ten seconds after they are here. And a lot of our help files link to stuff at WP for the intrepid, of course. ħuman 01:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Watch list

Can you make sure you add User:Bestofbot/shutoff to your watch list? As Bohdan will reek havoc on it if he ever find it. tmtoulouse ^heckle 18:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Sure, done. Thanks for the tip... ħuman 18:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

PS, "wreak" ;) ħuman 18:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, Bohdan does "reek" of havoc. It rolls off him in waves : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Nah, that's just his uber-nationalistic after-Danishave. ħuman 20:06, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, tell him he needs to change brands then. 'Cause he stinks. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Only when you scratch him. ħuman 20:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Deborah

So you thought I wouldn't find your blog --TherealDeborah 21:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

We're not exactly hiding it... ħuman 21:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Trying putting rationalwiki on a page at CP, if we had nothing to hide it would work! tmtoulouse ^heckle 21:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

That logic is twisted at least 150 microSchlaflies to starboard, Captain. ħuman 21:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Wandalism

Is that cabbage thing you or some kind of unfunny vandalism....I try to catch it when I can, but it's hard to tell the difference sometimes SirChuckB^{That is all} 22:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

It's intentional, thanks for asking. ħuman 22:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Anytime.... by the way, a little help here... I meddled in matters that didn't pertain me and tried to archive the Wigo talk page... I created the archive all right Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive54 but for whatever reason it's not showing up on the archive list.... do you know what I did to screw it up? SirChuckB^{That is all} 05:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Chances are the template that builds the list only repeats its routine 53 times. A while back, I copied and pasted it to make it run a lot further (when wigo was hitting 20 archives, I think). I'll go add a bunch of extra iterations (sadly, it isn't set up to "loop" until it runs out of archives). Also, I do believe there is a better "archive list" device on our site - SusanG knows about it, I think it's a dpl thing. We should ask her after I add a few more chunks to that template... Thanks! ħuman 13:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Done both. I expanded "archivelinks" by about ten, but changed wigo archives to "archivelinks dpl", which creates no such trouble. Thanks, Susan! ħuman 14:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Your sandbox archive thing

Your sandbox archive thing is showing up on the mainpage thing and I don't know how to fix it so fix it m'kay? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 02:49, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Where?   ^Contribs_Talk 03:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

In the Conservapedia Portal. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 03:25, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Done: H, You might like to check it - I've commented out a chunk that was transcluding a load of Categories into the page. Thanks NF!   ^Contribs_Talk 04:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

No problem. I assumed that it had to do with categories but couldn't tell where they were coming from. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 04:51, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm surprised the colon fix didn't work, but I assume your fix worked, right? Thanks for getting it done! ħuman 14:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Firefox 3

Now that Mozilla has released the latest version of Firefox don't you think it is time to upgrade from netscape? tmtoulouse ^heckle 11:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Hahahahaha. I switched to Mozilla years ago, after hanging on to my old Netscape 4.7 for a few years. Moved to ff/tb earlier this year... I even installed a plug-in for tb yesterday (Xpunge), and am looking for a good version of another one (header tools, to edit the subject line of emails). ħuman 15:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Ape

The reason I nommed it was because it was copied from Liberapedia. Burn it. Burn it now. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 15:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The reason I seconded it (for deletion) was due to its very low quality and lack of convertibility to our mission (I can usually rescue these things, but there wasn't enough on this one to salvage). Let's let a bit more time pass before deletion (a day?). ħuman 15:40, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it an article we should write? tmtoulouse ^heckle 15:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Possibly. But certainly not the way it is currently written. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 15:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I started to try, but deletion would be a good first step. ħuman 15:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I checked the article in question. I fourth the motion to delete. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Tiger Woods

"Message to... you'll know who: impressive, but I could have won it with the knee injuries and a broken arm!" - message from Habitrail at his CP user page. Danish golf fans on this site beware! ħuman 21:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Carlin

[1] Well, I did say I was an asshole. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, yeah, I know. Give him time to get buried a bit or something and then figure out a way to shoehorn your idea(s) into his article? ħuman 13:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Nah, I wouldn't try to stick it in his article; it could never be justified. That's what essays are for. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have a moment...

Please rename me "Chaos!". Don't forget the exclamation mark.
Yours sincerely, <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure the exclamation point is a legal username character? Want to experiment with it on RWW first, at least? ħuman 15:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

There are "Jellyfish!" accounts here and at RWW (definitely with the exclaim), and they don't appear to have broken anything so far. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{It is hard to know if nothing is actually nothing, and thus difficult to know if a policy of doing nothing is successful.} 15:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

OK then, I'll do it. Don't forget to edit your sig files and reregister as 85 25 151 22 so no one else can. ħuman 16:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I was already on that. Much thanks! Chaos! 16:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. Please to enjoy your new identity. ħuman 17:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Whine

<whine>My signature is misbehaving and I don't know why.</whine> {{SUBST:User:Chaos%21/trans_chaos_sig}} 20:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Not like that. Like this: _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

You've got that floating carriage return problem again. Surely the answer is in one of my archives where we discussed it before? Nested choose templates, was it? ħuman 20:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

There aren't any choose templates in this one, though. It's not the exclamation mark, surely? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Chaos!|<font=""; face="Viner Hand ITC"><font color="#800000"><big>Chaos!</big></font>]] At the very least, you've got an unclosed font tag there. Let's try this:

Chaos! 20:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

ħuman 20:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS, fonts people don't have installed on their machine won't display, they'll just get their browser default. ħuman 20:19, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

That setup seemed to work on my Jellyfish sig. Hmmm. So what font do you see there?

Thanks, Haman! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I get Arial, my default. What does Viner handjob look like? Maybe there is a more commonly installed font "like it" you could use... and you're welcome. ħuman 20:23, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Jellysig was comic sans MS, a very common font. ħuman 20:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

It's sort of like energetic handwriting. I hate Trent because he locks me out. Here come the Reznor jokes. I'll try a slightly different handwriting font in a second. Do tell me what it looks like. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Just practice like this:

stuff and nonsense
stuff and nonsense
stuff and nonsense

And I'll tell you which ones work, at least on my machine. ħuman 20:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Try this one. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

No change. Please try a bunch at once to make my work easier please? ħuman 20:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry. I thought that one was a dead cert. Sigh...

Alright, here you go.

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

Chaos!

_{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 20:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for complying with my request. None of those do anything. You might try googling or wikipediaing "commonly installed fonts"? You want one that comes with both Winblows and Apple OSs for the widest compatibility. Oh, and Linux ;) ħuman 20:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

2 and 4 work for me. --λινυσ^(☮) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Fine, you

Comment on my talk page. Instantly! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 21:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Dude, I'm never changing your user name again! You make everyone help you figure out how to make a new sig file. The rest of us just test them in sandboxes 'til we get it. </whine> ħuman 00:05, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Apologies

Sorry - didn't mean to threaten. Have restored the other side of the argument to the Shakespeare Authorship page. Thanks.Mythbuster 23:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No problem and no offense. I think it's an interesting article and deserves to be fleshed out. Thanks for your note. ħuman 00:03, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for restoring some humor to the lead! We all need to smile more :) Mythbuster 01:48, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

When I found that article and its talk page, and looked at how it had been hacked up in the history, I almost cried. There was some really good, interesting information buried in agenda-warring, as far as I could tell. And that Twain quote is priceless. Oh, and the "third hand" line was pretty good, too ;) ħuman 01:51, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Unblocking vandals

I know that either you or Trent will soon go through the block list & unblock the various Jezuz, Grawp & HAGGER accounts. I would ask that you don't. When they have to make new accounts it gives us a window of time to notice them before they have a chance to vandalise many accounts. They fill up Rc in minutes & the reversions add to the pollution so the fewer the better.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:06, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. In the unlikely event that they see the light and want to contribute meaningfully, they're probably not going to use their vandal accounts anyway. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 09:10, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Hm. Originally, I was going to say that blocking their accounts for the long term forced them to pointlessly create new ones—why bother when we can just let them reuse, and then reblock, the same account over and over again? It's so much simpler. But then I saw Susan and AK's arguments, and I have to agree. Just keep them blocked long-term. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:15, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Allowing them to reuse their original accounts over and over just makes it easy for them to disrupt things here. And, I feel compelled to point out that many vandals lack the means to alter their IP address, so you can't just say that they're certain to return with a new account if they're blocked at the old one. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 12:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Good point, though I think we're mostly talking about Jezuz and Grawp. They clearly use proxies (I remember coming across a discussion board that claimed the Grawp vandal(s) were abusing Tor to this purpose). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:00, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Your edit comment doesn't really match the substance of your edit. I'm worried. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 13:07, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I was referring to you referring to me as a vandal. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:12, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yeah; I completely forgot about that. But you must admit, it's a great example of how even intelligent vandals can sometimes be effectively restrained by a normal block -- until they go to Wikinterpreter for troubleshooting :P _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 13:19, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, are any of the new vandals actually reusing their accounts? 'cuz if not, blocking for long periods of time will, um, cause our list of blocked people to unnecearily rise. It's at 31 right now! NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 13:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Wandal Psych 101

1. It's mostly a game: see who's on the ball; how much "damage" you can cause before being blocked; whether you can get a rise out of the blocking sysop/regular editors.
2. Nothing gives you greater satisfaction than being referred to as the "x" wandal/troll. Call it making a name for yourself/starting a meme, it's a daft little buzz.
3. Pissing off the blocking sysop is inherently funny. I'm addressing Susan here particularly, and to a lesser extent, RA. Stop fucking rising to them. I see WAZZOCK (sp?) screamed in BLOCK CAPS and even I'm half-tempted to have a run on this place.

As for long term blocking, I think T n' H have it about right. You can't make it significantly harder for them to wandalize, so why needlessly inflate your blocked username/IP list? Message ends. --Helena Bonham Carter 13:37, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm with HBC on this. Maybe it's not fair for me to have an opinion, since it always seems to be other people rolling these back (schedule coincidence, maybe?), but simply undoing them is all they deserve. That and a block for the day/night. It is so trivially easy to proxy up and return with another ID, as we surely know from what we see at CP that getting all bent out over it only encourages them to return ("look, I got Susan to call me a WAZZOCK again - 10 points!" "look, I got them to waste time discussing it again, 100 points!"). The trick is to try to not be "playable", as in "wandalize RW, the game". ħuman 17:48, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Undoing long term blocks

I think we should really have a frank and open discussion about unblocking vandals before you go doing something like that, Human. Is there really any reason to give these editors an easy ride? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 01:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

We have had the discussion many times, and the evidence is also obvious. I unblocked user names that were blocked for a year, after they were a few days old. Most of these editors don't return anyway, and if they want, they just create new editor names (Hence the Jezuz crew). No need for lengthy blocks, just revert wandalism and block for a day or so. They come back, we do again. It's easier to revert than it is to do what they are doing, so they waste their energy. ħuman 01:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

• "Most of these editors don't return anyway" -- Then what possible reason could you have for unblocking them? Is it symbolic, perhaps?
• "If they want, they just create new editor names" -- No, as I explained above, many vandals cannot do this, so a single block is effective. Your explanation of this is a bit of an oversimplification.
• ""No need for lengthy blocks, just revert wandalism and block for a day or so" -- Why block at all? Why don't we tell our editors to just revert constantly until they get bored and wander off? You are assuming that all vandalism is noticed immediately (it plainly isn't), and that devoting time to clearing up unnecessary mess doesn't have any impact on the running of the wiki (it does). _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 01:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

A review of the block logs will show that this person/these people do in fact reuse old accounts, so I can't at all see why we should make it easier for them by unblocking them. That seems to send a ver strange message for no purpose at all. Let's at least let them go through the minimal amount of trouble to make new accounts when they want to vandalize us. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 18:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps those are annoyed by these vandals should refrain from blocking them or reverting their edits and leave it to those who prefer a short block log to clean up the mess? Just a thought. Genghis^{Gum disease} 18:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

A user creation log of 500 Jezuz iterations is more annoying than rolling back a dozen blanked pages. Repeat vandals are clearly using proxies, blocking those IPs means others can not then use those proxies. Our vandalism problem is just so minimal and so easy to clean up I don't see what the big deal is. tmtoulouse ^heckle 18:17, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that some of you guys are making the problem worse for absolutely no reason. Why unlock their accounts if the only two possiblities are that they'll stay gone or return to being a vandal? As for the "repeat vandals use proxies" thing, I will reiterate the following: many vandals cannot do this, so a single block is effective. Your decription of their capabilities is (still) an oversimplification. If I keep hearing this argument I'm just going to say "see above". _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 22:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Chaos, you should go read our block policy. The blocks I undid were in clear violation of the fibonacci sequence. Also, you should, please, get a grip. Tehn rollbacks a day ain;t exactly destroying the site. It takes about 30 seconds to undo a wandal's work and send them packing for the day. Long ago, I found myself in the middle of the night confronting our first real wandal, armed only with the fibonacci sequence in minutes to slow them down. We agreed to allow using hours for real vandals, or days if they were hard core. I have now spent more time typing this comment than has been needed to "fend off" wandals over the least several days. And, please, if you really have an issue with this, user talk pages are not the place to discuss it, it should be at talk:guidelines, wherever that is, so people interested in policy will notice it. I am also changing the section header so people can see what the heck is being discussed here on RC. Thanks. ħuman 22:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Bah, you claim they don't we claim they do...that's not how arguments are settled--evidence is what we need! I am going to "peer behind the current" and check Jezuz and see if he is using proxies. tmtoulouse ^heckle 22:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

TMT: You misunderstand. I agree that Jezuz and Grawp use proxies, in fact I am certain of it. The point is that not all vandals do -- remember RA's recent expedition into CP, for example. A vandal who is ignorant of these methods is halted immediately by a normal block -- until someone assumes that all vandals are the same and unblocks him with the logic that he could easily return through a proxy. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 22:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

How many non-Jezuz/grawp/hagger vandals have we had in the last month? tmtoulouse ^heckle 22:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There was a page blanking "my password is Jezuz" recently. Don't know if he's the Jezuz guy, the "my password is" guy, or both. Also, there was a "Hey Everybody I want to vandalize" or something like that recently, but they were blocked before they could do anything. That's it for the past week or so Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict!!! Argh!!)

1. My password is Jezuz (I expect you'll allege that was Jezuz, but in my opinion this style of account is not his style at all.)
2. HI EVERYBODY, I WANNA VANDALIZE A PAGE!
3. 195.238.0.20
4. 98.217.55.34
5. 218.228.88.251
6. Viagra Ration
7. Loser number thirty seven
8. Versions the
9. Kasey Kahne
10. Tony Stewart
11. 213.23.227.194

And, besides that, we will attract many more casual vandals when we assume control over the internet and bestride it like a jeweled throne grow more popular. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 22:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I am going to go ahead and agree with human, that as things stand the community guidelines/standards do not support long term blocks of vandals. Those who want to change that should propose the change at RationalWiki:Community Standards. tmtoulouse ^heckle 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

OK. Consider it done... _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 00:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Alabama Sex Toy Ban

In relation to the issue, I don't feel that the story should be confined to the King article, becuase there were loads of people involved, King is just the one who comes to mind to me first. The story goes back to 98, as explained by the Users, Sellers of Toys Sue section of this article. A group of plaintiffs, made up of six people who use sex toys and two sellers sued the Attorney General, guy named Pryor, claiming it violated civil rights. A federal trial judge in 1999 found the law unconstitutional, but an 11th Circuit panel vacated the ruling, seeking a broader examination of how sexual laws had been enforced over time. After concluding that sexual privacy was "deeply rooted" in American legal tradition and practice, the trial judge again found the law unconstitutional. Stan Birch is on the court thing and said although L V. T happened, they still don't know how far sexual privacy goes. During a second review, Birch repeated it. According to the Alabama trial judge's review of sex laws, only Georgia and Texas also have bans on sex toys. Alan I. Begner, an Atlanta lawyer who represents sex shops, said Georgia's ban is "nearly identical" to Alabama's law. "On the face of it, sex toys are illegal to sell," Begner said, but he said shops can survive prosecution if they can prove their products are "for novelty use only."

A lot of that's verbatim. In 04, when that article was written, they upheld the law again on a vote of 2-1. It came up again in 05, but the court refused to hear it, as shown here In 07, this article explained that they were doing it again. This article from Feburary 07 explained it got beat. Heres a blog about it in December. Not sure who it is but theres info in it.

So basically, 1998 law made, tried to stop it, 99, tried to stop it, found it uncostitutional Birch intervened won, Begner said it was the same as Georgia In 04 upheld again, 05 they refused to hear it, 07 got upheld again, then I kinda lost the trail.

The reason I wrote this is to ask this. Do you think the case deserves it's own article, in the article about sex toys, or Troy King's article. Or you could just repackage this entire explanation if it's good enough. It's really just...what do you think? If it is a bit incoherent, sorry. It's a lot of info to organize and I've never been good at Things like this.

Yours, --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:29, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the in-depth! Yes, the case definitely deserves its own article. If it's more than one court case, the header you used (with no caps) would be a good title. If it all impinges around one main case, use the Foo v. Bar format. By all means, get it started. Even if you copied what you wrote above, it would be a good start, you and others could fix up the grammar/typos, and dig into the refs to flesh it out. Then link to the case (article) from brief comments at Troy King, at Sex toys, etc. I hope you get a chance to build these things (and build up that Roy Moore article). Also link to them all from Alabama! Again, thanks for the info. ħuman 00:26, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Finished with the Sex toys article. Working on Moore. Would it be a problem to just copy some of wikipedia then dilute and humorize? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes! We can write our own damn articles, for Christ's sake. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 01:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

ALright, don't have a coniption. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 02:03, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:P _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Would the almighty cabbage have an issue with me using the same references? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 02:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

No, that's fine by me :) If they're on WP they're probably quite reliable. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 02:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I PRESENT TO YOU.....ROY MOORE. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Excellent! The perfect balance of information and insightful snark, I think. I actually hadn't heard of this guy before, either. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 03:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

LUcky you. Him, Larry McIdiot and Richard Scrushy are all my news talks about....probably because of where I live....--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Reverting edits to Homeopathy page

Dear Human,

on another page I started as you suggested, on the talk page, only to be told: "it's a Wiki - improve if you will - you can be praised or damned afterwards" Why are you reverting a sourced statement, especially one that directly contradicts the exaggeration "every single scientific study"? Rational argumentation should consist of facts, not rhetorical excesses.

Demosthenes

I reverted it because the "source" is a site that claims referenced information, but has no specific references to its sources. IE, "In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis" ... "In a double-blind controlled study conducted in Britain in 1980" ... "Other significant positive studies" ... "A study, conducted in 1985, found that patients who took the homeopathic product" - these are not cites, they are claims with no way to research them. ħuman 15:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please continue at Talk:Homeopathy where I copied the above comments. ħuman 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Headsup

I have started a debate picnic at the community standards place. Bring some jam and something fizzy! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 00:38, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't ban me...

:) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 23:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I already did. I guess it expired before you hit "save" though. ħuman 23:46, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I think we could do with more random page-blanking. It's chaotic, you see. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 23:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

So is random good article creation... chaos not only destroys, it builds!^{[citation needed]} ħuman 23:54, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Chaos is seldom predictable. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 23:57, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

That's why it creates as well as destroys. Sometimes even, more of the former than the latter. By the way, if you go on a page-blanking spree, you realize you're not only liable to be blocked for a half-day or so (if I catch you and am in a foolish mood), but even ten days or even longer (if someone who agrees with you catches you)! Not a good position to be in? Bad fellyjish! ħuman 00:06, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I intend to be more creative in my future chaos than simply blanking things, I can assure you :P

And you do understand that my longer block proposal was for editors with an unequivocally destructive attitude, not just whenever a sysop is feeling spiteful... right? Silly Schuman. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 00:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I thought it was for any vandal who crossed whatever line you drew. Vandal is as vandal does, gets appropriate response. Think, if you blanked some pages and Trent found it, would you agree that it was fair for him to "compromise" and only block you for ten days? Anyway, do you think you can fill the shoes of our ex-resident vandal adequately? Think twice before answering... ħuman 00:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, again, your description of vandals is a bit oversimplified, I think. Users who have shown they are constructive often flirt with vandalism when they're feeling "chaosy", and they would never be blocked as though they were vandals. Strawman, anyone?

Second thing -- I don't aspire to be Bohdan, but thanks :) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 01:13, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

My long response got lost in Trent's experimenting with the vandal brake. Suffice it to say, I used your theory and blocked you for three days for page blanking. Think about that. You blanked my talk page. Why? Funny? Oh NOES!!! Chaos thinks we should be HARSH with page blankers!!! I compromised, between my thought of one day and yours of ten days. Think about what an idiot you are being. I am sure someone will unblock you. Then how do you argue on "community standards"? ħuman 02:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Human, you really are being silly about this. There is a very clear difference between a vandal and an editor who commits vandalism, and I have yet to see anyone but you express confusion over the distinction. As TMT suggested, see POINT. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 14:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Human, perhaps you would consider adjusting your attitude 20 degrees towards the polite end of the spectrum, just so we can try to have a reasonable discussion about this? Cheers. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 14:29, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I think he's more annoyed by my vandalism than the Community Standards thing. I might be wrong. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 14:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Mostly, yah. It just didn't seem to fit in well with the current discussion, so it was a bit of both. I'm glad someone unblocked M. Chaos, though.

Whoever it was to unblock Chaos, I must thank him/her: after being unblocked, Chaos sent me a box full of oranges which I appreciated very much. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:56, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

It was Thomas Martinez Toulouse, friend to the underdogfish. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 17:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Vandal break

Can you make a vandal account, then move it into the vandal group and test out the brake? TMTVandal 02:39, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

You want me to try to do a fast series of page blanks? ħuman 02:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Any edits should trigger it. TMTVandal 02:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Check what user:HMNVandal did - did that help? ħuman 02:46, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Move him into the "vandal" user group than try again. TMTVandal 02:50, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

OK. I'll, er, have to unblock him, too. The wiki was on alert and reverted and shut him down! Good wiki... ħuman 02:52, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. My lab notes show that there is no reason to worry about this stuff at all. Insomniacs rolledback and blocked before you could blink. ħuman 03:01, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

But god damn it you shouldn't be ABLE to do that......TMTVandal 03:02, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry if I screwed it up! :-( I saw the blanking and just reacted. I'll stay out of the way this time ;-) --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Nah you didn't screw anything up, thanks for the reverts. I realized my mistake I am an edit. TMTVandal2 03:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Arcan, your response was perfect, as was Pinto's. No need to apologise, I think you both pretty much proved a point. Thank you. ħuman 03:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay I think I fixed it, can you try again? TMTVandal2 03:24, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

OK. ħuman 03:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Libertarianism

I know the Libertarianism article is an interest of yours. You may want to have a look at the talk page as another new user wanted to do a rewrite. I tried to communicate with them on their talk page User talk:Rembrandt.ryan but didn't get very far. --Bob^{bing up} 17:04, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, yeah, I saw that... I'm all for letting the libertarians improve our article with their views, but I also hold a dim view of deletion as a way to do it. At least that other editor has actually written some text! That rembrandt guy's opening line has some merit, perhaps we can use it. Anyway, thanks for the heads up! ħuman 00:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

(Opening line) Really? Then perhaps we should insert it to show willing. I am reluctant to do so as it is not a subject about which I claim knowledge.--Bob^{bing up} 05:15, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Me neither. Although, I am tempted to copy/paste the line in. After all, "they" seem to want it included? ħuman 05:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, let's do it. But I'm confused. I thought you were up on this?--Bob^{bing up} 05:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes and no ;) Fairly aware of the political view, but not very good at presenting it in a way that those who hold it would agree with. That's why I'm glad when they actually add stuff to the article from the pro-libertarian position. It's also why we should figure out a way to integrate rembrandt.ryan's edit "into" the article, as opposed to the way he edited it "over" the article. ħuman 16:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I'm sure you'll consider it an insult but i have to say youz guyz were quilty of committing Libertarian acts. Laudatory, especially considering that you self-admittesly were only faintly aware as to what a Libt is.

Which leaves me wondering, which definition version seems to you to be more nearly neutral, mine or the plurality that wrote the contrarian one? Just curious, but i might learn something.

Are you all (or mostly) UK types, and do you know any Libts in that fair entity? I was in a conversation a while back with a London lady that insisted there was never any slavery there. (Only in America.) Rembrandt.ryan 08:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm in the US, and have spoken to many self-styled libts; and heard a few on the radio. I say "self-styled" because truly, it seems that many are just Republicans embarrassed by some of the stands of the GOP. They tend to pick and choose which stands they reject, like all of us do when subscribing to a complex political platform. I have a friend, for instance, who said he wished he lived "during the Revolutionary era"... I guess he'd have to give up his obsession with audio equipment and learn to play the piano. If he could afford one. If he was literate. Not making an argument there, discussing any one libt creates a "straw man". Libtism is largely an American phenomenon, due to historical contingencies. ħuman 14:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Rem: I have no idea whether I should feel insulted were I accused of committing "Libertarian acts". I trust your article will allow me to evaluate my potential outrage. :-) Not being an expert on the subject I'm not really in a position to judge the neutrality of your edits.

I'm from the UK, but now I live in continental Europe, while there are a fair number of Europeans here, I think the majority of editors are probably from N America.

I am sorry that the lady you met in London was not a bit more aware of history. Would you like me to tell you about some of my conversations in the States? :-) --Bob^{bing up} 15:01, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Handy

Little utility you might like: [2] knowing your liking for colouring things.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, and it's not even my birthday!!! Thank you! For being considerate, observant, kind, and even sweet! Formerly, such efforts took me at least twelve clicks and such. This is truly a beneficent bestowal! Now to go install it.... ħuman 00:04, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

You!

You shall not rule this nighttime wiki uncontested! Select your best firearm, swineherd! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 00:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

bang bang shoot shoot... Happiness is a Warm Gun. PS, sorry for blocking you last night. ħuman 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Um... are you getting any strange errors when you try to look at pages? The whole wiki seems to be locking up sporadically for me. (Jellyfish)

When that happens, it is a Sign! OK, it's a sign that Trent is screwing around at the root level to build or break things. Just reload, he usually fixes thing quickly. Come join us on IRC! (freenode#rationalwiki) ħuman 00:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd love to, but I don't fully understand your instructions :(

I suspected it was a root thingy -- the error message says something about "vandal.php". <cautious>I think it's all settled down now...</cautious> (Still Jellyfish)

What I said was, in essence, try again in a few minutes. ħuman 01:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I meant the IRC thing :)

The omelet question? ħuman 01:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh good, now my brain has melted. (Chaosfish)

OOOooohhh jelly omelet!!! Yum. Melted jellyfish brainz and cheese! ħuman 01:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

What human was trying to say is that our IRC room is located on the Freenode server, at #rationalwiki. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 01:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything about "IRC", I'm afraid, so you'll have to translate that down another Idiot Level before I can understand it. Sry. (Jellyos)

85 >>> 80 no clue feed. Jellyfish omelet in progress. This thing had better not kill me!

I think you may have broken the fifth wall. Try not to make any sudden movements for a few hours. (Jellyblog, jellyblog, old jellyjellyblog...)

Dammit, now you've reminded me of the site "TvTropes". There goes the next two hours. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

ROTFL, I will try to be careful what I step on. Or walk into. ħuman 02:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Is anyone going to explain this IRC thing to me?? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 02:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, no? Search the wiki, there is a page that tells even invertebrates what it is (I'd link to it but I forget where it is). ħuman 02:36, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"IRC" = "Internet Relay Chat". It's a chat room. A very inactive chat room. ħuman 16:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I have sent you a very unimportant email

Partly to see if the email thing actually works -- you didn't seem to get the last one, after all. Cheerio! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 03:36, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

This one worked, thanks. Please address yourself to a VERY IMPORTANT LINK at user talk:proxima century. Or some such. ħuman 03:39, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I created something

Have a gift. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 16:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I haven't used that "vaporize" tab in days... please don't pollute the RW namespace, m'kay? ħuman 17:26, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Sulk.

Where might it go, then? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 17:27, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

"It" is just a redirect from a page no one will ever link to... I'm sure you can figure out what my answer to your question is based on that observation... ħuman 17:33, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

It's not a redirect, actually. Have a look at the source. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 17:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd say your user space would be a good home. It's not like it will ever serve any purpose... ħuman 17:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Fun? It's not like everything here has to serve a purpose. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 17:49, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

The mainspace and RW space (and MW space) are supposed to at least have "functional" articles. I just see no reason to have an article that is a random transclusion of several user talk pages, except in a sandbox to remember how to do it. But if you really must, stick it in fun... ħuman 18:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I already did, but mostly because I wanted to experiment with placing it so that it was really a talk page (to match what it transcluded). I'll put it in my userspays if you really want. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 18:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I thought of a good place for it - you have some sockpuppets here, right? Put it on their talk pages! ħuman 19:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

The beginnings

I have start work on the infrastructure for our ultra secret but not a secret new project. It is at User:Tmtoulouse/new your welcome to ignore it till I get further along but if you have any design feedback for it the earlier the better. tmtoulouse ^heckle 16:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

So, uh, everything is working as currently presented I think. tmtoulouse ^heckle 23:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I guess, at a beta level, yes ħuman 23:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Not really sure what to do next with it. tmtoulouse ^heckle 23:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the information!

Thanks for emailing me about that JDavidson sock on CP! I would have never known it without you! Can you email me a list of the other socks? Thanks again! Bohdan2 18:59, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome! I only know of two or three more, I'll try to get prrof over to you soon. ħuman 19:25, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Great! I forgot, is TrueValues Ames or DogP? Bohdan2 19:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll keep that in email... I usually don't know who these puppets are run by (or choose not to say), I'm just trying to help. I still haven't got the final evidence on Bugler, which is made harder by them being puppeted by someone not associated with RW. ħuman 19:37, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't you remember? You assured me that Bugler was not a sock - "Boogler is none soc, no no no" . You told me that "SirChuckB rons the JDavidson sok" (spelling errors were your's not mine), and that "TrueValues is runs by Amos's DogP hee hee!". That's what I don't understand. Which runs the sock? But if you are having reservations, that's really okay. You have done far more for Conservapedia than you could imagine. Thank you so much. Bohdan2 19:45, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Make me not a sysop

_{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 03:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

OK, you arrogant bastid who cannot take a simple demotion! _{Thy will be done.} ħuman 03:21, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Make me a sandwich!

May I be Tickleuser? : D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Never -- only I may tickle users.

And besides, I think you can only add those things at Root level, like TMT did. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 03:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Then how did Human assign you to such usergroups out of nowhere? Did he magick them into being using ancient Welsh magic? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:01, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He didn't. TMT added them, and they don't show up in the log. You'll notice that they were there before Human did anything. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 04:12, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Chaos, your sig is broken again! And RA, these are silly vanity usergroups that don't actually exist. If you really, really, really want to be in one... ask Trent. No that it matters. ħuman 04:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm aware of that Human. Hence the smiley, which I have now "improved!!1!1one" for your benefit. : P Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

RE: Community Chest

Took care of it. Although I wonder why you couldn't, as superduper as you are. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 04:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm lazy. Also, why should I clean up other wonderful people's tiny mistakes when they can? Do you need me to delete the redirect, or can you? ħuman 04:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I has no vaporise button on my doo-dad screen. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:46, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You gotta be demoted to Sysop to get a VAPORISE button.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Of this, I is awere. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:55, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I deleted the redirect, and fixed the links at the awesome Fun:Conservative_Monopoly to the "fun" version of CC. ħuman 14:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Excellent. Is anyone gonna make the pieces? Chance cards? Supercool money? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Derren Brown

Huw, just added some stuff to the Derren Brown article and saw your edit summary for the creation. I've been a long time fan of his and am just reading his book Tricks of the Mind. His demonstrations of how we can be tricked into doing and believing irrational things are fascinating. I have several recordings of his shows if you would like copies let me know I can upload them for you. Genghis^{Gum disease} 16:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd love to see more! The one show I saw (the one I synopsized) was a random TV fluke, and I tend not to look up when things are on again... can you send me dvds even better than upload? He reminds me a bit of Randi and P&T - "magicians" turned debunkers. ħuman 19:09, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course there is a history of magicians exposing charlatans going back to Harry Houdini. If you email me contact details I'll burn something and stick it in the post. Genghis^{Gum disease} 14:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

OT - Just watching Doctor Who and Professor Richard Dawkins makes a guest cameo appearance! Genghis^{Gum disease} 16:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

How do I make a new category?

I've tried to start a new category, [[Category: Lenski affair]] . I don't know how to save it. Proxima Centauri 22:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, you do what you did (you figured it out). Add it to articles, and then follow the red link to describe it. However, that doesn't look like a very useful category to me... the four or so articles are all linked to each other... ħuman 22:24, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Question

I have a question. Is there a way to find out how many edits I have in specific areas like Mainspace, Talk, Fun, etc.? I know all the edits are in your preferences but is there a way to divide that up. I was wondering because I've seen it said that User:SoandSo has 155 edits in mainspace but 9008 in talk. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 02:03, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If you click on "user contributions" at the left, on your page, you can specify which namespaces you want. Unfortunately, it does not tell you "how many: in an easy way, you just have to scroll through (hint, click on "500") and get a wild ass guess. PS, I have over 3 - that's THREE!!! edits on RationalWiki! I am so cool. ħuman 02:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Parables

I saw that on Liberal parables you added a parody bit about Schlafly. Would you mind overly if this was moved to a page called Conservapedia:Conservative parables instead? It would seem better, since he is a conservative, and I think it would make sense to keep the real stories about liberals and the mockery on separate pages.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I changed your link to our CP article that inspired this one... and I'm not sure that thing I wrote belongs anywhere. Surely there is a way, perhaps, to get a liberal moral out of it? Something about reading to learning instead of writing what you think you know to learn? I dunno... Anyway, feel free to flush it (or copy it to talk) if you think it doesn't fit. ħuman 16:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, cool beans.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

PS, thanks for asking, which you didn't actually need to do. Although it does seem like the "right" thing to do ;) ħuman 21:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am a fucking genius

Your damn preview button now works...I think. tmtoulouse ^heckle 13:13, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I tried it, and it did, and you are :) Thanks!!! ħuman 01:37, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Rem

I'm not sure what's going on, is he still talking to me? I guess I left at exactly the wrong time. He put this at the bottom of my user page and Radioactive Afikomen moved it.. He did something that he said was a responce to me on the global warming page and I moved it to the talk and...I'm just confused. Is there any way you or Bob or somebody can tell me what's going on. On my page he started in with a joke maybe? about Rush Limbaugh and his response on the global warming page made no sense to me. I am sorry to bother you but....EH! --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:34, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Umm, accidental redo. Sorry. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:37, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea, everything I read on those diffs seemed illiterate, no offense to anyone I hope. I gues now I am lost as to what the question is? Other than some lost "libertarian" trying to make their point? ħuman 02:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I think he's just a bit confused about wiki etiquette. I'll put something on his talk page.--Bob^{bing up} 02:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, thanks... he's welcome to chat here, as long as I can figure out what is going on... ħuman 02:57, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know it's just a few of his comments seem....hostile, if that's not too strong a word. A lot of what he says seems denegrating to to writers of the Libertarianism article, which is probably just wiki etiquette. Instead of actually explaining anything to me he's just calling me an idiot. And this was without a doubt just.....I don't know

"When it comes to Libt heavy lifting, you better let me do that. Ain't nobody more Libt than me. Are you free Saturday mornings? I may start a class for guys like you. (It will be held immediately after the humility class i teach.)"

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but he seems a tad disrespectful and rude. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:03, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I saw that, yes, I guess I sort of ignored it as talk page stupidity. I also noted it as potential arrogance. He also seems to think that "his" version of libertarianism is the "true verson". Don't worry, I am also keeping an eye on this crud. He certainly seems to have an "attitude". However, on thing separates him and his previous interlocutor from so many others - at least they are sticking around and adding text as opposed to drive-by deltetionism. For that, we owe them "something". For their arrogance, on the other hadn, we owe them nothing. Thanks for hanging in there and paying attention! I'm on your side... ħuman 03:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, we do say: We welcome contributors, and we encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in a constructive dialogue. As for his style, anyone who reads the way he writes will come to their own conclusions. Presumably he thinks that 's the best way to persuade people. I rather have my doubts, but that's his decision.--Bob^{bing up} 03:16, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Re: Your last two sentences - yup, I agree. Make your point intelligently, or perhaps stay home and study more. As in, how to write a sentence... ħuman 03:21, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Blogosphere

Really? $\approx$$\pi$ 04:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes. ħuman 05:03, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I have been thinking it was the blog-sphere for about 3 years. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

No harm in that... try googling both phrases? Blogosphere is the only way I've seen it written. ħuman 05:44, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Lenski etc.

Hi Human, following your advice to try and do something more productive I tried analysing the actual Lenski paperAnalysis of the Lenski Paper as best I was able. Don't know what to do with it though. Should I link it to other pages etc.?--Toffeeman 13:53, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, cool. I almost added a line saying "Here is an explanation that requires in-depth knowledge of poker instead of biology" ;) By the way, another way to "develop" the cumulative effect with a card game is to consider the cards that have already been played (although it doesn't analogize well with the bacteria generations). ħuman 16:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)