User talk:Human

• The 2008 election night party is enshrined at this dump. Thank you all for popping in, it was a blast!
• The May 20/21 2009 RationalWiki second birthday party is here. There may still be some stains on the carpet, so be careful.

• Somewhere around here I usually express my preference for avoiding table-tennis conversations. If I muck up your talk page, I'll stalk you until you reply there. If you defame my lovely estate of ones and zeros here, I'll add some random non sequitur to it here. Cheers! ħuman

• Threads over seven days old are automatically archived by an irrational "bot"

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

---

I send you

feces via electronic mail. Ace McWicked^Necron99 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I shat back atcha. ħuman 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I require e-turds from both of you. Post haste. 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in the office now so I'll check later. Thanks for shitting back. Ace McWicked^Necron99 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I squitzed a little, but no shits. Only emails. 20:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

00:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Why hello. Nice website that you have here. And nice to see that you have editors who don't have problems with understanding English. Shot info (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC) [1]

Tweak

I have given you an ugly yellow box for no reason. Have a nice day. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ rurgh bruagh BARHA grugh bruragh! 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks ;) ħuman 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My upcoming Thom Hartmann article

I'll copy it over after I finish it. Probably sometime after I am done recovering from my surgeryThe Goonie 1 (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just move it and work in the mainspace. It's only you and I that care anyway ;) But do as you see fit. ħuman 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger that! Over and out.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that was certainly a fistfight, wasn't it? Amazing how, it would seem, every article I write from scratch here seems to provoke the greatest controversies and in-fighting. Anyways, thanks for helping me duke it out. I owe you some Johnnie Walker Blue Label (or are you not a whiskey person?)The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your new sig is hideous

that is all. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to bring that up at the Bar. Thanks :) ħuman 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not add this to your sig? My present to you. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I could work with that... ħuman 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Now to "etch" the edges with some white pixels... ħuman 05:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Ace is right, lets listen to him. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Human" part of the poster could probably be turned into a vector graphic with relative ease; then you could keep the green/pink coloration, without any annoying black boxes around the pink. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can do it, upload and let me know where it is? I kinda like the black given the look of the text... ħuman 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. A quick Inkscape job; the colors can be adjusted with little trouble. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. See my comments at the image page? Thanks for the help, we may get out of this bog yet! ħuman 06:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded the version with the new color. You can use a scaled version in your signature, as I do in mine with a different SVG. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks³!!! ħuman 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I ought to make the link to my talk page out of that crosshair part of the image... ħuman 23:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But we just rid your signature of annoying black boxes... ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your new sig is glorious

that is all. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It kicks ass, I'd be jealous if I knew how to make one.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is quite simple, actually; download Inkscape, open up an image and use the "Trace Bitmap" option. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I may even have Inkscape on my machine. But I never got the hang of it, all the image editing things I am used to doing seemed to be intentionally hidden from me. Since you seemed to be fluent in it I figured you could change the color in seconds. So thanks again! ħuman 22:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The color change was effected in Emacs rather than Inkscape. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's not bad, but I like it a shitload more than your old one.The Goonie 1 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean crossed "h", comic sans, random talk page link version? ħuman 22:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that one.The Goonie 1 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I could always bring it back if you piss me off ;) ħuman 03:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll just have to avoid doing so. Either that, or care less than I do currently. ;)The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Either one works just fine :) ħuman 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Human,

Thought I would ask, it would appear that the website owner of WikiSynergy is Purple Scissor and I'm wondering if I can add this information into the article here or elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, my beef with WS is not that it's a woosite (after all, there are thousands out there so whats the issue with yet another one) but that they store and collate outing information on Wikipedian editors. Given that Outers normally hate being outed themselves, I'm wondering if somewhere should return the favour on the editors over there who out WP users who insist on remaining masked themselves? Ta Shot info (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That is against Wiki policy. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Take your wiki-stalking elsewhere. ħuman 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about outing is worth mentioning in the article though, but don't out people yourself. - π 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they "outing", or just keeping track of WIGO WP regarding their pet topics? ħuman 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@ ListenerX, thanks for that - I wasn't aware of the policy.

@ Human, thanks for refactoring, I spotted the replies on my talk and was going to refactor, but others beat me to it. FWIW, I didn't know the policy(ies) here, hence why I asked the question.

@ Pi - it's probably worth mentioning that they maintain lists of editors (only WP at the moment, but it's the thin edge of the wedge - how long before it's other sites...) whose edits they find objectionable in some fashion (ie/ they are "skeptics").

@ Human - well, it's about privacy really. Already both editors they have long files on have objected to the collection of information and have requested it be removed for privacy reasons. While WS can say "its our policy" I have noticed that various skeptical editors have chanced upon these articles, questioned them, and then withdrawn their support - myself included. Of course I'm blocked primarly because Purple Scissor didn't like my opinion - namely that I feel that "skeptics" (whoever they are) should withdrawl their editing support for WikiSynergy until such time that those bio's are removed. After all, it needs to be asked, how long before it's somebody here? Shot info (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Shot, you were blocked at WS for using their wiki to try to tell people not to edit there. As far as your claims of "both editors they have long files on have objected to the collection of information and have requested it be removed for privacy reasons" that sort of claim should include (copious) links, or it is worthless. Simply tracking someone's edit on WP isn't a frickin' crime, and neither is calling them names for their edit pattern. ħuman 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes Human, you are correct, albiet what you have said is just a cutdown version of what I said. I can send you the links, but I'm not going to dignify WS with linking to them from here more than I have too. Do you have email - I can send them to you there. But yes, it isn't a crime. But should it be rewarded by "skeptics" helping them out? Personally I think no, said so there, and have said so here. I gather you think it's ok and you wish to help them out? Shot info (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Put them here (talk wiki synergy would be a better place?) or shut up. I've helped them out quite a bit, yeah. So you don't like that? Saying to people on their wiki that they shouldn't help is a bit weird. Trent has written some good stuff there, I've found some fun stuff to edit, say, our EVP article, what's your beef with any of that? ħuman 03:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that I've p!ssed you of in some manner, and for that I apologise. I don't understand why you have a problem with websites who compile info about people (Quackpotwatch etc). But here's some info for a start. If you are a skeptic, you will know who this person is. Have a look in the talk pages to see what the subject thinks of it (and he was even helping out WS at the time). Then have a look at [2]. I wonder how long before this list is populated. Then how long will it be before RW editors appear there. Admitably at the rate they are putting information up...it will take forever... :-).

PS: Purp is asking for your input again ;-P. And the "other WP editor" she is talking about is another WP editor who asked for their page to be taken down, denied and blocked. Shot info (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your PS looks like it needs two links or else I'll have no idea what you are talking about. All I saw was PS' comment on template talk:welcome, and etaroced is our own tmtoulouse... As far as pissing me off, only by sticking up a real name of someone on some other wiki without substantiation - it looks like you are rolling a feud from elsewhere onto our site. ħuman 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh, you responded already on WS, although maybe you are editing more than two wikis atm :-). There is substantiation, but I asked, and was responded to with a rather emphatic no. So I'm not pursuing it any further. Yes, I know tmtoulouse (or a "tmtoulouse" who edits WP). But you are right in pointing out that you are allowed to help out sites that stick it up "skeptical" editors. I don't really care, but that editor (Brangifer) thought the same way...once. Shot info (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally in the dark about WikiSynergy, haven't heard about it until just now, but: "Take your wiki-stalking elsewhere." "That is against Wiki policy." What the fuck? I mean what the fuckin' fuck? Are you fuckin' kidding me? Wiki-stalking may not be policy around here, but it sure is practice. There's a used-car salesman in Nevada and a guy with poorer wiki-editing skills that me in Buffalo who are laughing uproariously at the sheer bloody hypocrisy of that statement. Jesus Christ. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Those people's identities have clear trails of evidence (Like TK in the newspaper, the used car salesman thing is a canard). Our "new friend" is pursuing some agenda that has nothing to do with RW, just like the old Barbara Shack identity war found its way here. ħuman 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the "new friend" is me, so I'll respond, Human - I asked you a question, which you responded to with another question, so I answered that, and you responded with another question. I will continue to respond to your questions to explain my position. Now I have taken and accepted your (and others) response to my initial inquiry, so there is no issues there. Shot info (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)