User talk:Human

This usely to cher is suspas appepets abusiveat in officpupry, and harently uted of socksed pupcial mopetb votes.

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

See the history of vandalism to this article

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)

As a confirmed mustard jar for taking on this job as a Sysop on RationalWiki: I pledge to only block users if they ask for it, or insert unfunny vandalism. I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, we will make a formal report to the mob. Is that all? If you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORITY", er, there is nothing I can or will do.

Anyone is welcome to nominate editors for demotion to sysop, and discuss the nominations here.
Sysops can summarize the nominations here -87 days until the US rejoins real world.

please block me, human.

20 minute block please? I really need to cool off, but I don't think I'll be able to without being blocked. Please, save me from myself. --Hoji^die! 18:23, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Done. Hope you relax :) human 18:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)

WIGO talk Archives

Why we gots two archive 25's?
#[[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive23|21 January 2008 - 25 January 2008]]
#[[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive24|25 January 2008 - 28 January 2008]]
#[[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive25|28 January 2008 - 3 February 2008]]
#[[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive25|2 February 2008 - 7 February 2008]]
#[[Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive26|7 February 2008 - 23 February 2008]]

CЯacke® 20:23, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I dunno, but I changed it to automatic. Oh, because you made a second one when you archived? Since I added #26 before going to "archivelinks"? We may have edit-overlapped while you were doing it, too. I wish that "archivelinks" ran a loop instead of repeated code. Also, wouldn't it be cool if it could grab the "last edited" date and list it next to the archive number? human 20:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)

You can do that! I investigated something at work for our wiki but I'm still waiting for ParserFunctions to be implemented so it hasn't got off the ground. There are some system revision variables which are listed here which should do the trick. Genghis ^Marauding 05:35, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

No relation

No relation...yeah that's what I meant. Thanks! Secret Squirrel 22:20, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Glad I got it right... I liked the funzzies of your additions, squirrel person. human 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Jokez is teh phunny. That's what I like here, you can be as snarky as you want without getting those dreaded <<test2>> <<blatantvandal>> warnings from somebody screaming NPOV Secret Squirrel 07:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, yeah, we're like uncyclopedia, with facts. human 13:59, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Another masterpiece

Yay! I wrote another essay! And this one's actually readable! ...What's with that look? No, I'm not obsessed with women. Whatever gave you that idea? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Admin abuse

Removing talk page comments: [1]

He then blocked me for re-adding them. Its time for his reign of terror to end. Desysop toulouse. Thanks in advance, DoggedamesP 18:54, 27 February 2008 (EST)

How about if I just block you both for 314 seconds for edit warring, nadhoB? human 19:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Hey, how long until TK gets back? DoggedamesP 19:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Looks like 4PM March 10 2008. human 19:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Why not just unblock him now? DoggedamesP 19:11, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Because he will be unblocked on March 10th, and there is no reason to unblock him any earlier. Regardless of whether his block is just or not, per one of the only concrete policies RationalWiki really has, his block will last a certain period of time. Short of a policy change (which, if you want TK to be unblocked earlier, you should formally propose, instead of just asking about TK's block), TK's block will not be shortened. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:21, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Why? human 19:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Time served. And rationalwiki needs some excrement, and I'm just the guy to supply it. DoggedamesP 19:16, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Get three sysops to agree with you, and I'll still ignore the idea. human 19:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

trashing

Hey, you said you wanted it trashed... one of my few actual contributions TmtamesP 16:23, 28 February 2008 (EST)

That's why I copied it to "fun", to preserve your hard work. human 16:25, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Pirates

I ate them all. I ate all the pi 22:53, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Oh hai pi eater. Nice to meet you. Leave some e for me, ktxbai. human 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Heart Mass blockage

Human, how many IPs would be blocked by range 129.115.28.0/23? In a WIGO entry I wrote "hundreds", but it's best to be accurate, 'cause I honestly had no idea. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I never really learnded that, but I'd guess a thousand or so - .000 to .999 - but it might be 2²³, who knows? Someone who knows will probably chime in. Or you could google "ip range blocks" and you'll find the MW help page easily. human 15:18, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Oy vey! It's so simple! /23 means 23 of the 32 available bits are constant, thus 9 bits of the address are variable. Thus a /23 block address 2^9 or 512 IP addresses. Or to put it another way, an IPv4 address is a series of 4 octets, making a 32 bit number altogether. So:

129.115.28.0 = 

10000001 01110011 00011100 00000000

The /23 masks of the first 23 bits, and leaves the last 9 variable:

10000001 01110011 0001110     0 00000000
-------------------------     ----------
        constant               variable

So, this /23 address hosts from:
10000001 01110011 00011100 00000000
to:
10000001 01110011 00011101 11111111

which is to say from 129.115.28.0 to 129.115.29.255

Alles klar? --Jeēv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 04:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Er, sort of. I liked the part where you just came right out and answered "512 IP addresses", but not so much the part where you explained it in detail. But I'll take your word for it that the explanation means what you say it does. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

This advertisment paid for by: The Friends of Uchiha for Sysop Committee

Uchiha is a pinin' for a demotion. After subjecting him to a painful interrogation, I'd like to chip in my support for his sysopship. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:25, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Get one more person to agree and I'll do it now. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 01:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am not really an active person here any more and dont have much experince with the user but after a breif trawl trough his contributions I see no negatives with his sysoship other then an overuse of teh lulz spake. - Icewedge 01:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Uchiha for President Sysop! -- ^eewnamuħ   02:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Hello, my name is NightFlare and I endorse this product, service and/or movement. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 02:37, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I support this nomination. If made sysop, he'll be able to remove the ridiculously hefty and arbitrary ban I've just given him. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Wow, I thought we were all sysops. demote him ASAP. PFoster 11:17, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Hey guys, I don't mean to be rude, but uh... I can't actually unblock myself right now (no powerz yet). Just wanted to make sure that was known... 206.248.159.65 13:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I just want to point out that, traditionally, wanting to be a janitor is a disqualification. Jes' sayin', is all. human 14:58, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think we'd have to disqualify half of the cabalists, then. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

More specifically, everyone not listed here. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:00, 5 March 2008 (EST)

(User rights log); 16:16 . . Pinto's5150 (Talk | contribs | block) (changed group membership for User:Uchiha from (none) to sysop: Per consensus. )

A bit sluggish there in getting around to it. Don't you know you're supposed to be available 24/7? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:19, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Userboxen

This user is a member of the pernicious liberal swarm. This user is an evil darwinist/humanist conspirator! This user is a member of the Darwinist-Humanist Cabal devoted to destroying all that is holy. This user is a member of the Darwinist-Humanist Cabal devoted to perverting all that is holy

When you have a chance, I'd like to creat some soft of userbox that says something like "Member of the evil darwinist/humanist conspiracy"---wanna help? User:PalMD

There's the liberal swarm one Susan^purrrrr 16:15, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Sure, I'll help... should we use the atheist fish or shark as the image?

Howzat? If you like I'll save it up. human 17:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I can haz random evil doing? May I suggest "Member of the evil darwinist/humanist conspiracy: Taking away your weapon of gun since 2007"? --Jeēv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 17:15, 5 March 2008 (EST)

That's fun too!!!! Meanwhile, I'm battling insane trolls at the blog. Must get weapon of keyboard.-- -PalMD ^--Broccoli 17:17, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I put the boxes in a box in the order they are mentioned. human 18:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

See ubx user DarwinHuman Susan^purrrrr 18:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Request for friend

Timppeli forgot his password, and asked me to ask you if you could delete his account so he can start over. Please? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:59, 6 March 2008 (EST)

See my comment at AmesG's talk page. human 20:00, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Darn it. I was almost hoping for an exasperating back-and-forth right there. Killjoy. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:02, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I can always "reset" the password. tmtoulouse ^irritate 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

So we have "discovered" an interesting weakness in MW - after a user is renamed, their old name is readily available to anyone who wants to use it. human 20:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For instance, this is human logged in as the "new" wikinterpreter... Wikinterpreter 20:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Creepy. We should remember this, and whenever someone gets their name changed, tell them to reregister the old name to keep it out of circulation. human 20:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Darn you, killjoy! We could've had so much fun confusing the hell out of each other that way! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Awesome Magic card is awesome

-- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:41, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Name change

I hereby demand, that what Heidrun has joined shall never be unbound, that you rename TmtamesP 'BohdAnders'. Do it. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

make it just "Anders". TmtamesP 15:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Quiet fewl. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Fine then. I didn't want to pretend to debate Bohdan at user talk:AmesG with you anways.

What? No invitation for me? I rarely get to practice debating with brand name! EVIL FRUITCAKE! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:12, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I just grabbed whoever was obviously on line at the time. No offense intended. Anyone checking recent changes was welcome (I suppose I should have announced it that way?) human 01:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Another random post from your favorite random poster

-- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

As long as I'm spamming you with random posts, have you taken a look at the project I started, RationalWiki:Active users? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

A very quick question...

I'm new to this Wiki and I was just wondering (seeing as I saw you edit(s) on the Liberal Delusions article) if you could tell me if the afformentioned article is humour based? It contains no referencing and seems to point out quite a few of the strong points of liberalism. Can you shed any light for me please? Thanks in advance! --81.105.28.52 06:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Human isn't up right now, but the article in question is indeed intended as humourous. It is mocking an equivalent article on Conservapedia, I believe. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, what he said. It's supposed to be sly parody. human 14:46, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

It only took me ... half a year... but...

Wow, nice! (now redo it as a gif! wink & smile!) human 17:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

BAH! Sterile^xx 17:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe. I fixed the formatting a bit where you put it in the article. human 17:39, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I note that three of those five articles were locked around early to mid-March, at roughly the same time as when I first came to Conservapedia. Mere coincidence... or something else?! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Clogs, obviously!!! human 01:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Debate

Dear Cracker,

You are cordially invited to tonights debate on Ames' talk page. Just don't tell that user:Human guy, he would ruin everything with his boring stories... oh wait... oops. This is slightly embarrassing...

TmtamesP

Oopsie. When I was young, we had to walk 20 miles in the snow to get to school... uphill both ways! human 01:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

When I was young, I had to crawl on my stomach, everywhere I went! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:43, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

sig

ain't logged on in ages. deleted. air 03:55, 14 March 2008 (EDT) ^{— Unsigned, by: Airdish / talk / contribs}

Um, and, nice to see you again? human 04:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Susan

Er, does Susan... not take this sort of thing well? ([2],purging herself) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

rww

"RWW is not affiliated with RW - it was set up and is run but some unknown person or persons"

Who do you think started it? I'm guessing it was Tmtoulouse.

TmtamesP 19:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it was a Norwegian. Never trust those Norwegians and their perennial lutefisk. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was Bohdan. human 20:00, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Για αυτό το λήμμα υπάχει και διαθέσιμο άρθρο στα Ελληνικά, με τίτλο [[3]].
is the true ruler of RWW, but even I do not now who he is. Certainly he edits as rarely as Tmtoulouse does. --Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 00:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Re: LSD

But I love LSD! Okay, fine! ;-) - I'll stop. Thanks for the message, buddy. 81.105.28.52 17:46, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, no problem. I think I left all the ones in that I saw, it would lose its funny if there were too many though, I think. human 19:31, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

most useless conributor here

I assume that would be me, correct? TmtamesP 23:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I am officially, and oh-so-respectfully (to avoid a block) withdrawing from "The Most Impressive Contributor Here" contest under protest as I've just now learned that copying ship names out of a U.S. Navy reference is not considered impressive. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 23:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course it's you, Timmy too loose to cross the Thames before peeing. human 00:28, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

There was honestly never a doubt in my mind. TmtamesP 00:30, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

What are you, some kind of credulous believer, then, Tempspam? human 00:33, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Finished importing RWW

From the ashes of destruction, we enter a glorious rebirth [4]. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 20:54, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, cool, thanks for the update. Can you somehow contact all the RWW 1.0 editors and let them know about the new address? I updated RW:RWW already. human 20:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Second place finish Human.

Special:Mostlinked. Goat still is trump. - Icewedge 02:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, yeah, it always will be ;) It passed me sometime around early last fall, I think. How ya been, Ice? human 03:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

You asked for it

RWW now has a WIGO! At least an approximation. (On the main page.) I also made a few other additions. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 07:44, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Your efforts

My spreadsheet now produces the above at the click of a button. Genghis ^Marauding 09:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Human, it is obvious from this graph that you are in blatant violation of our 99/1 policy. Please either contribute more valuable talk, talk, talk or reconsider your future with this project. Thanks and goatspeed! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:53, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Cool graph, Genghis... now can you automate the contribs table at "regular users"? Hehe. AK, you gloomy Dane, at least my talk and user talk (& othe rtalk) contribs consistently outnumber my substantive wandalism! I kan haz brake pleez in ur wickey? human 15:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much got that automated now, Human. It takes about 25 minutes to run 90 editors as XL web queries. I've had to make a few changes to RA's initial calculations. Unfortunately I'm not a great Javascript expert so it can only be run locally on Excel rather than through a browser. The Interiot tool uses javascript but the format of recent changes is different on RW. I tried to get a list of editors over the past 30 or 60 days but the recent changes only goes back about 1000 edits, which is only 3 or 4 days worth. I'll upload a full analysis shortly. Detailed analysis of individual editors has to be done as a one off. Currently I am only using the list of editors that RA uploaded, if anyone is missing then I need to add them manually. Genghis ^Marauding 19:16, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

SSquirrel

Evidently, you were right - he was pissed off about something. Weird, I don't know what got into him. He was reverting all his own edits, removing goat. DogP 12:08, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, it was weird. Maybe it was a combination of wording at Project Whitewash and perhaps some pet cats getting killed that sent him on his templating spree, which of course I reacted to (at several levels - I question the value of both template:mission and template:delete, we do just fine without them on an ad hov basis on talk pages - the templates create a cheap way to score "drive-by" points). Then things spiralled out of control... Well, hopefully we will hear from him one way or another, and figure out what went wrong. It's a pity, as he was an excellent provisioner of goatly snacks. human 15:20, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Cleaning up categories I can understand. Targeting Category:Phony Ex-Satanist Christans, Category:Reptilian Shape Shifters, Category:Jesus Spam, etc. for deletion first made no sense at all. They seemed like a perfect fit for RW, irreverant, snarky and something people might be interested in a specific category for. Too narrow in scope? So is Category:Scientology. Too silly and irreverant? So are Category:BloodSugarSexMagick and all of the Woo categories, since woo is not a word. Seems to be a double standard here. And that double standard appeared (to me at least) to be based on who created them. This came right after the mission doubt tag got put on Facebook right after I created it, which I was fine with but if we are going to delete all the lulz from the site let's delete them all, starting with all the goat related stuff. Lulz are good, that's what made it such fun to edit here, but when I get the impression things I added thinking they were a perfect fit for the site are not welcome, the fun is over. Secret Squirrel 17:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Squirrel, keep your pants on. Like you, I love the snark on this site. But I also believe that Categories shouldn't be part of that - if we go down that route, we might as well not bother having categories. If they too become endlessly entertaining, but I can guarantee that they'll become utterly useless. If you want to keep categories:Snark, Mockery AND Sarcasm, you'd be wanting a damn good argument in my book. Believe me, I was not targeting your work, I've been a Category Nazi since I ever got here, and it just so happened yours were the ones that came into my sights yesterday. I too have in the past argued for replacing BloodSexSugarMagick with Drugs, but it was created by others who were here before me, and they like it that way. Fine. But before you start adding back endless entertaining specific Categories, keep in mind that as of yesterday, we had > 300 categories, and no category for Archaeology, which to me seems a darn sight more targeted to our purpose than Phony Ex-Satanist Christians, which is an ARTICLE, not a Category. Keep the snark to the articles, but not to the Categories, PLEASE. DogP 18:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Thanks for telling us what was up, I appreciate it! I think if early on you had made that exact argument on DP's (or my) talk page, a lot of frustration might have been bypassed. For instance, we could have discussed whether one user should go around deleting mass quantities of categories, whether we a lot of weird but interesting cats or not, etc. A question comes up that occurred to me - given all of the various outlets for lulz in wiki-editing (funny links from words, the writing itself...), do we want that to extend to cats as well? It would seem in line with our overall tone, but we should be having a conversation, not reacting to unilateral actions - both of which may be perceived by some to be damaging rather than improving the site. Coming to a general agreement between as many users who are interested before major refactoring makes for a better working/playing environment for everyone - even if one "loses" an argument, it is at least satisfying to be listened to first, and get a chance to see everyone's perspective before radical changes. (PS, woo is a word. One we define clearly on this site - at my request, since I had no idea in hell what it was when I came across it here!) Talk pages are a great vehicle for discussing almost anything before action, and there should never any big hurry to delete things within hours (unless they are libelous or vandalism, of course). Anyway, I hope that at least 1/3 of what I just typed made sense and that we can get a decent discussion going about these issues. human 18:10, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

One other thing - I don't know if you've tried to rename a badly named (or simply misspelled) but popular Category. If you have ever tried to deal with such a thing with hundreds of members, know that fixing that problem is a NIGHTMARE, as you have to rename it on each and every article. So just engage brain before creating any Category, it can screw with a LOT of stuff down the road. DogP 18:13, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I was furious when you deleted "Category:Users on Dodecatuple Secret Probation... ROBOT HOUSE!!!". That was an Ames creation. TmtamesP 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Tough shit. That was one of the worst offenders, even with all apologies to Ames. DogP 18:19, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

DP, please read my comment above. We need to agree as a group that we don't want some of these "trivial" categories, not have one user unilaterally make the decision. perhaps we should move this discussion to talk main page, since it is of wiki-wide interest and many people may have opinions. Personally, I certainly agree that categories that only have, say, one user page in them are clutter (a userbox works better), but I am not convinced that some of our general lulzy/snarky attitude cannot also be expressed in categories. Oh, and "tough shit" is not a very strong way to start your argument. Of course, you were responding to #17, so it was appropriate in context ;) human 18:28, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey sport, what is #17? TmtamesP 18:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

#17 speaks! DogP 18:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, let's open a discussion about Categories! Main Page it is. Wanna move all this over, and then let's lay out some opening arguments for everyone to respond to? DogP 18:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

#17 is the new name for anything related to our long lost editor nadhoB. DP: I think copying it (or moving it and leaving a link) makes sense. Maybe it should get its own discussion page, say at rationalwiki/categories? With a seeding link from the main page? human 18:33, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I like that idea better. DogP 18:37, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Care to explain how it came about, sport? TmtamesP 18:35, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

copied to and continued at: RationalWiki:Cat_fight human 20:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Literacy

Have you ever read the Great Gatsby, old sport? TmtamesP 20:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Only in high school, my fine chap. human 20:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

So you don't remember his line "old sport"? What a shame, I've been wasting it. I'll bet Ames will appreciate it better. TmtamesP 21:53, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, Bohdan. Should I take this to mean you read a book once? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:27, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, he probably had to read it twice. Or saw the movie. human 22:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

There is a Gatsby movie? I believe that is yet another shame. TmtamesP 22:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

A movie? Try four. But maybe you are a stage adaptation purist? [5] human 22:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Oohh, sorry Human. Looks like I'm gonna have to call you out for telling a little half-truth. One of the so-called "movies" was actually a "made-for-TV movie". I might add this to liberal honesty. TmtamesP 22:29, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Oooohhh, Sorry #17, "movie" = "moving picture show" and on my television teh pikchers sho moovz! human 22:33, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks

...for catching that deletion typo thing I did. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 12:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

No problem. It happens to all of us. Like the accidental random Bold text things that happen when people click their mouse before javascript loads the tool bar... human 12:53, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Despicable!!one1

In the spirit of kindling the mass hysteria, it's my duty to inform you you're despicable. You should totally never ridicule someone's deeply held belief in the Earth being 6000 years old, for some reason. --Jeēv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 16:56, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, nice catch, didn't know if anyone would. I thought in this case it was clearly a simple and appropriate statement of fact. The faithful are welcome to their faith, as long as they realize it does not extend over all people on earth (IMO). To try to undermine the huge evidence for how our planet came to be how it is from whatever mysterious beginnings is, well, the job of nuts. human 17:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

No, no, no. You're ignoring protocol. Your part of the handshake is to tell me to go fuck myself. --Jeēv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 17:20, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, fuck you -- and your imaginary friend! human 17:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*Burp* MarcusCicero 18:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Is that snack repeatin' on ya, MC? human 18:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

P.S- The reason I'm reacting the way I am is because some of you people genuinely can't see the hate, literally swarming from your mouth. There's no point in trying to change you. MarcusCicero 18:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

You know, Marcus, I'm not embarrassed to, yes, literally, hate those who would indoctrinate children in an obviously, patently false worldview. I don't know if there's a God, a heaven or hell, and afterlife at all, but I/we do know that the earth is older than 10,000 years. A lot older. The good Christian scientists who were exploring the world of nature did not expect to discover this, but they eventually realized that the good Bishop of Ussher was "off" by a few orders of magnitude. I don't hate them because they love Jesus, or are religious, but because they are willfully ignorant and seem to feel justified in "teaaching" this ignorance to those with whom I/we must share this small but beautiful planet. human 19:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Although personally, I do not hate anyone, but am rather o'erflowing with love and goodwill towards all mankind, I can certainly understand that position. The problem is when such dislike is not targeted specifically, but is uncritically extended to cover not just the "willfully ignorant" but religious people as such. This really seems like a different kind of wilful ignorance all of its own, in that it ignores the fact that religious people are rather a diverse bunch, and our good orator here is correct in pointing out that there is a certain tendency here in this community to do that. But I guess we've been over that many times before. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:17, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I would have chimed in on the previous 8,000 word debate, but it made my head hurt. Sadly, many conflate YEC nutjobism with Christianity in general, and although it's fun for some people to poke holes in other people's belief systems, they are usually ignoring a beam or two that they might better attend to first. In fact, if you go to the comments at the article in the according to link above, you'll see many examples of this, unfortunately. human 19:28, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I find it odd that to refuse to ignore the evidence of reality all around us is considered hate speech. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 20:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, it was when I referred to those who do ignore it as "nutjobs" that the hate came "literally swarming from [our] mouth[s]". Not sure if MC meant that to be singular ([my] and no[s]) or plural ([our] and [s]). Luckily, he is not going to try to change me/us. human 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For the record, I don't hate anybody for believing in Christianity or any other religion. But I do get exercised when self-identified Christians try to tell me how to live my life (so far no one from another religion has done that). I also get upset at what appears to me to be a perverse interpretation of the Bible by many so-called Christians that leads to quite a different set of values than it would appear Jesus himself advocated. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 20:27, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Yah... we're drifting off the exact topic that started this fomentation, but of course on RW, that is not only common, it is required. Note that the fundamentalist sects, or at least leaders, in Islam are even worse in this regard. Freakin' nutjobs. human 20:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

What exactly does it serve to call these people nutjobs? Again, your implying their insane. On another note, the fact that it is on the front page (Which is about 90% of my objection) makes us look like an inverse CP. Sometimes. MarcusCicero 10:09, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the Christian right is just as dangerous as the Islamic right. Maybe they wouldn't have all gays put in concentration camps if they were in charge - but then again, maybe they would. For "re-education". For "their own good". People who believe the earth is 6,000 years old because they think the bible says so are, by definition, nutjobs. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 11:12, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Nutjob takes up less space than "fundamentalist lunatic science ignorers and reality denialists". I agreed that calling all Mormons "nutjobs" was too braod a brush. However, YECs are a narrow spectrum of strangely deluded and usually dominionist nutjobs. human 13:27, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

And personaly I think the radical secular left to be just as bad when it comes to mocking and demeaning people they consider 'less intelligent'. But thats just me. MarcusCicero 08:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I suspect many modern Mormons pay less attention to the story about golden tablets and the Angel Moroni than they do to the emphasis put on family and community solidarity, jsut as many modern "mainsream" Christians pay more attention to helping thee poor than they do to a literal belief in the biblical story of creation. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 11:30, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

You would be surprised. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 14:11, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

SDG

Have you sent the file to Nightflare yet? If so, I believe that I may have to put my own copy up for general consumption and edification. Please consider whether or not this is the best course of action. 66.230.230.230 09:43, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

If you have a copy you don't mind putting up, why not just put it up instead of making vague, and somewhat weird, threats about it? --Kels 09:51, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Because then it wouldn't be blackmailing. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 09:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Random IP guy: For those of us who are a bit slow on the uptake, could you explain why exactly we should care about whether you put such a file up or not? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:00, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

We won't host the SDG, nor will we encourage or support someone else in doing so, because it's unseemly. However, we don't pretend to have real world FBI powers like our friends, so I don't see what we could do, or would want to do, to stop an individual from doing it him/herself. Unless you enjoy making odd unacted-upon threats, please have a ball and go ahead.-αmεσ (soldier) 10:55, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Help

I can't seem to figure out how to get references to show on the Karl Popper article. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 12:08, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

You'd put <ref>.......<ref/> instead of <ref>.......</ref> 217.171.129.70 12:44, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Silly me. Thanks for your patience. Rational Ed^{welcome to the bizarro world} 12:47, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Blogs 4 Brownback

I would like to request that you protect the Blogs 4 Brownback article. It has been systematically vandalised over the past two days. Thank you. Dark Matter Glaucopis 09:42, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I brought it up on the B4B talk page. There have only been four "attacks" over the 23rd/24th, and nothing since January... shall we just see how it goes the next day or two? (We usually try to avoid protecting articles, but thanks for the heads-up!) human 13:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Methinks the Lynch would be on me again if I had said what you said about me

"I have to take issue with describing MC as a "valued contributor", sorry. Valued as we value all human life, opinions, etc. But not as someone who has ever, you know, "improved" RW. Just my .02."

"If "valued contributor" = "some dumbass who just argues without making valid points, but hates RW", then, yes, (s)he is. Please provide one diff that shows MC has actually in any way improved the discourse here, or any articles"

Its like watching a sociology documentary in action. 'As the poor unwitting newcomer makes a few points elsewhere, he awakens the big bad admin who showers his talk page with abuse...' MarcusCicero 07:05, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

And look at my contributions. I have tried to keep you honest, as Ames said. MarcusCicero 07:06, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes (the "keeping honest part"), you try, but your style is rather inflammatory. Considering you didn't get even a 5 minute block for telling someone/everyone to "fuck" themselves during a discussion stemming form you deleting a section of a page without copying it to the talk page... your paranoia is not really justified. I find it interesting, by the way, that you archived your talk page so none of us would have to keep reading everyone's perhaps ill-considered comments, and took it to talk:main, but brought my two comments here to discuss out of context. Anyway, see you at talk:main, I suppose. Also please note that, except for Interpreter blocking everyone this morning and your archiving of your talk page, no one is silencing you in any way here. human 14:04, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, talk about paranoid. I blanked the page because frankly, a lot of nasty things were said both by me and others. Another user came along and put it in archive. I can put it back if you want.

And please don't call RA's trolling a discussion. The question was essentially framed, 'I think your a wanker, don't you agree?' MarcusCicero 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Lets just let this die, please. (P.S. sorry to the rest of RWians for not following this advice earlier.) NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I find it very difficult to believe that if any of the more established members of this site were treated in a similar way, that it would just be 'dropped'. MarcusCicero 14:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with NightFlare. By the way, MC, I just read your userpage out of curiosity. You might want to think about your use of the last word there. Are you a not a cigarette? human 14:17, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of offending you, MC, I think you're being a little defensive. Let's just drop it and start over. Give it a try. Rational Ed^think 14:19, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

No. You all can ignore this if you want, but I'll not forget. MarcusCicero 14:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

So, who do you want to lynch? I'll get my sheets out of the closet and saddle up. Rational Ed^think 14:35, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I just think its an absolute disgrace what happened and its a clear example of whats wrong with this place. Open-mindedness is supposed to be a Liberal trait but as soon as anyone says something that doesn't automatically agree with your (plural) worldview you accuse him of all sorts. MarcusCicero 14:45, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, boo hoo. Here's a hanky. Blow your nose. Grow up. Even liberals lose their tempers. Even you did. Then they let it go. Rational Ed^think 14:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

from the Trustworthy news source^TM

*News alert* RWW has posted it's own interpretation of today's goings-on. Care to join me watching from a safe distance? Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 17:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Community Standards

I put some suggestions on RationalWiki talk:Community Standards to help progree the conversation in a new direction here. I view it as a community wide discussion, not arbitration for a specific case. Please comment there. Sterile^xx 17:41, 25 March 2008 (EDT)