User talk:Stabby the Misanthrope

About me Talk to me Proper goddamn use of punctuation Stuff by me Handy stuff

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>

, (new)

See the history of vandalism to this article

Are you back?

Huh? PFoster 19:44, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I don't know. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:52, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Well, either way, nice to see you around again. I hope all is well with you. What's Hebrew for "hugs 'n' kisses"? ħuman 03:33, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"Shalom" is close to what you mean. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:25, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, very well, then. Shalom! ħuman 14:47, 20 December 2008 (EST)

A very important e-mail...

You know the drill....PFoster 16:48, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Nazism/Fascism...

I assume that when you're done splitting the cats they'll become blue links again, and the old cat will go bye-bye? ħuman 23:17, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Correct. Care to help me? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, nevermind, I'm done. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:31, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I figured you'd "complete" the task you set for yourself, I guess I was just checking. I'd help, but, as you pointed out, you're done. You're pretty efficient when you get going, and it wasn't a huge task (hehe, I remember you racing against the "footnotes" bot, I think you either tied or won a small victory on the race from A to M vs. Z to M?) ħuman 00:08, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I think it was a tie. : ) And thank you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Hehe... yah, probably. Very close, either way. And you're welcome. New project ;) Alphabetize the categories on every article! Isn't it time we did that? Food for thought = brain worms? ħuman 00:16, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Alphabetize the categories? *shudders* That's crazy talk. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I was about to explain how I intended to continue arranging categories using my logical yet highly arbitrary rubric, but now that I think about it, alphabetizing them makes much more sense. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Kindly Demote Me

I know that this will get people bickering. I have hit upon the key. And yes, I'm serious. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is an evil librul} 17:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

What a coincidence—I was planning to demote you today anyways! : D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Why thank you. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor"^{is an evil librul} 17:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

It's done—check your talk page. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Best random quote from your sig.

Hiya, Netharian! Welcome to the international pussy of icicles!--Netharian 19:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:16, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Mathematics Articles

I see you've taken notice of my work. I recently uploaded some images and used them in a few articles, but for some reason I cannot upload any more images. Do you know what could be causing this? thescaryworker 21:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)

New users have the number of images they can upload limited, in order to head off vandalism. You can either wait until tomorrow, or... I can make you a sysop. (Seeing all the hard work you're doing, I will do so if you ask.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks, that would be great. Currently I'm coming over from Conservapedia's moronic work environment and bringing my articles with me. I'm working in conjunction with a few people who recently left CP's diminishing ranks of mathematics editors. thescaryworker 21:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Actually the uploads are shut down because I am in proccess of moving the site to a new server. Everything will be back to normal as soon as we are moved. tmtoulouse 21:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*shrugs* Oh well. But regardless, Scaryworker, you've been "demoted"—check your talk page. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Um...You Doing Alright Over Here???

Heavens to betsy. I felt obligated to log on just to talk you down. Everything's going to be okay, man. Keep your eyes on the prize. (Or something.) A Writer of Vaudevilles 23:54, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, thank you for talking to me. It was getting so lonely here. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:11, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Aloha, hello, holla, and shalom. ħuman 00:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Hi Huw! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Hi J.! Can I use your full first name, or that still "private"? ħuman 01:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Feel free to call me Jacob. (No "Jake", though—only my parents get to call me that.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:23, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks. And, yes, whenever there is a potential nickname issue I always ask first what a person prefers to be called, and then respect it. ħuman 01:26, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Huw. That's very considerate of you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)

The hell? THE HELL>>>??>?>??/

You really don’t remember me, do you, Lieutenant? Lance Corporal John V. Dempski? You don’t remember the tarantulas? That warehouse on Mt. Kilamanjaro? You fucking S.O.B. You set me up and you killed my wife and you broke my spine and you DON’T REMEMBER MY NAME?!? THE FUCKING SPIDERS, MAN! REMEMBER THE FUCKING SPIDERS???The electrocutioner 04:43, 8 January 2009 (EST)

I ...

... have ditched that facebook account. I'd forgotten it was there until they emailed me that you'd "written on my wall".I don't really think it's my thing. Toast 22:19, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Aw, poo. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:20, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Side-by-side-by-side

I did one for Conservapedia:Quantifying Mental Strength. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 02:00, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I saw that, but I'd never actually processed that it used three columns instead of two. I probably would've been easier if I'd just copied that instead of trying to splice a third column into the two-column version on my own. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Old server

Jeeves has stolen your account on the old server; I would advise you to change your password. Phantom Hoover 07:47, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Oy vey! I don't know your password! It is impossible for me to know your password! --JeevesMkII 08:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, paranoia on my part. I was panicking somewhat. Phantom Hoover 12:41, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes you have. I would like my password and my email returned to what they were. I would also like an apology. It doesn't matter that you did it on the old RationalWiki—what you did was a gross violation of privacy. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I hope you liked my little present to you and other post RW1ers. ħuman 23:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)

The password is foobar. Phantom Hoover 13:07, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Standards thing

I meant to write this earlier, but now will do. Thanks for going to all the effort of restructuring the new version of the community standards. Maybe it's just me, but I like the see the "old" next to the "new" so I can "think" about it. I appreciate your efforts, and I hope other users don't take the sparks that flew along the way as personal. Well, at least, I don't, and I hope you don't. Shalom (I don't mean to abuse the word) - or at, at least, thank you. ħuman 23:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Aw, shucks, Huw... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Hugs, Jacob. We're on the same side, after all. ħuman 01:01, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Emails

I apologize for filling your inbox with duplicate emails. Phantom Hoover 16:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Eh? What emails? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I used the send email form many times, because the page wasn't loading and I wasn't sure if they had gone through. If there were no emails, then the above post never happened. Phantom Hoover 14:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

This message will self-destruct in 5... 4... 3... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Help (other than psychological)

Hi,

I still prefer that you kill the redirects to this page in your userspace, though—double redirects don't work.

I'm new to this janitor job and I don't know how to find the double redirects to stamp them out. Would you mind walking me through it? Thanks.

--UnicornTapestry 04:55, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Of course I don't mind. ^_^ It's easy: just go to Special:DoubleRedirects, and you'll find every double redirect listed there. Of the handful we have, most are there on purpose (like the "Circular reasoning" one). The page I was prompting you to delete is listed there: User:UnicornTapestry/sandbox/Goatism. Another page you should clear out is User talk:UnicornTapestry/sandbox/Goatism—it's not a double redirect (and hence not listed with the others), but it is a redirect no one will ever use. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:08, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks! Easy once you've shown me how. --UnicornTapestry 05:35, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Just a reminder, Unicorn: you're not supposed to delete talk pages with content in them. Ever. Just so you know, I already resurrected it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the save, there. I realized I'd made a mistake after I'd done it. --UnicornTapestry 05:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)

No harm done in the end : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:53, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Recatting

Could you please make yourself a bot while recatting things - you're cluttering up recent changes. Phantom Hoover 05:37, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Is that a serious request? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:37, 25 January 2009 (EST)

A little Uncle Ed their on the girl recat. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 05:39, 25 January 2009 (EST)

If I were Ed Poor I would've recatted them as "organisms" : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:44, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? Phantom Hoover 05:45, 25 January 2009 (EST)

It just struck me as a silly request. Could you tell me how it makes things difficult for you? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:52, 25 January 2009 (EST)

It makes it harder to find interesting edits and is a general nuisance. Phantom Hoover 05:54, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I understand, Phantom. So I'm sorry to say that I am not willing to change myself into a bot whenever I feel like mass recatting. I do not feel I am out of line to ask you to just bear with it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:00, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Turning human editors into bots is pretty dubious. Are you sure we should be doing it? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:18, 25 January 2009 (EST)

As long as they get turned back before they need to eat (or drink) again, the lasting effects are negligible. ħuman 19:11, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Phantom Hoover (as he requested, and I granted) or anyone else is free to bot themselves when making repetitive edits. I view it as a matter of personal preference, and I will not do so myself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:18, 25 January 2009 (EST)

RA, do you think you could pause your recatting efforts for a while? I really think there's some serious problems developing in this catting saga, and it's just getting worse as you go. Let's talk about it first. DogP 00:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Alright. Sorry for doing that doing the discussion—it's a well-ingrained habit in me to "fix" (what to me are) poorly-categorized articles when I see them. I'll hold off until we can reach some sort of agreement. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:52, 6 February 2009 (EST)

No, it's a habit for you to do whatever you feel like, without ever asking for "community" input. Notice that I was not the one to complain first here, you are fudging up the wiki with your own preconceived notion of how it should be organized. DogP, is this being discussed in one central location, at least? ħuman 02:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I think your accusation of "fudging up the wiki" is uselessly subjective. To me, my actions are helpful, and to you, my actions are "fudging up the wiki". Until the discussion regarding categories has been concluded, neither of us can claim to be right about which catting policy is and is not most useful to the site. Hence, why I stopped recatting and have engaged in the discussion, so we can work out the best course of action. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I have apologized and stopped recategorizing, as Doggedpersistence asked of me. Now, Human, did you have any constructive criticism to share with me, or did you just want to pile some shit on? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

"Last one for the night"

It's quarter to twelve in the morning for me. Phantom Hoover 06:43, 25 January 2009 (EST)

It was 3:23 in the morning for me. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:03, 25 January 2009 (EST)

My goat. Are you a vampire? Phantom Hoover 16:09, 25 January 2009 (EST)

OMG censorship!

Nah, he's has no resemblence to anything otherkin in the least- if he was a vampire, I'd know. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 18:04, 25 January 2009 (EST)

No, just unemployed. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:34, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Told you. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 18:34, 25 January 2009 (EST)

So you're an unemployed vampire? Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 12:38, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Kind of. Except without the "vampire" part. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)

CUR

CUR is currently being dragged across RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse‎ as you seem largely disinterested and around now could you make the final decision? - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 22:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Alright. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:22, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Good call, PI. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 22:26, 27 January 2009 (EST)

What exactly do you want me to decide upon? I'm willing to supervise any probation placed on CUR, though I currently don't see much agreement regarding the terms of probation. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:31, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Aaah; Query "disinterested" as RA was the one who Sysoped CUR Love² 22:58, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I think they mean "disinterested" in the sense that I haven't lobbied for any side in the discussion about CUR, and have stayed out of the various related furry/therian/otherkin discussions. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)

WHO sysopped CUR is irrelevant--everyone gets sysopped after a while, it's SOP. TheoryOfPractice 23:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Not necessarily. Some 'crats sysop new users faster than others. I think it's highly relevant. For instance, I never would have sysopped CUR. He has always been too much of a clumsy idiot to be trusted with a lousy mop and broom. RA sysopped him when he was not necessarily "mostly harmless" - CUR has been edit warring and making a jerk out of himself since day one. ħuman 01:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks

Haha, thanks for the welcome! My name is a ficticious one made up so very long ago. I hope to have fun with this site! Thanks Bobamnertiopsis 23:59, 27 January 2009 (EST)

You're welcome! I always find the origins of people's username's interesting. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Bork

You borked your edit to fun:poutine. What are the odds you mucked up any of your other 700 recatting edits? Can you re-check them for functionality in your copious spare time? I'd like to think I don't have to check your recatting work for competence, since I prefer to trust you... ħuman 01:24, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I stand by all my work as being done to the best of my ability. I am, of course, only human, so naturally I will make mistakes.

As for the mistake rate on my "700 recatting edits", I would like to think it shares the same rate as your your 10,000+ mainspace edits. I look forward to continuing our mutual trust in each other's editing abilities.

Additionally, I am putting renewed effort into obtaining employment, and will generally only be available on weekday evenings and all day on weekends, so my free time is unfortunately not as abundant as it once was. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:55, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Vandal group

The vandal group on the bureaucrats user menu doesn't work. I have been editing like this for nearly a day. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Hilarious. Of course, tmt's been a vandal for quite a while now. Noticed it way back when. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 20:13, 28 January 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict) Between yours, Phantom Hoover's, and my attempts, I'd say we have data to call it a definite trend : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

So what's the point? You can't be a vandal and a sysop or 'crat? Or does the vandal bin not work at all? If it doesn't, then action may be required on our part. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 20:22, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I think the vandal group is separate from the vandal bin. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure it is. When you look at the user list, under group, all of FD's socks are in the vandal group. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 20:30, 28 January 2009 (EST)

That's just because of double handling. Take "A long way to Tipperary" as an example. He was put in the Vandal group (as a user rights change) by TheoryOfPractice on 7th Jan. In fact the vandal bin records show he'd already been binned on 4th Jan. If the vandal group doesn't work & it's just causing confusion & double handling, we should probably get it removed from the user rights screen. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a good chance that the 'cratable "vandal" group predates the bin, and was created as a joke. Considering the possible confusion it creates, I suppose someone should whine to Trent if we can't remove it ourselves. ħuman 21:55, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I suspect the 'crat group was Trent's original idea but like the hide/show of edits decided that in the interest of fairness it should be available to all sysops rather than just 'crates. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 21:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It's also sort of useless if sysops can't use it... ħuman 22:00, 28 January 2009 (EST)

You would need a 'crat on nearly around the clock to implement the change group system, where as I don't think more than 10 or 15 minutes would pass without one of our legion of sysops being on. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 22:02, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Can I also be part of the banana slug group? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 18:20, 29 January 2009 (EST)

We do have 'crats on almost round the clock. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 04:31, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Think I preferred you as a bot.

:-)  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 21:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yah, but if I bot myself, Human won't see which edits to come and bitch at me about. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:45, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, he will. he makes it a priority to police all your edits. When you were a bot, I just switched "show bots" on every 5 or so refreshes - just to see what your particular brand of sanity was making you do.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 21:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

There's just no getting away with anything here, is there? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:53, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Much botter better.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 22:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! Actually, I think the only user I ever put on "patrol every fucking edit" was Proxima, because no matter how good her edits were, the writing itself was usually awful, and it embarrasses me, for some unknown reason, to see poor writing on this site. Anyway, I don't have "hide bots" turned on on my watchlist. If RA does a hundred edits as a bot, I can always look at one or two our of curiosity, and "hide" bot edits to see the recent history without them. Ironically, of course, this round of edits resulted from a discussion Jacob and I had regarding subcats to politics... well, at least the one I checked ;) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Enbottening

What are you planning to do? Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 16:51, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, horrible things, which innocent eyes such as your own are not ready to see : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:53, 31 January 2009 (EST)

But I can see them. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 16:54, 31 January 2009 (EST)

You fool... you know not the significance of what you are witnessing. What you are seeing is the dawn of a new world order! Buwahahahahahaha! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I always thought that it would involve more than recatting some spoof cards, for some reason. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 17:02, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Mind if I put an end to this bottening? I can stop the formation of the NWO right now! I will fight you, every step of the way, RA! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 17:03, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Then my work here is done... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:04, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Huh? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 17:04, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Your mere sysop powers are nothing against our 'cratship! Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 17:06, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Yes. Bow before the mighty paper-pushers! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:07, 31 January 2009 (EST)

That's what you think. . . I am also known as Human! I am also known as Tmt! I am RationalWiki, and you cannot battle me! I never back down, and I never surrender! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 17:08, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Don't be so silly. Human and Trent would never lower themselves enough to impersonate you. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 04:33, 1 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) That's what you think. . . ħuman ^{— Unsigned, by: ConservapediaUndergroundResistor / talk / contribs}

Present

for you  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 21:37, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you, Toast—I always wanted my own courtroom! : D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Vandal

I note you were one of several who dealt with THC LOADEE. Fortunately there was more than one of you. On Dec 10th last year I dealt with a vandal attack single handed. That’s a thankless task. If you get it right the chances are no one notices. If you block the wrong person under pressure or seem to block the wrong person under pressure you’re accused of sysop abuse. If you ever find yourself the lone defender against a persistent vandal look for other active sysops in recent changes and ask them in their talk pages to help. Proxima Centauri 13:14, 2 February 2009 (EST)

User:THC LOADE has just turned up. For the reason given above I’m not dealing with this single handed. Proxima Centauri 14:05, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks

For getting the Community Standards revamp started & all the work you did on various drafts of it. I tried to send an intercom message earlier in response to yours, but instead I accidentally broke the site for a while. Anyway, I've now linked to all the various revamp pages at the top of RationalWiki talk: Community Standards, and marked them as archived discussions. Any more discussions about changes should be at the CS talk page rather than keeping any of those other ones going. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:44, 3 February 2009 (EST)

*Purrrrrrrrrr* Oh, it was nothing : ) And I thank you, for putting so much effort into seeing the final product through. I truly enjoyed working with you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I suspected the breakage had something to do with the intercom when I saw the message blanked. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Why are you purring? I thought I was the only one who purred around here. (please don't bring up the subject again, its a joke) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 21:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Many, many editors here purr. We just don't attribute "deeper meaning" to it. We purr. It means we're happy. ħuman 00:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Wow!

It's funny that constructive editing got me a sysopship here, while getting me banned...elsewhere. I'll try to live up to this. Czolgolz 10:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)

That's CP for ya. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{is an evil librul} 13:59, 4 February 2009 (EST)

No matter how many times I hear it, I am always struck by the contrast between our sysopping policies. Here's to hoping you live up to it ; ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:05, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know of any other wiki that has a sysopping policy like ours. Works though. Totnesmartin 18:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Cascade protection

Is there a reason your userpage is cascade protected? -- Nx ^talk 07:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Yes: to keep vandals from fiddling with the personal templates displayed on it. It's more efficient than locking them individually. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Paranoid :) ħuman 23:32, 5 February 2009 (EST)

It also protects the public templates used on it (which is how I noticed it), and I thought we were against that sort of thing. -- Nx ^talk 18:02, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Random hello

Hello! :D Refugee^{talk page} 17:43, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Castle

'sOK. Totnesmartin 18:11, 8 February 2009 (EST)

That's good to here. I dreaded having to FIGHT TO THE DEATH with you over it. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:12, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Fighting to the death is actually very bad for my stress levels. I've had to stop wiki-ing for weeks sometimes. It's the main reason I disappear from here, the other being computer problems. Totnesmartin 18:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Please stop it

Well, I was bored and no one was paying any attention to me. And it's not my fault you took so long to respond.

Now do something interesting. Mei 19:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)

*sniffs indignantly* I am always interesting. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Sing me a song. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mei / talk / contribs 20:20, 9 February 2009}

I don't sing. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Dance me a dance.

I can't sing, I can't dance. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Bot

You're a bot now? Mei 23:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

For the time being. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, he just reverts into Bot mode when he is moving around articles, then removes the rights, reventing him from spamming up the recent changes. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like moronic coke sackers

Can I do that? Mei 23:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

If you ask, I'd be happy to 'bot you (at least temporarily). Or, you can make a separate account, get a bureaucrat to enbotten it for you, and use that whenever you'll be making repetitive edits en masse. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:19, 11 February 2009 (EST)

RA and I are what is known as Bureaucrats. We were kicked down the stairs (turned into sysops), then we landed in a bucket full o' crap (crats? Crap? get it? he he). Bureaucrats have the ability to change user access abilities, in other words, we can make sysops. Sadly, I dunno what the criteria is for becoming a Crat. I was kicked down by Trent when I asked to become... I don't even remember. We hand out sysopship like candy, but Crats, I dunno about. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like moronic coke sackers

Here is a list if you want to see it, bureaucrats and sysops ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like moronic coke sackers

He does it so his repetitive "chore" edits can be ignored easily by people. ħuman 23:38, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Always with the unpleasant subtexts, Human. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Jacob, you misinterpret me without allowing for "good faith". You do it so people can click on "don't show bots". I was merely explaining to people that you do it for their own convenience. ħuman 00:00, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, Huw. I though you meant that I did it so I could slip unpopular edits past people's radar. I apologize for taking you in bad faith. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

No blood, no foul. But, you were the person who added "assume good faith" to the guidelines. ħuman 02:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

We never did work out a standard for bureaucratizing people... I think we all have our own standards, though I think most would agree that Mei shouldn't be bureaucratized. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

No? Mei 23:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry, Mei, but no. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Why? Mei 23:54, 11 February 2009 (EST)

My own standards are fairly high, so they're not widely accepted: For a person to be a sysop, they need only be "mostly harmless". But for a person to be bureaucratized, they should meet a higher standard. They should :(1) have made contributions of some substance; (2) be a good enough judge of character (i.e. able to avoid sysopping vandals); and (3) most importantly, participate in working with the site on a meta-level (good business sense holds that only those who actively work to maintain the health of the community should be given any sort of "administrative" powers like demoting/promoting people). (That last one is the main reason I opposed bureaucratizing Ace McWicked—my impression of him is that unless some random subject piques his interest, he rarely ventures outside of the I-just-got-off-from-work-now-it's-time-to-party train of thought.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

You can take your impression of me and shove it up your fucking arse RA. I edit from work BTW and if it means so much to you, Promote me to sysop. I havent used my powers and only aske because I felt like I should. Ace McWicked^Revolt 01:25, 13 February 2009 (EST) (I would like to apologise for the above RA - I typed it early morning upon waking with a furious hangover and after necking two stiff knocks of J&B whisky - though my sentiment remains the same, the language could have been more convivial. Love Ace)

You have got to admit those naked ass pictures are good though. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 00:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Ace McWicked - out on the game again

This from the guy who demoted CUR... standards? he wasn't "mostly harmless" yet. And still isn't. Anyway, back on topic, sort-of, perhaps we should juggle together some general idea of what constitutes cratworthiness? We could have awesome new debates! ħuman 00:04, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think the name bureaucrat speaks for itself, we are the people that do all the paperwork around here. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 00:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The standard I use for "mostly harmless" is whether or not I trust them to not tear through the wiki deleting a bunch of pages and/or block innocent, non-sysop users. It seems to me that the standard you're applying to CUR is "do I like them", not "do I trust them (not to screw up horribly)". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

A brief intermission

By the way, Human: for someone who opposes the implementation of enforced rules, you seem all to willing to make up your own rules and brutally force them on other people. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Why do you persist in this meaningless pissing contest? To what rules, which I "brutally enforce", do you refer? ħuman 01:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I refer to your forced sysopping of Cayce Pollard. Wherein, you made up your own rule (that non-vandal users must be sysopped, even if they don't want it), and brutally forced it upon another person (Cayce Pollard, who explicitly stated they didn't want to be a sysop), who then left the site because of you. It was clear to me that you really didn't give a shit about their feelings. Adding insult to injury, you, bizarrely, blamed the problem on Cayce, diagnosing her with "issues". (Human—closet authoritarian and psychologist to boot!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, dig back as far as you can? And call names, blame me for someone leaving... Whooee. Please forgive me, but go fuck yourself, "Almighty Glowing Cracker". ħuman 02:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(1) RationalWiki is almost twenty months old. Three-and-a-half months ago is not that far back. (Nor is it as far back as I can go.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(2) As for "calling you names", I think that your actions on Cayce do qualify as "authoritarian"—how else would you describe it? You had power (the power to demote/promote other people) and you used it to enforce your own arbitrary rule to the detriment of another person. Concerning my sarcastically calling you a "psychologist", remember that you did ascribe emotional problems to Cayce that I doubt even an actual psychologist would have trouble diagnosing, what with only 4 sentence-long posts and a template to go off of. Yet you presumed to know her well enough to say that the reason she left was because of "issues".

Rereading that post again, I am struck that at the end you idly speculate that "Maybe they just got bored of us anyway?". So, after callously disregarding Cayce's feelings and thoughtlessly forcing your arbitrary rule upon them, you had the nerve to say what amounts to "maybe they would've left anyway". How much shit were you willing to make up to justify your actions? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(3) I also find it bemusing that you use the word "blame", as if I was wrongly accusing you of something. Unfortunately, as is clear to anyone who reads the talk page, Cayce left as a direct result of your actions. In other words, it's your fault. Suck it up and quit pretending otherwise. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(4) Is that all you can think to say—"Go fuck yourself"? What I described was a gross injustice (by wiki standards), yet you don't even try to defend your actions. You can't even own up and apologize for it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Does any of this matter right now? Cayce Pollard isn't a good example of anything: it was SusanG, who obviously had a few issues with site authority at the time, having already "left" shortly before. I don't think a genuine new user would have reacted the same way she did. But the whole thing should be ancient history by now, to everybody involved. We now have a clause in the Community Standards that users can ask not to be sysoped, so the situation shouldn't come up again. What good is stirring up the past? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:13, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Cayce Pollard was SusanG? That... certainly does explain a lot. (*sheepishly* I really need to work on my ability to "read" people...) However, my argument still stands: Human was an incredible ass about the whole thing.

Regarding the use of "stirring up the past"... there isn't one. But I am very, very bitter, and no amount of advice to "get over it" is going to remedy that. I have witnessed what to me are many injustices (the Cayce Pollard incident is but one) and I refuse to let them go—injustice should not fade with time, especially when those who participated in it are still here, and have not changed all that much. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

My original point (which I unfortunately drowned in bitterness) was that Human often utilizes his own interpretation of the rules (as so many of us do—the sometimes vague nature of the community standards almost guarantees that everyone have their own interpretation), but then assumes his personal interpretation is a site-wide standard. This was the thrust of my post that touched this discussion off: that Human considers the idea of rules to be a big joke (judging from his not-so-subtle sarcastic comments), yet he has no problem criticizing other people for not following his interpretation of them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

To address Human's original criticism—that it was unwise of me to sysop CUR, because he was not "mostly harmless"—: This is your own interpretation—that CUR being a pest disqualifies him as "mostly harmless". Yet my interpretation of "mostly harmless" is strictly technical: will a potential sysop vaporize half the site, or block a bunch of non-vandal non-sysops? (Blocking sysops is, at worst, an annoyance. And as I recall, he stopped blocking them when he was asked to stop.) Thus, I concluded CUR to be no more harmful as a sysop than he is as a non-sysop, and accordingly demoted him. I continue to hold that there was nothing wrong with doing so. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

This discussion has been copied to RationalWiki:Administrative_Abuse#Human. If you are going to charge me with abuse, etc. (brutality?), let's have a clear process and location where it can be pursued and discussed, and if any censures are appropriate, let them be made. I am sick of your endless accusations which you only bring up when you feel like it. If you have a case, make it. ħuman 23:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Why bother? All that's left is old wounds. Nothing will come of me officially leveling charges against you—we both know that. People will cry "ancient history", you'll be martyred, I'll be belittled, recentchanges will be flooded, and nothing will have changed at the end of the day. Much better to keep it here, between two users. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:51, 12 February 2009 (EST)

1. Because you keep bringing it up, in so many ways it ought to be dealt with. 2. You have levelled charges, and keeping them "unofficial" is a sneaky twist that lets you keep whining without making your case in public, and letting the chips fall as they may. 3. Predicting the outcome is silly, you are essentially claiming to not trust the "system" that probated CUR with honor. 4. I don't respect your "right" to keep endless claims of admin abuse to be "between two users". Put up - or shut up. At least if you accuse me of it again, I can link to the Star Court archive (or you can, for better or for worse). There's no rush, take your time to collect the charges and submit them. If you seriously do not intend to follow up on your publicly made charges, I will expect a public apology, and to never read this sort of tripe again. Make your case or rest it. This EC'd with the next comment. ħuman 00:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)

On second thought... perhaps the process will prove cathartic. And I realize now that is only fair that grievances against you be aired publicly. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:00, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you. And, yes, it might do good. ħuman 00:05, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Guys, I blocked both of you for 20 minutes, which I hope will be enough for BOTH OF YOU TO FUCKING CALM DOWN. In short, this conversation has already hit the floor, hard. RA< that recent edit attack on Human was unwarrented, and your agressive tone, Human, is also unwarrented. Just take the 20 minute break, calm down, get something to drink, relax, and try to come back in a better mood for the collective sanity of RW. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like moronic coke sackers PS. Why does the Wiki always explode right before I have to go to bed...

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

Can I be a bot? Mei 00:52, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a little... uncomfortable with botting a human user. If you had a second, alternative user account, to be used just for making repetitive edits, then I would bot that. If you don't want to do that, then I'm willing to 'bot you temporarily, with the understanding that after a little while I'll de-bot you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I'd rather be a permanent bot. Mei 01:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Then no. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

BTW, what did your bot-identity do? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Are you asking what I did as a bot? Mostly fixing redirects, and fixing whatever else I happen to see while doing that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:53, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, now I get it, a man disguised as a bot: I was surprised that the fixes lacked the regularity I'd expected :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

RA did you just make manual edits as a bot or did you use something like AutoWikiBrowser? I've never been able to get AWB to work on RW or CP although it works fine on WP. Any geeks that could fix it for me would get a dozen virtual beers. Генгис^evolving 13:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Why must AWB not work on Macs? End discrimination against Mac users! Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 13:18, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Well I believe AWB uses MS .NET framework so probably needs Winedoze. Of course if you are an Apple style junky why can'you just be happy with your white & silver plastic, you don't actually need to do anything useful with it other than wave it around in front of other people do you? BTW right now there is a glowing Apple logo no more than 18 inches away from my nose on the other side of the desk. Генгис^evolving 13:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Genghis, you wound me. Macs do lots more than look pretty, and at least I don't have to carefully vet everything I download in case it's a virus. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 14:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I did everything manually. It never occurred to me to use an external editing program. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

You were right

I should have signed up ages ago. So now I have. TAFKA bunchofnumbers --Ebon 01:49, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Glad to see you join up! I am tickled pink that you joined after I prompted you. You really made my day. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:53, 12 February 2009 (EST)

No sweat

Cayce_Pattern 05:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Yay! You're back! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Susan

Yes, it is called comment on Toast's talk page. Or caius'. --"CUR^talk 21:07, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I had rather hoped to keep our discussion off-site, but that is appearing less and less possible. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)

What about the e-mail this user feature? And why should it be off-site? --"CUR^talk 21:15, 16 February 2009 (EST)

The "e-mail this user" feature has been disabled since the move. And it should be off-site for the simple reason that it involves the discussion of personal information. (Specifically, what information she would be okay with me sharing as evidence against Human.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

If you two revive that fight one more time, I will block you both. Shoo. And ask Trent to get it back online if you want it. --"CUR^talk 21:23, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Oh for Christ sake, yes, why don't you set those two against each other again. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 21:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, RA - please don't go hounding Susan over this, and please don't abuse the intercom with continuing this ridiculous pissing contest - now both you and Human have done so - it's just shamelessly self-important. "Sharing evidence against Human", "developing your case" - get off the computer and smell the flowers. DogP 21:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Why can't we all just get along? Ace McWicked^Revolt 21:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

For the exact same reason TOP and I can't, probably. Pissing contest. --"CUR^talk 21:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)

How is asking a question on the "random" channel of the intercom "abusing" it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:45, 16 February 2009 (EST)

RA, what are you hoping to achieve with this? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Look, take this from a CP user, it is this same hatred between two users that is making CP into more and more of a cesspit. There is no point I can imagine in two (from what I see, established) users getting into a pointless spat with one another. Seriously... oi. CP user 21:53, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I think its mind boggling that this has been taken as seriously as it has. As I said Jake Gittes once - "Forget it Jake, Its Rationalwiki". Ace McWicked^Revolt 21:58, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Closure. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:58, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Take it for what it is worth. I don't really care about what happens in the long run, but I have been stopping by now and then for about 6 months, and you guys have a nice community here, and even though I may disagree with your ideas and perspectives, regardless, I don't want to see people who are obviously friends (for the most part) arguing about a pointless trifle. CP user 22:05, 16 February 2009 (EST)

"Closure"? You sound like my ex-girlfriend. Ace McWicked^Revolt 22:11, 16 February 2009 (EST)

My personal opinion is to look ahead and stop looking back. I know a little bit about what happened between you and Human--not that much, really, but a little. But to be honest, dragging the community through a display of "he said-she said" is not going to help your case at all. The community standards revamp is done. If there is another policy that could prevent the sort of gripe you have with Human in the future, than propose it there. But very few are going to have patience or interest in reading your list of who changed what page when and how. A long protracted affair will just make people not want to be here--I'm certainly tired of it.Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 22:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I don't really see where closure comes into this. I doubt you'll be saying anything to Human that you haven't said before, & vice versa, especially if you're digging back into old events. Human isn't going to be debureaucratted or desysoped, and I can't see that either of you have anything to gain by dragging this baggage out into the open. Looking back over the discussion above, it looks like this current conflict flared up suddenly over some inconsequential remarks. Is it really worth the trouble this is going to cause? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Jacob, STFU

As you might have picked up from my email reply, right at this moment Terry, (aka SusanG) and Ihave other things on our minds than your petty squabbles. Kindly stop it! Marghanita Laski 01:11, 17 February 2009 (EST)