User talk:Human/Archive9

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>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>

, (new)(back)

US States

Sorry Human. Thought you'd abandoned them.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 06:12, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

No prob at all. Just waiting for the snark muse to kick in for the rest! I mean, come on, NJ is just too easy, so it requires thought to make it funny and not just stoopid! human^{be in} 06:15, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Wanted Pages

As we get down to the nitty gritty on this list, there are a number of examples of a redlink that is a page header with a "/" after it (Talk:Kentucky/ being an example). These seem to be related to vandalism/archive pages, but there does not appear to be any consistency as to why they appear in the wanted pages list. Any clues? --Remarcsd 18:32, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I think the easiest thing to do is ignore them for now. There were others that Trent managed to "write out" of the list (uncreated archive pages, for example), even though they are still counted in the numeric total. Also, now that there are less red links than articles, as you point out, it's not such a pressing housekeeping chore so much as time to write the articles "we" decided we'd probably want to have. Oh yeah, that's right. Hard work. Dang! human^{be in} 18:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT) fully vested member of "Crewe Red Link"

Nostub?

did that {{nostub}} thing happen?Susan^{talk to me} 22:28, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

I dunno if Trent reprogrammed stubbot, but he knows about it and I'm using it. Judiciously, of course. Some articles (like descriptions of logical fallacies) are simply doomed to be relatively short, and should not be marked "stub" and catted as Desperately Seeking Susan improvement. human^{be in} 00:26, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm gonna add it to a help file then; if it's working then ok - if not it'll do no harm. Is that format right? Susan^{talk to me} 00:32, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

The format is correct, and it also adds nothing to the article in which it is placed, so no mess. Please try to be careful to specify the criteria for its use - a short, but relatively complete, properly linked, catted and RWified article. Thanks! human^{be in} 00:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

How's this:

All articles are patrolled at intervals by a 'bot' - an automatic program that measures the length of the article. Articles below a certain length are presumed to be Stubs and therefore to be in need of expansion and will be categorised as very short articles; slightly longer articles will not be stubbed but will still be flagged. If you consider that an article, although very short, is not in need of expansion, a bare definition for example, then the expression: {{nostub}} should be placed on the page, normally at the foot, this will cause the bot to ignore the article. The expression will not show on the page.

Susan^{talk to me} 00:44, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems pretty good to me. That "bare definition" part is a bit tough for me, though. It makes it sound like we are encouraging dicdef articles. How about, "an article that does not require much depth (length?) (width?) (haha) to be clear and complete"? Eh, anyway, run with it, I'll see the change on my watchlist if I want to try to help clarify it. human^{be in} 00:52, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Girth! human^{be in} 00:52, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I did it on porpoise instead of using "cquote" or "

". (editing & pasting shortly) Susan^{talk to me}

Yeah, I know, but nine screen widths of text I ain't gonna suffa! Going to check out your briliance now... and did I say "thanks" yet? human^{be in} 02:12, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Up late/up early?

Wtf are you doing still awake? Thought I was the insomniac around here. Susan^{talk to me} 03:49, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm a wampyr, hehe human 06:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

300 whole years!!!!!

My mistake, make that 300,000 years :) - Icewedge 23:37, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, well, I always enjoy copyediting you! Nice work, by the way, on that article. human 23:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Bottom rung

Do you think we should clean up the bureaucrats? I thin JTL is no longer active, and I think we all ready promoted Airdish at his request...maybe we should promote JTL so that we keep bureaucrats as active users. Since Linus and I are not around as much due to school would having another crat from an active sysop be a good idea? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 01:08, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you'd want a cabal member who's often here - Wikinterpreter? DogP(cabal?)? Or the obvious: Doc? [my 2¢] Susan^{talk to me} 01:36, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Jeb has my vote! Or not. On a more serious note, doc needs a demotion to keep him humble. [my 2 ¢]. - Icewedge 01:53, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

I thought Doc alreayd wuz... OK, 1st step would be to promote that guy who was around for about 2 weeks ages ago and did all that great template work then disafrickinpeared. Wikiperverter might be a good choice. I offered it to Sid a few hours ago, not sure if he replied yet... And, yes, there's always Jeb. And RobS. Eh... Anyway, back to JTL, don't I still see him creeping around here and there? Oh, wait, you said crat, not sysop. OK, why do we need more/fewer/any? As far as I can tell all we can do is promote and demote janitors. Which is handy, what, when we have a rogue sysop demolishing the site in the middle of the night? Eh... I suppose someone should tell me what we are talking about before I join the conversation ;) human 03:36, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, if I was a crat could I abuse more people? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT) (On a serious note, doc has my vote)

Yeah, probably. Or suck up to more people...? Either, way, yes, you would be the pwnzor!!! human 02:25, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I have pruned some of the lower rung of inactive editors and demoted you further. I only mention another crate as someone who can keep an eye out for users that should be demoted beyond just you and every now and then me. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 02:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wha? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 15:32, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I moved inactive editors from crates to sysops, and suggested an active sysop be made a crate so there is more than human and sometimes me looking around to make users sysops. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 16:06, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Yea, I shouldn't work on an essay and edit wikis at the same time, I start to act stupidly. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 16:10, 14 October 2007 (EDT) _{Footnote: Who did you demote further?}

Stubbot

I made the changes to stubbot and am letting it run for the first time, so keep an eye on it for me to make sure it is doing what it should! Stubbot 18:06, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, I listed where nostub is used and will check them after stubbot seems to be done running to see if it worked. Thanks! human 20:04, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Template

I was wondering if you could give me a little advice on how to create a template and how to edit it. With a picture and the words.Please answer on my talk page. Thanks!The Alien^{Don't tase me, Bro!!!} 16:56, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

The easiest way, as with any computer thing, is to find one you like, as in it's pretty close to what you want, and copy its content into a new template: article, then modify it as needed. What are you trying to build? human 17:02, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks!The Alien^{Don't tase me, Bro!!!} 18:10, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Shame

shame... (x 200)The Alien^{Sick Freak!!!} 02:20, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor in disguise?

I've been slowly (?) becoming more and more irritated by teratornis. I've drafted numerous comments to him but restrained myself to the one on his 'index:talk' page. I have no idea who he thinks he is - our saviour perhaps - but his insufferable arrogance and self seeking bragging has really got up my nose. As I said I didn't know what the general feeling was (and still don't I suppose) but his continued presence here might lead to a considerable reduction in my participation.

He behaves similarly on several wikis, I don't know if you've checked, and tries to control them by installing idio(t)syncratic templates and procedures rgardless of whether the're reasonable or required. His Dawkins page is good for a laugh though - ... I could go on but ... oh I give up. Susan^{talk to me} 22:11, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Do you have email enabled? (PS, I completely agree with you) human 22:13, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

No beta? Susan^{talk to me} 22:17, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

beta? How do I contact you outside the wiki? human 22:19, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry you can't. I shud be on broadband in 2 weeks (Approx) till then i'm incommunicado afraid. Susan^{talk to me} 22:24, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you both have forum accounts, you can private message each other there (assuming I understand your problem correctly). (Sorry if I'm intruding) (p.s. I'm inclined to agree with you) (this is probably too many parentheses) Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Possibly he ? can be ignored, he has made around 140 edits, and contributed, AFAICT, a total of zero to RW. He appears to be some pompous obsessive/compulsive who's user page has to be "just right" before any substantial work can be done, if in fact he ever intends to do any. If you know your Red Dwarf, he seems to be attempting to be the Rimmer of RW.:--Remarcsd 22:46, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Pretty much, a smeghead. Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:47, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Let me simply copy here a pmail I sent: (suibject line "terapoophead" or whatever)

“”...really gets on my nerves... I think he is a wiki-troller of sorts, looking for places where he can be their saviour. (CP would have loved him in February!) Funny how it actually surprised him that this wiki was active and fairly well organized - meaning he did zero lurking before making his "todo list" of ways to save our site. Luckily, Susan snapped back at him in her inimitable way. I'm amazed and irritated by the way he can write 6 paragraphs without including one sentence worth of information. And include 8 links to WP articles along with his drivel, in case you don't fully understand him. Just venting, hehe...

human 01:01, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Rimmer's amusing but he enrages me beyond all reasonableness. (no e mail - no forum a/c) Susan^{talk to me} 22:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

On a totally unrelated matter: Anyone live near: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA near 39.14123° N 84.41461° W. ? If so do you know any local nerds? Susan^{talk to me} 23:13, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Why, is that him? If so I recommend a kill on sight order. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:49, 18 October 2007 (EDT) P.S. I agree with Susan and Homo Sapien

"I couldn't possibly comment" but see his usepage on openmaps.org. 23:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT) (deniability retained) Susan^{talk to me}

Say, anyone familiar with the practice of Ostracism? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm inclined to just ignore him. I was wondering why I was seeing (+3,013,018 Teratornis) in RC more lately, though.-αmεσ (soldier) 23:59, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but you're the rational, peaceable, lawyer type. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:01, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

undent

Ostacism don't work - we have DFTT but no-one abides by it - they get to you and make you respond. Susan^{talk to me} 00:05, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Let's impose rigorous DFTT on him.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:06, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Ames, I want a lynch mob. Susan^{talk to me}

Here here!! Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:11, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

see User:SusanG/Open comment to teratornis for one of my aforementioned drafts. Susan^{talk to me} 00:38, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Signing above where I forgot; and whoa, did a can of worms ever get opened here! human 01:01, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I put a link to this on his talk page. : -) Susan^{talk to me} 01:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Yah, I noticed, but you forgot to pepper it with wp: inline links to keep it undecipherable. human 02:04, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm going to be a bit of a dissident voice I'm afraid. Yes, he is patronizing, irritating and verbose - he even describes himself as such. But he's done nothing to damage the site - unless you include "being irritating" as damage. Let's compare him to HG. HG caused us to waste hours in futile debate and refutations, he was vastly more irritating than than Teratornis and sometimes downright destructive with his edit wars and his "essays" which deliberately challenged the ethos of the site . Furthermore, HG's comments turned up all over the place generating revert wars and bad feelings. Yet we showed him almost infinite tolerance. Meanwhile Teratornis doesn't really venture beyond his own pages where he states that he is carrying out some admittedly rather byzantine wiki-tasks which will improve the site. If people don't like or trust him then they can avoid his pages - as I said he doesn't force himself onto other pages. As for creating nothing, I rather like his Rationalwiki Google search box. Search RationalWiki with Google which seems to be more efficient than the standard search box. Indeed, I was going to suggest that it should go on the mainpage - but now maybe not. --Bob^{bing for apples} 04:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed, Bob, with most of what you say. Yes, I cannot argue with you. I'd take twelve teratornises over one jeb berkely or whatever any day (I think, I would, anyway). Thanks for the perspective. He's just a boring twit, which most of us probably are from time to time, and does keep himself to himself, mostly, other than offering to reorganize our site for us. I guess we were just afeared of him bustin' his wikilawyering verbose self out on the rest of the site once he finishes feathering his nest? human 04:28, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

What in God's name is wrong with you people (Bob excepted)? Could we perhaps cut down on the groupthink and the excessive personal attacks, and try to look rationally at what is going on and whether or not the features being installed here might actually be useful? How are we ever going to keep growing rapidly if we treat new people with new ideas like this? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest not much is wrong with us, we are simply people with opinions, just like yourself and Bob. I know bugger all about any possible new features because I have not seen any. But I am guessing that if there were any that we actually needed, then they are freely available from any number of sources, and we don't actually need a messiah to supply us poor uneddicated fokes with them out of his largesse and infinite wisdom. And just how long do we wait for these improvements, and do we continue waiting whilst people who add content decide to opt out?

I'm here to edit, so I edit. I have no idea why the subject is here, as all he seems to do is modify his user page. How do you want us to treat a verbose, condescending user who wants to save us from problems I'm not even sure we have? Would there be a RW, or any subsequent growth at all if we all spent our time here mucking around with our user pages and not actually adding content? If the situation has got to the point where a user who actually adds content is prepared to disappear because of someone who, it seems, adds only words, then I know who I would rather have stick around. My 2c, and they are Aussie cents, so are only worth about 1.6 U.S. cents.--Remarcsd 08:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob,sterile & Akj, you are of course right in a truly moral way (judge not lest ....), but if the guy were to offer me a bucketful of golden dubloons I'd tell him where to stuff it (and volunteer to do the stuffing). He appeared on our site and immediately, without getting to know anyone or letting us get to know him, began telling us how our site could be improved in line with his other sites. His listing of every word he's ever dropped on RD.net is verrry strange, what's he doing, trying to prove his atheist bona fides? He could just tell us he's an atheist who's posted to RD. He imports tons of strange stuff from wp, telling us they'll be 'useful' and pushes his talkpage template. His incessant linking to wp is staggering - he obviously can't say anything concrete and relevant out of his own head and has to link to do it. There are doubtless gems hidden amongst the ordure but digging them out - is it worth the effort? As I've said elsewhere, he behaves in a similar fashion everywhere he sets claw. If tjere is any groupthink then I apologise, but I really dislike the guy.

Oh, and the 'index' - no! (unless he fills in every word himself - it'll keep him quiet for a couple of years) It's an excellent tool for a technical 'help page' thing but not for navigating, which is apparently his intent. There must be an easier way of doing something similar automatically using dpl - researching. The google search is good - but I have seen it before, tmt at least has used it recently as I recall (can't remember exactly where) - out of all that, 1 good thing!

Boils down to: It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

This morning you've had converse with 'Slink' - to my mind that's a bloody good way for a new editor to start. (it does occur to me that Slink might be a sock of teratornis sneaking in under the radar! - for a self confessed non wiki person he seems to be quite wp savvy (joke). Seriously, Slink seems quite RW material, if Teratornis had started like that he might be more appreciated.

Above composed while eating Weetabix & (subsequently) toast spread with Golden Shred marmalade & drinking three cups of very nice coffee. Sun's shining - all's right with the world, I'm much less aggranoyed after a night's sleep, well, a morning's sleep. I'm turning off for a few hours now to let the righteous reply. Susan^{talk to me} 08:45, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

In 1933, the Danish/Norwegian author wp:Aksel Sandemose wrote a novel called A Fugitive Crosses his Tracks (Bear with me for a moment). In this novel, he describes the social structure of a fictional small provincial town. One of the central elements of this description is the wp:Jante Law, which refers to eleven unwritten rules that govern this small town. They can be boiled down to "Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us." In other words, don't stick out from the crowd, attempt something new or do anything that meets with disapproval from the majority. This seems to be exactly what's going on right now.

The long and short of it is that if we want RW to grow, we must move beyond this "small village mentality". There will be new people who we may not personally like or agree with, but who may still have something valuable to contribute to the site, and we must all learn to accomodate them. In any case, the above conversation is way beyond the line of what is acceptable in a public forum ("Terapoophead"?). Imagine if it had taken place on CP - it would have gone straight to Best of Conservapedia. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:14, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

And another point: I really don't understand this recent opposition to interwiki links. Personally, I think they're great, exactly because we're not an encyclopedia. With an interlink, if we want to elaborate on an important term that's a bit obscure, but not relevant enough to have our own article for, just link to WP. Easy for everyone! Unless, of course, we want to make things intentionally difficult for our users - but why in the world would we do that? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:27, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

"Don't think you're anyone special or that you're better than us," does not equate to "don't stick out from the crowd." It equates to "don't be a condescending pratt." I still feel no particular reason to be accomodating to newly arrived condescending pratts when they make no effort to accomodate the norms of the group. When vandals arrive we dont sit around waiting for their long term colours to show, we act almost immediately by reverting their work Obviously vandals are treated differently to others, so the difference in treatment is not the issue. You have again referred to possible improvements from our subject. How long do you suggest we wait? Is he the only source of these improvements? Is he, or the potential improvements, worth more than an active editor? :---Remarcsd 09:41, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Edited to clarify, and to remove a comment that made me the condescending pratt.--Remarcsd 09:51, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

(I must say that it quite an unusual feeling to find myself on the same side of a debate as AKjeldsen) anyway, at the risk of being accused of WikiLawyering, we should perhaps remember our guidelines "2. Personal "attacks", however justified, are strongly frowned upon." and "4. An editors User page space is inviolable; they are free to do with it what they want". Apart from that I've nothing to add to what I said above.--Bob^{bing for apples} 09:59, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

(Indeed. These are strange times.) I took the liberty of reviewing Teratornis' comments, and while his diplomatic skills may not be the best (as he himself recognizes more than once), I can't see him behaving as a "condescending pratt". What I can see is a number of long-term RW editors and sysops behaving with an unusually high level of meanness, and that has to stop. It's irrational, it's uncivil and it reflects badly on all of us. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:12, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

section break

(it's getting a bit long)

I offer the following:

• Cite 1: my polite(?) suggestion & his reply That's what started me on this personal vendetta/witch hunt.
• Cite 2: my comment, reasoned and non offensive (?) on his index - with a suggestion for further investigation. To date (10:07, 19 October 2007 (EDT)) no response. Anyhoo I'll be offline for the rest of the day - wiedersehen Susan^{talk to me} 10:07, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

And maybe that's where it should have ended. How about Cite 3 and the stuff above? If I was a new guy, acting in what I thought was good faith, and got a post like that on my user talk page and then noticed a bunch of sysops openly talking about me elsewhere on the wiki in a not-so-rosy way, I wouldn't be very inclined to come back and respond either. As long as he wasn't breaking stuff and stuck to his user pages, who the hell cares? Aim the giant community middle finger at the Jeb crowd, who actually deserve it. At this point I think the mob owes Teratornis an apology.--Bayes^update 12:38, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

After reading my comment above again, it's probably more harsh/less rational than I should have been to the people who find Teratornis irritating. But I stand by the premise.--Bayes^update 18:25, 19 October 2007 (EDT) <-- P.S., the Jeb crowd still deserves the middle finger.

Well, I see no harm in the guy, and he seems to bring a lot of skillz to the table.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 13:29, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I almost wish he(?) was a sock of mine. CЯacke® 18:44, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

'Sigh' I really need to stop editing at night, I tend to lose rationality as the hours grow longer. On to the matter at hand, I am willing to let him experiment so long as none of the "I've got teh mad wiki skills" and ".....where I'm a Sysop...." crap creeps in. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:59, 19 October 2007 (EDT) Note: Obviously not direct quotes.

It's easier for me to apologise down here than above... partly for attitude and partly for the "terapoophead" thing (ok, I couldn't remember his whole handle, but that's no excuse). Sure, I make fun of everyone's handles here, but usually in a friendly context. The context above was not friendly, so it at best was an ad hom. I'll block myself for a couple of hours or something to partly atone. human 21:19, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

a question

I have something to ask, and the reason I'm asking you in particular is because you are a go-to-guy, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to enlighten me with an answer.

The question deals with ip addresses and their role in banning. Specifically, about banning an account of mine...let me spend some time to elaborate...About a month in a half ago (I think, I am really not sure) I made my very first CP account. I titled it "MrJohnson23". It seemed like an okay random name. The whole purpose was to be a deep undercover sock, except with no ulterior motive like getting into sysop-ship or something. However, I wasn't being extremist or anything, in fact quite the opposite, in my edit. I say edit because (lol) I only made one edit then promptly stopped making edits because I wasn't motivated enough.

Well, this is quite a lengthy tale, but trust me it gets better.

Anyway, the thing about my logging on of MrJohnson23 was that I only did so at school. In fact there are 2 computers I regularly use at school. (in the future of this discussion, I am going to refer to the ip addresses of the two computers as ip1 and ip2, because it makes things WAY simpler.) I only logged in as MrJohnson23 from ip2. However, I also logged in on my RW account from the same computer.

Now, heres where my questions start to arise, continue reading....

From ip1 (a computer which happens to be 4 floors and the opposite side of the building away from ip2 lol) I have logged in as my RW account, but not my CP account. At ALL. I made sure of it. Anyway, I went to randomly try to edit the CP page of RW today (because, it being a blank page, it has an "edit" tab on the top). I assumed it would say "you need to log in" or something; that was what I was expecting. However, it didn't say that...It said "This ip address is blocked by Karajou. Reason: MrJohnson23 is a sock, RW user Reuleaux". (or something like that; it mentioned me by name.) This confused the hell out of me for several reasons. First, I had never logged on as MrJohnson23 from ip1, only from ip2. Second, I wondered how Karajou got the upstairs ip1 address; I had never used MrJohnson23 from that computer. I am assuming he found out what ip addresses that i had logged Reuleaux onto and banned those as well when he banned ip2 (oh yea he banned the ip addresses, not just the account).

This leads to my final questions:

How did Karajou get the address for ip1? Was he just looking at the ip addresses from RW and from CP and comparing them? Can they DO that? If so, how??? Also, I would not be surprised if i got banned and I HAD logged in as MrJohnson23 from ip1, because i actually have a userpage for ip1 that points that ip right to me...it is at User:204.152.152.30. If MrJohnson had logged on from that ip, it wouldn've been a dead giveaway why he was banned. However, it is kindof unsettling that where I have logged Reuleaux onto can be traced somehow. This is my main question: Based on you reading my tale, how did I get banned? How did the ip1 get found out I wonder? And why oh why are the people at conservapedia paranoid freaks?

If all of this is confusing or you have a question about MY questions (lol) please tell me. I have to go eat dinner now and will be back whenever... ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 18:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I will step in and answer if you don't care, you signed the IP address here on RW and that is what led KooKoo to do a checkip and block here. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:44, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Yea i was assuming it was something simple like that...the confusing bit was that I had never logged on from the IP address that was banned, so this was the basis of my confusion. However, I have not yet had the chance to check to see if the IP where i MADE the account is blocked (haven't had that class yet). I guess i'll have to wait until monday and see. It still required a lot of unnecesary snooping for a single conservative edit from a new user if you ask me.

Also, I have another question. I am assuming (from this whole experience) that it is possible to see all of the ip's that a certain account had logged onto? Otherwise it would seem Karajou is a psychic because I never logged onto MrJohnson23 on the ip that got banned. In fact, the only way i can see Karajou pulled it off would be to look at all the ips that Reuleaux had logged onto. OH! yay i have finally formulated an Ultimate Question:

Can CP people view ips that RW members have been using via methods short of straight up hacking??♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 00:51, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

No, CP sysops can not see the IPs of RW members unless they do not log in and post with the IP address or sign the IP page like you did. I checked the other IPs that you have used to login to RW on CP and neither is banned. The only one banned is the one I linked to which you must of used to sign into at CP with that account. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh ok then, I must've logged onto the ip that got banned a single time, because I really don't remember it. At least the others aren't baned. Thank you Tmtoulouse, you've been a ridiculously huge help. =D ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 09:41, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

APOLOGY

I apologise unreservedly to Teratornis for my conduct. I was wrong & shouldn't have behaved like a small child throwing a tantrum. SusanG 193.113.235.182 03:45, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

You and me both. Susan, don't kick yourself. Me, I was a dumbass with no excuse. You are still flooded out of your home. You have an "excuse" to make a mistake... me, on the other hand... human 08:59, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Never mind, I see you have done so. human 09:03, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we were feeding on each other in a rather nasty positive feedback - result a nasty howoooooool! It's fun to talk with someone in the midle of the night but that's no excuse is it? 193.113.235.168 Susan (I keep dropping out!) 09:15, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Any hoo, he's spurred me on to do some deep dpl research to try to do what he's doing but automatically. I'm sure he could do it - he seems to have the nous. 193.113.235.168 09:18, 20 October 2007 (EDT) (S)

I would like to add myself to this list, in addition to citing my self inflicted one hour block of the previous day. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 13:33, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

what

So, what has been happening at this moronic site? Bohdan

Well, without you around, we had to resort to blocking each other and moving each other's user pages. Then that got boring so we wrote some articles. Then that got boring so we went back to the random wandalism. And how have you been during this most recent sabbatical? Still playing at CP? I noted that you were blocked for 30 seconds over there, was that a Tennessean pi block? human 19:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Lulz

Lulz, this name is unblocked! User:Fenton Klan Klux Ghosts Aryan SUPERIOR RACE|Fenton Klan Klux Ghosts Aryan SUPERIOR RACE 19:18, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Gee, thanks for pointing out that oversight! Fixing it now... human 19:32, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey

Can I have crat to further torment B? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

If I did that, I'd have to 'crat him, too, to ensure a fair fight. Right? Then think the hell that would break loose. human 20:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Do it. Unless your a coward.

Valid point. Ugh, that scares me. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Can you block me for about five minutes so I stop feeding the racist troll? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 21:35, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Please ignore the previous comment. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:00, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

You can block yourself, can't you? human 22:20, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I remembered that right after I posted that. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:31, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

<- De-sysop me. Until next time..... ^{— Unsigned, by: Bohdan / talk / contribs} <--replaced page with...

Always fun when he drops in. I still think it would pwn to have powers that he could only dream of. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:27, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Glad you enjoyed wrestling the pig in the mud! I guess I did, too. Trouble is, the pig enjoys it more! (not calling Mr. B. a "pig" just using an old saying...) human 01:38, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Illinois revert

boobies

"Land of Lincoln" may be alliteration but so is "Triley's Territory", and the latter creates more lulz, so why is the former the better to you? Riley X. Tiadon 20:14, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

The lulz appears to be highly narrow in focus. IE, it's only funny to you? Unless thre is some hilarious, massive T. Riley meme I am unaware of... human 20:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, di you know that Land of Lincoln abbreviated to LOL? Maybe that was the "lulz" you intended. Riley X. Tiadon 20:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Nah, I mostly just put it in because it was "factual". So, do you call Illinois "home"? If so, you can probably fatten the article up with some cultural touchstones, etc. - factoids and gentle snark go well together on our "state" articles. Remember to keep it a fun read! human 20:45, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

hey

Your right, I am not blocked. But earlier IT said I was. I wanted to be unblocked to mock something outrageously stupid you said, but now I forgot what is was or why I even wanted to comment. Oh well... Bohdan 00:35, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, just work your way back through my contribs and I'm sure you'll find it... human 00:37, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Who is the IT of which you speak? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Pinto, are you really that naive? Bohdan

Who is this Pinto? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:47, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

A bean. You remember... WE are IT OMGDZ! human 01:23, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I still don't get it, perhaps I should remove these comments, it'll help page rank and impress prospective leading sites....... </sarcasm></Conservative para> Locke ^{Always Watching......} 17:49, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

I don't know if anyone's ever thanked you for this, but thank you for being so vigilant about typos. I try to catch them myself, but obviously my mind was a bit elsewhere as I was writing. (Usually about five steps ahead of my fingers.) Researcher 00:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome. On a wiki, we all get each others' backs. Thank the goat for those who have corrected my typos and Englishyfied my use of language - and rewritten my crappy stubs. Good fun, isn't it? I appreciate the affirmation. human 00:33, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

OK I give up :)

I tried it myself, but I can't seem to figure out why my sig isn't working. Could you possibly help me? I copied my sig into a subpage (User:CheFan/sig) but it's still not working. I can't see the difference between my sub and yours, so I must have set my prefs wrong? The "nickname" is currently {{SUBST:User:CheFan/sig}} (the little thingy is checked). I'm soooo close but I can't seem to get it working :( (manually typing in the template works, as you can see) CheFan^{is more liberal than you!}

I see dead people:

[1] Susan^{speak your mind} 18:47, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the creep-out! There are actually a half dozen or so of us out there... Huw's Dune Buggies was one of my favorites... So, anyway, how come I don't at least get the "How Green Was My Valley" representation before I get the creepy dead people? Man... Anyway, Red Sox 2-1 over the Rockies for a 2-0 lead the "World" Series. Kewl... human 01:36, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Your piccy gives me the shivers - you're a dead ringer for my brother (as he was many years ago!). He did a real nasty on our family, causing my parents to attempt suicide, & I've only spoken to him once in the past 20 years. Don't even know where he lives now, but one of his sons is in Vermont somewhere. Susan^{say something then!} 15:53, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

That would be way to freaky a coincidence.162.82.215.199 16:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh! he's not Welsh - nobody's all bad. Susan^{say something then!} 16:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yo

What do you mean by nowiki out the red links? /wikinoob Norseman^Wassail! 15:17, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Above the editing box is a button that automatically makes tags like this: <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki> and any wiki-coding inside is ignored. It is one way of getting rid of a redlink - put the nowiki tags around the whole thing. It's ugly looking afterwards, but it retains the intent of what was written (that it be a link). Example: [[liberal deceit]]. human 15:43, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

baseball

is for losers. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bohdan / talk / contribs}