User talk:Human

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

---

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

See the history of vandalism to this article

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)

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)

TWIGO

Regarding this section I was trying to be careful about exposing some great parody, but you do understand my point right? SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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)