User talk:Human/Archive21

Pagelinks
User page Talk page New section top of page

Hey goobers, it's my talk page!

Just so's you all know, I have a distinct preference for continuing conversations on the talk page they start on. Otherwise my aging brain hurts! (ie, no table tennis conversations, please.

---

Tracking progress:

Phail so far

---

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>

, (new)(back)

I feel your pain

Single Sex Submarines. I share your agony. Silver Sloth 14:57, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, that non sequitur was classic Andy-debate. What does a history test have to do with a closely confined military vessel that spends months at a time underwater? Actually he's right, mixed gender submarine sandwiches would be a good idea! ħuman 18:48, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Articles

I'm thinking of creating a new category "articles". What do you think? --Bob^{bing up} 15:42, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, I think I suggested that to Trent once... How about one called "good articles"? ħuman 18:22, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Mmmm. How about "Good Articles" - with the possibility of a correction later?--Bob^{bing up} 13:27, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Why not spell it wrong as well as cap it incorrectly? "Actirles Good" ought to allow for 3 or 4 rounds of edits. And should be fully complemented by "Actirles Bad" and "Actirles So-So"! ħuman 14:01, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Eh?

Did I miss something? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

"Nothing to see here, please move along people, stay on your side of the tapes. Nothing happened, no need to worry." ħuman 00:18, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

No horrible gas leak then? Or dirty bomb explosions? How utterly boring. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I for one must have missed the point when taking disciplinary measures against someone whom you yourself has just been in a conflict with came to be considered a good idea. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:13, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Oops, I missed that comment... want me to undo the change? (Was it disciplinary?) ħuman 19:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

"Oops" does not excuse such an action. It has already been undone, and Pink has already permanently left. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

RA, calm down for a bit and let's try to discuss this.

Human, it would be great if you could briefly comment on A) whether or not you think that it is a good idea to take an action that could at least be interpreted as disciplinary against a person that you are involved in a personal conflict with (regardless of the circumstances of that conflict); B) that although no one seems to really have noticed, there is actually a bit of a crisis going on, with at least one editor having left and several others reviewing their commitment to the wiki; and C) what can be done to avoid such incidents in the future. Cheers. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

(A) Of course it was not a "good idea", as you say, regardless of context, any such issues should be resolved in "public" with the mediary assistance of the cooler-headed. A lot of what seemed to follow happened almost completely "under the radar" as far as I could tell (some "decrattring/cratting" wars, Pink and Susan leaving and never coming back, etc.). (B) I'm not sure how we define "crisis". Susan is, of course, missed, but the only "evidence" tying her absence (that I have seen) to this brouhaha is a copy of a pmail posted on another website. (C) I have no idea, really. One minor suggestion I have is that when you added your comment of 10/20 above I missed it, probably due to other edits to this talk page before I next checked it. Perhaps you or someone equally concerned and aware of what was transpiring could have sent an intercom message inviting the parties involved to meet at some neutral arbitration page to get cooled down or scolded, or at least to localize the furore to a harmless location? ħuman 15:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

If you don't mind me butting in, I'd like to say that I support the idea of setting up a page to handle these conflicts. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's butting in to comment on a thread you started ;) Anyway, "a page" for such probably exists (admin abuse, or some such), and also, at any time, a page specific to a given conflict can simply be created. One thing I thought was rather strange in retrospect (which is how I learned about most of the ramifications of this particular conflict) was that nobody did. Hence the six and ahalf day gap above between AK's first comment and my next response. ħuman 15:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I have just sent you an very important e-mail.

I've always wanted to do that....PFoster 20:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, I got it, sent quick reply. Will do more in a bit after gluing some PVC together... ħuman 22:51, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Creepy correlation

In our editing patterns Image:Rw-cp-top5.png. tmtoulouse 00:07, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... though apparently you are more likely to be asleep by 8 AM (EST) ;) The little peaks, however, are truly creepy. ħuman 00:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

250px250px

Well, talk about creepy: have a look at the correlations at CP... -LArron 10:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't see much creepy, really, other that the stalker-esque nature of these graphs. I still think they are funny, but, still... anyway, look at who I correlate with on CP - Hoji, one of us, original cabalist; Bohdan (by whatever name), Danish house wandal... OK, and some other dumbass on my sleep schedule? ħuman 03:42, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I had conservative in mind. Re stalker-esque: that's why I generally don't try to make connection between different sites. I hope, I don't cross any lines here... --LArron 02:27, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, I know. Trouble is, in this case you put the conclusion before the data-gathering, I think. You looked for people with a similar editing schedule, then said "aha! one is a cretin!" - there was almost bound to be a hit. No big deal, of course, it's still funny. Oh, and the "stalkeresque" thing I brought up only really refers to the "exposure" of what amounts to editors' lifestyles/schedules kind of thing. But the data is all public, you are just presenting it in an easy-to-digest form. So no big deal there, either. ħuman 19:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Ted Haggard

His followers just might have asked themselves if all the money they devotedly gave the church was spent in worthwhile ways. Why did you take this out of the Ted Haggard article? Proxima Centauri 07:16, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Because it is total supposition, with no factual back-up. It's just a guess, without knowing anything about the finances of said church. Likely, he was paid a salary, and how he spent it, was, well, personal. You often add these "vague accusations" couched in lazy language and the "some say" sort of Fox News style, and I don't like it. It's cheap, unsupported, and poor "reporting" or writing. There's a word I am trying to remember that applies to this sort of accusation/claim... sorry I don't remember it right now. ħuman 04:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

"Weasel wording"? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:19, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I think that was probably it. ħuman 21:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

TWIGO

Regarding this section I was trying to be careful about exposing some great parody, but you do understand my point right? SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, I get it, I was just playing :) ħuman 16:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I figured as much, but I wanted to double check. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 16:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

AOTW

Thanks. tmtoulouse 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

You're quite welcome. Thanks for shaking the tree. And switching to the "insta-archive" templating version. In other news, I have central heating again as of about 9 PM last night... Woohoo! ħuman 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

IP says "shame on you"

Oh, writer of Tom Waits, an IP just shamed you for writing so inadequately on him. What do you have to say for yourself? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

That's what wikis are for? ħuman 15:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:45, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Things are not always as we think they are. Or as they should be?

^{— Unsigned, by: Carptrash / talk / contribs}

Nice! Do you want to delete the older version and replace it with this one? ħuman 00:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Go for it. I kinna like the drum under it, but then that's how it is in my house, I can look at it any time I please, so you change it and I'll go to bed. life is good. eeeeeek

I just swapped the image in the article for the new one. Let's keep both. ħuman 01:21, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Operation clusterfuck starts here

bye!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:53, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I see that there is no "retired" template or archiving so I'm hoping this is a temporary measure to regain perspective - similar to the break I took at the start of the year. Human is one of the original members of the site and has been far and away the most active editor, I would be sad to see him leave.--Bob^{bing up} 04:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Not all of us will be very sad. Mourn the passing of an era, and a giant on the wiki. But remember that for many people (Pink, Susan, AKjeldsen, Damo, myself, and others yet undeclared), Human's prominence and status on the wiki was progressing from "prominent editor" to "overbearing authority figure". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I hope that, in the vacant space his absence creates, others will be encouraged to stretch out their own personalities, to offer their own ideas and their own interpretations of things, and help the community grow around all of us, instead of around a single, dominant user. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Just so the record is clear, I am more or less neutral on the issue. I was (and am) concerned that there was a lot of squabbling over the smallest, most ridiculous things - so much so that this place was beginning to resemble CP itself. Now I have no idea (and I have tried searching) as to what the problem was with Pink and Human that caused this mess so I can't pass judgment on anyone regarding that. But I have witnessed both here and on RWW a certain amount of resentment against Human for (allegedly) trying to impose rules and for acting unilaterally.--Damo^Hi 06:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I apologize, then, for mislabeling you. Sorry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I strongly suspect it is time that we reconsider our approach to dispute resolution and for forming some general principles of what to do when disagreements occur. Almost everybody at this site suffers from the character trait (I hesitate to say flaw) of having strong opinions and not being shy about expressing them. I think its time we recognised that and set up some processes to deal with the inevitable problems this causes. We don't need a dictator like on CP, nor do we need a bureaucracy like on WP, but we do need some guidelines on what to do when well meaning people disagree on the issues. I understand there was some discussion on this point a while back but I feel that the situation is now more urgent. With Pink gone, SusanG thinking about leaving and now Human blanking his pages I feel like this site is really starting to fall apart.--Damo^Hi 06:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

To be clear, I think it would be sad if Human left us because of all this nonsense, just as sad as if Pink or SusanG or RA or anyone else left.^{— Unsigned, by: Damo / talk / contribs}

If you are leaving...

Then I, for one, can confidently state that I'm sad to see you go. You and Susan were two of the first to really welcome me, as I recall. You were part of the reason I spent as much time here as I did, as I goofed off at work. I don't get involved in the fighting, and I don't understand the emotions behind it, and I do understand the need for a break sometimes. But, thank you for what you have done, and good luck. Researcher 09:13, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I reiterate Researcher's sentiments (as I'm goofing off at work now), and will welcome Human back (if in fact he's left) should he choose to do so. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 09:22, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't leave us Human! You're breakin' up the family. weaseLOId~ 10:40, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Sigh. I miss the old days. Sterile^snore! 12:29, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Because it needs to be said...

RA, you're mostly an alright person as far as I can tell, but Jesus tap dancing Christ, you can be a pain in the arse at times. You take this place way too seriously and your e-penis status and power fixation frankly creeps me out slightly. I've always given you the benefit of the doubt as I figure that's just the way your head works and how you see the world, but you over H? Not fucking likely. If anyone needed to walk, I'd vote you every single day of the week. Pull your neck in, play nice, and pack it in with that daft RWW shite. --Robledo 16:55, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I have never considered this a choice between Human and myself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ohforchrissake

Damo is absolutely right above. If we had some sort of means in place to deal rationally with these issues, we wouldn't see the mushroom into Headless Chicken Mode and people "leaving" left and right. We really need that, because this is seriously turning into one of the more dysfunctional online communities I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

C'est la vie. You must deal with whatever cards you are dealt. Unfortunately, for those who get deeply involved in these kinds of forums there are always these incidents, and they usually result from weird desires for 'internet-power' (RA) or 'internet-prestige' (Human) or just simply 'internet-attention' (Susan). Me, being the other flip of the coin 'occasional internet antagonist/sociologist' can usually see all these developments without the filter of 'internet-friendships' that usually ruin someones ability to see through these online tussles. MarcusCicero 15:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

DFTT [2]

TOAST

^{and butter} 16:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

What does DFTT mean? And yes, well done, you posted a link to my archive. Aren't you clever. MarcusCicero 16:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

DFTT = Don't Feed The Troll. With that said:

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

ec

I read your archive after reading your comments and it seemed that those, like me, who weren't familiar with your history, might like the information. (Don't Feed The Troll which is the conclusion I have come to after your two edits.) As you'd a Troll on your user page for a short while I think it's quite appropriate anyhow.

TOAST

^{and butter} 17:09, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the most effective way of suppresing debate - the arbitrary use of the word troll. I'm thinking of writing a book about what I've learnt on internet sociology. MarcusCicero 17:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm rather more tolerant of "trolls" (I generally don't use the word). But Marcus, it would help people's perception of you immeasurably if made your comments a teensy bit less abrasive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

That is sound advice. I tend to vent, then mellow, then disappear, then come back, then repeat over and over and over again. Has all the markings of a troll though, I'll give you that. MarcusCicero 17:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what?

This may be a bad place, if not the worst, to ask this but what's going on? Judging from the comments above there was a heated discussion between Human and somebody else (Pink was mentioned but he hasn't contributed lately) but I can't find it anywhere... Anyway, if you're leaving, then good luck with whatever you're doing now, you'll be remembered... NightFlare Materialists generally deny the existence of the [literally] unseen.[1] 16:49, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, the gentlemen at RWW aren't as inactive as I thought. I'll have to agree with AKJ, this seems like making an ant out of a molehill, having heated arguments about a category is one thing, but leaving after all this time? Or are there other issues involved besides the Spanish inquisition one? NightFlare Materialists generally deny the existence of the [literally] unseen.[1] 17:03, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This particular conflict did come after a long train of conflicts between him and I. It was far from an isolated incident. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

That makes more sense, but I can't say that makes me more accept this behaviour more easily. NightFlare Materialists generally deny the existence of the [literally] unseen.[1] 17:25, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This Old Conversation

My Opinion

This old conversation again. RA taking RW to seriously and Human not. I personally am in Humans boat here - RW is no place for "rules" but this pic cleary explains my position. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

You clearly fail to understand the nature of this conflict. This was not a battle between "rules" and "no rules". This was plain old edit war, between two editors who each wanted their own way. Please try to understand the nature of the conflict before commenting on it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:33, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

No RA, its always a conflict with you. If its not one thing its another and its just a continuation of the same old rubbish but with a different point. To quote Bon Jovi "Its all the same, only the names have changed". Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:43, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

So you're saying I shouldn't have touched the article in question in the first place? Or that I should have automatically accepted Human's reversion of me? The nature of an edit war is that both the editors are to blame for partaking in it, and can only occur if both the editors take it far too seriously. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I dont give a fuck what you do apart from your incessant moaning. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Then leave. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ace. Please don't follow RA's suggestion. With luck he'll come back tomorrow with an apology for suggesting that you leave the wiki. At least I hope he does, and perhaps your language was a bit strong as well.--Bob^{bing up} 18:41, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I have always been one of strong language. But I am not going anywhere and RA need not apologise. Thank you for your concern though. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:50, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Yet, I feel the need to apologize. I regretted telling you to leave the moment I hit "save". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks and I appreciate it but there was no need as I dont take my internet life very seriously. I apologise also for my confrontational language. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I would interject that Human is not without blame. In order to fulfil his role on this site he assumes a certain 'disregard' for the law. While certainly more entertaining and more fun to be around that RA's Constitutional professionalism, it does leave Human often finding himself in contradictory quandries. MarcusCicero 18:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

My friends, this is change we don't need!

I will move this section and all above to the most recent archive late on Nov 3, unless anyone objects.

First, I would like to explain my "blank" absence. Things were spiralling into the ugly and tiresome, for the fifth time too many in two weeks, so I thought a bit of time away would be good for me, to let me ponder how much I might have contributed to the problem, and also to see what ensued without my participation.

Second, I would like to comment on some of what was said above - and also, the fracas I observed at talk:Hitler and evolution.

None of this is about power. As far as I know (and I may be very wrong here), I weild no more power than any other editor, whatever their level of demotion, on RW. True, I edit a LOT - more than most, and even around 1/7 - 1/6 of the site's activity. Does that mean I overrule other people? Are there editors who cower in fear at my almighty "powers" and edit rate? I think not - and I hope not. Just because I make 8 billion edits a month does not make me the rulzor of the site -- and most important, it does not prevent anyone else from editing as often as they want.

I just like this place - maybe too much - and hence spend a lot of time copyediting and proofreading edits by people who work far harder than I to make the site better.

If someone posts a huge edit in one fell swoop and then I spend 20 edits adding sections and fixing typos, who added more to the site? One surely cannot judge by e-penis size edit count. As I said, I like this place, and so I spend a lot of my edit-time just cleaning up the good stuff.

Am I perfect? Of course not, far from it - as we all are. I make mistakes in ordinary ways, and of course, as many of us do, I occasionally edit "impaired" and perhaps type things I shouldn't hit "save" after. But part of what was always fun about RW was that half the good stuff on here was put together by people half in their cups. I also, as most of us do, sometimes express my opinions in ways that might offend a sensitive editor -- but, like I hope we all do, I try not to. Of course, I fail sometimes.

Comment about no comment

Why did I not "say" anything when I deleted my user page and archived my talk page? Because under the circumstances, I don't think I would or could have said anything "constructive" - that is, I probably would have made things worse if I had tried to leave a "message in a bottle" behind. So I just went silent - for my own process, my meditation if you will, and to allow the wiki to rumble on on its own (after all, some may like me, but RW would also be just fine without me). I know some embarrassments exploded here and there, but my not being involved, I think, allowed them to deflate, to diffuse and be defused in a sensible way.

I think it would also be a good idea to address the concept of "bashing" another editor, and whether a short moratoriam on it - or an indefinite one - is a good idea.

Constitutional silliness

A 'nother idea - let us expand the vandal group tool to limit all editors to some agreed-upon limit, that they not "dominate" the wiki or any conversation. Shall we say, 20 edits per day? 30 seems greedy. Ought to shut up that guy who averages 60, at least.

A 'nother 'nother idea. A constitution!!! Let the absent dictator, Trent, appoint a "Senate" of, say, 13 "disrespected" editors to form this august body. Their first charge is to determine how and to elect a President, or Spokesthing, from amongst themselves. Then, they would be charged with determining rules for creating a "lower body", or "rectum" of perhaps 20-30 editors who could squabble meaninglessly about issues, since without a majority of the Senate and Chairthing's signature (validated via random captcha processes) their decisions would mean nothing. BUT!!! At least then we would have RULZ!

Further Fun!

I would also like to invite everyone to an old-fashioned RW party on my talk page on "election night", Nov 4. Please to bring the goats, the balloons, scour the image archives for the good stuff. We have beer of many kinds, hard liquor, food of many kinds, pianos, even swimming pools, as I recall. Let us all let bygones and silly over-seriousness be bygones and come together and make a complete mess of this place on this most horribly serious and important day. I'll be out until about 8 PM EST waving signs at my local polling place, but from then on I expect to enjoy all your company at the party.

I forgot to sign

Wrote all that junk above in notepad; consider it all ħuman 00:00, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Huw, while I'm certainly happy to see that you haven't decided to leave anyway, I cannot help but feel that you're being slightly uncharitable in your characterization of those of us who would like to see some more structure to this site. This isn't really a question "rules" vs. "no rules". We already have a ton of rules in our various "community standards", "ways things are done", and various other unwritten rules and practices. That can't be otherwise; no community can function without rules. The aim here is not to kill the fun with "rulz" or to "wikilawyer", but rather to make sure that everyone is on the same footing and to at least put some something in place avoid precisely the sort of hullabaloo that we've seen recently, as so many times before. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Also, while the attempt is mertitable in itself, I don't think that we can so easily dismiss the fact that your enormous level of activity and general stature on the site gives you an equally enormous amount of influence over it. This is simply something that calls for responsibility, I suppose. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:35, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Eventually things come down to a practical level, the one lesson I have learned is that if I really want something to happen on this wiki I have maybe a 15-20 percent chance that people will do it if I talk long enough about it. Instead I have to go do it, or get it started, concretely, practically and with a clear sense of direction for others to join in. Those who want to see a written, established rule system for this site should go about creating one. Do it in a sandbox or talk page or somewhere, as you work on it people who want to will join in and when you decide it is ready put it before the community for feedback. We have "talked" about this a dozen times, if you want it to happen someone needs to proactively engage and start doing. If noone is motivated enough to do that then I think that about answers the question of whether we need it. tmtoulouse 11:15, 2 November 2008 (EST)

AK note one, I was really trying to be mocking - they were two ideas that came to me... yes, the first one (edit limit) is absurd, but it made me chuckle. The constitutional one was partly tongue in cheek, but also a partly serious suggestion. AK note two, yes. And someone or some people are bound by definition to be the most active editors, in the absence of a fluke or rule preventing it. True, they take on more responsibility for their actions since they may be "influential" and set the tone for others. And it's all of ours job to keep a weather eye on each other and try to catch things before they get ugly, if we see them going that way. I think quite a few people have learned how to do it themselves, nipping repeats of past unhappiness in the bud when they recognize them. ħuman 18:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Well

I like Human. He's been lots of fun to be around, and one of the main ones who made me feel welcome when I came here in the first place, and certainly one of the worthwhile people to keep me around (Ames, Trent, Linus, Sid and Dr. Pal are also notable). That is all. --Kels 23:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. And by the way, Edgerunner76 and I are having an election day drinkathon on Tuesday, so anything we may post that day may well contain vulgarities and tyops, so bear with us. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 23:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Fel free to ptos yruo drkunen coemenmts hree taht nithg! ħuman 23:57, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Cheers to that! A shot for every county that goes Obama! And I like human too :). tmtoulouse 23:54, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

YAY! Human's back. With his bat and ball and everything. Let me get a drink to celebrate!!! Drinks!!! PFoster 00:01, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Hurrah! Human has returned!

Wait. Was he ever gone? DickTurpis 00:09, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, don't overdo it, friends. Partly I had to think some things through and all (like how I was handling being the resident site-asshole from time to time). And: "Wait": No, I wasn't, really. Shit I missed this place and you people, and it was only what, three or four days? ħuman 00:12, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

With 3140 counties, the only way to keep up would be a site-wide drink-a-thon. --Toiretni 00:32, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

That's what I was hoping for, and the tyops are all welcome here :) PS, can someone unprotect my sigfile thing in case I need to edit it? Thankies! ħuman 01:09, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I will be counting ballots on Nov. 4 until (so they tell me) four in the morning the next day. No celebrations for me : ( Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:50, 2 November 2008 (EST)

my evil plan

My evil plan is to keep this place alive as long as it is worthwhile. I will keep linking here, and do whatever else I can, and hope that people continue to create content while having fun. And if folks take themselves too seriously from time to time, so be it. And I having been following the pissing matches, but we have a lot of personality around here. That's not a bad thing. If it wasn't for AKjeldsen soul, hugh's passion, trents tireless wikification, and everyone else, hey, it would be boring.-- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 00:26, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

"we have a lot of personality around here" - we surely do. I think that is our enduring strength, although sometimes it helps us go overboard. Hi Doc! And it's Huw, not Hugh ;) Unless you meant someone else, of course. ħuman 00:30, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

I've never been good with Welsh.-- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 00:38, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

That's OK, I've never been good with doctors. ħuman 01:11, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Hey Harmanz...

What do you think of this video?

Barack Obama is a terrorist, according to some crazy right wing loon ahem, mccain... I just thought you needed a small laugh. =) Javasca₧ No comment

Um, did you just slightly rickroll me? Pwned!!! ħuman 00:45, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

More than slightly Rickrolled. Fully Rickrolled, to be more percise. Javasca₧ No comment

Haha, well, not really, since I clicked "stop" or suchlike after about 3 seconds. Still.... ħuman 01:00, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Welcome back

Your back I have missed you so much. The standards around here have fallen so much without you. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 01:17, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, but surely you exaggerate the agony during my brief absence! I think the rest of you can keep this thing going just fine! Anyway, I appreciate the huggies, thank you very much. I missed all of you, very much, as well. ħuman 01:28, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Good to see you again Human. I missed your copyediting! :-D weaseLOId~ 01:43, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Glad you have decided to return. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 05:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Welcome back, master. InaVegt 05:12, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I'm glad we haven't lost you permanently.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 05:21, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Welcome back, Human. Your demotions have been returned to you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:33, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I look forward to interacting with you in a far more... amiable manner (on my part) in the future. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, oh, and thanks - I was confused when I saw a page that said "view source", I thought I was on CP after hours! Yes, I also look forward to many happy more amiable interactions. ħuman 18:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Yippee! Now maybe I should start contributing more regularly. Sterile^snore! 15:09, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, it's you. I mean, WELCOME BACK! Yeah, that's it. I kid, it's always good when any of our editors return (heck, even HoG). Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:24, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Welcome back dear friend. Without you I was lost, irritable and rolling around naked in embryonic fluid. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 15:40, 2 November 2008 (EST)

That sounds awful! Wait, were there thousands of strange black obelisks floating through space? ħuman 18:03, 2 November 2008 (EST)

You know what, I think there were. I thought it was just a coincidence. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:10, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Use all these planets as you will, but stay away from Europa... or else they'll be back! ħuman 18:18, 2 November 2008 (EST)