User talk:Human

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

bye!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:53, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I see that there is no "retired" template or archiving so I'm hoping this is a temporary measure to regain perspective - similar to the break I took at the start of the year. Human is one of the original members of the site and has been far and away the most active editor, I would be sad to see him leave.--Bob^{bing up} 04:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Not all of us will be very sad. Mourn the passing of an era, and a giant on the wiki. But remember that for many people (Pink, Susan, AKjeldsen, Damo, myself, and others yet undeclared), Human's prominence and status on the wiki was progressing from "prominent editor" to "overbearing authority figure". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I hope that, in the vacant space his absence creates, others will be encouraged to stretch out their own personalities, to offer their own ideas and their own interpretations of things, and help the community grow around all of us, instead of around a single, dominant user. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Just so the record is clear, I am more or less neutral on the issue. I was (and am) concerned that there was a lot of squabbling over the smallest, most ridiculous things - so much so that this place was beginning to resemble CP itself. Now I have no idea (and I have tried searching) as to what the problem was with Pink and Human that caused this mess so I can't pass judgment on anyone regarding that. But I have witnessed both here and on RWW a certain amount of resentment against Human for (allegedly) trying to impose rules and for acting unilaterally.--Damo^Hi 06:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I apologize, then, for mislabeling you. Sorry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I strongly suspect it is time that we reconsider our approach to dispute resolution and for forming some general principles of what to do when disagreements occur. Almost everybody at this site suffers from the character trait (I hesitate to say flaw) of having strong opinions and not being shy about expressing them. I think its time we recognised that and set up some processes to deal with the inevitable problems this causes. We don't need a dictator like on CP, nor do we need a bureaucracy like on WP, but we do need some guidelines on what to do when well meaning people disagree on the issues. I understand there was some discussion on this point a while back but I feel that the situation is now more urgent. With Pink gone, SusanG thinking about leaving and now Human blanking his pages I feel like this site is really starting to fall apart.--Damo^Hi 06:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

To be clear, I think it would be sad if Human left us because of all this nonsense, just as sad as if Pink or SusanG or RA or anyone else left.^{— Unsigned, by: Damo / talk / contribs}

If you are leaving...

Then I, for one, can confidently state that I'm sad to see you go. You and Susan were two of the first to really welcome me, as I recall. You were part of the reason I spent as much time here as I did, as I goofed off at work. I don't get involved in the fighting, and I don't understand the emotions behind it, and I do understand the need for a break sometimes. But, thank you for what you have done, and good luck. Researcher 09:13, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I reiterate Researcher's sentiments (as I'm goofing off at work now), and will welcome Human back (if in fact he's left) should he choose to do so. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 09:22, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't leave us Human! You're breakin' up the family. weaseLOId~ 10:40, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Sigh. I miss the old days. Sterile^snore! 12:29, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Because it needs to be said...

RA, you're mostly an alright person as far as I can tell, but Jesus tap dancing Christ, you can be a pain in the arse at times. You take this place way too seriously and your e-penis status and power fixation frankly creeps me out slightly. I've always given you the benefit of the doubt as I figure that's just the way your head works and how you see the world, but you over H? Not fucking likely. If anyone needed to walk, I'd vote you every single day of the week. Pull your neck in, play nice, and pack it in with that daft RWW shite. --Robledo 16:55, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I have never considered this a choice between Human and myself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ohforchrissake

Damo is absolutely right above. If we had some sort of means in place to deal rationally with these issues, we wouldn't see the mushroom into Headless Chicken Mode and people "leaving" left and right. We really need that, because this is seriously turning into one of the more dysfunctional online communities I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

C'est la vie. You must deal with whatever cards you are dealt. Unfortunately, for those who get deeply involved in these kinds of forums there are always these incidents, and they usually result from weird desires for 'internet-power' (RA) or 'internet-prestige' (Human) or just simply 'internet-attention' (Susan). Me, being the other flip of the coin 'occasional internet antagonist/sociologist' can usually see all these developments without the filter of 'internet-friendships' that usually ruin someones ability to see through these online tussles. MarcusCicero 15:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

DFTT [2]

TOAST

^{and butter} 16:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

What does DFTT mean? And yes, well done, you posted a link to my archive. Aren't you clever. MarcusCicero 16:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

DFTT = Don't Feed The Troll. With that said:

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

ec

I read your archive after reading your comments and it seemed that those, like me, who weren't familiar with your history, might like the information. (Don't Feed The Troll which is the conclusion I have come to after your two edits.) As you'd a Troll on your user page for a short while I think it's quite appropriate anyhow.

TOAST

^{and butter} 17:09, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the most effective way of suppresing debate - the arbitrary use of the word troll. I'm thinking of writing a book about what I've learnt on internet sociology. MarcusCicero 17:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm rather more tolerant of "trolls" (I generally don't use the word). But Marcus, it would help people's perception of you immeasurably if made your comments a teensy bit less abrasive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

That is sound advice. I tend to vent, then mellow, then disappear, then come back, then repeat over and over and over again. Has all the markings of a troll though, I'll give you that. MarcusCicero 17:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what?

This may be a bad place, if not the worst, to ask this but what's going on? Judging from the comments above there was a heated discussion between Human and somebody else (Pink was mentioned but he hasn't contributed lately) but I can't find it anywhere... Anyway, if you're leaving, then good luck with whatever you're doing now, you'll be remembered... NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 16:49, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, the gentlemen at RWW aren't as inactive as I thought. I'll have to agree with AKJ, this seems like making an ant out of a molehill, having heated arguments about a category is one thing, but leaving after all this time? Or are there other issues involved besides the Spanish inquisition one? NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 17:03, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This particular conflict did come after a long train of conflicts between him and I. It was far from an isolated incident. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

That makes more sense, but I can't say that makes me more accept this behaviour more easily. NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 17:25, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This Old Conversation

My Opinion

This old conversation again. RA taking RW to seriously and Human not. I personally am in Humans boat here - RW is no place for "rules" but this pic cleary explains my position. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

You clearly fail to understand the nature of this conflict. This was not a battle between "rules" and "no rules". This was plain old edit war, between two editors who each wanted their own way. Please try to understand the nature of the conflict before commenting on it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:33, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

No RA, its always a conflict with you. If its not one thing its another and its just a continuation of the same old rubbish but with a different point. To quote Bon Jovi "Its all the same, only the names have changed". Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 17:43, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

So you're saying I shouldn't have touched the article in question in the first place? Or that I should have automatically accepted Human's reversion of me? The nature of an edit war is that both the editors are to blame for partaking in it, and can only occur if both the editors take it far too seriously. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I dont give a fuck what you do apart from your incessant moaning. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Then leave. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ace. Please don't follow RA's suggestion. With luck he'll come back tomorrow with an apology for suggesting that you leave the wiki. At least I hope he does, and perhaps your language was a bit strong as well.--Bob^{bing up} 18:41, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I have always been one of strong language. But I am not going anywhere and RA need not apologise. Thank you for your concern though. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 18:50, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Yet, I feel the need to apologize. I regretted telling you to leave the moment I hit "save". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks and I appreciate it but there was no need as I dont take my internet life very seriously. I apologise also for my confrontational language. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I would interject that Human is not without blame. In order to fulfil his role on this site he assumes a certain 'disregard' for the law. While certainly more entertaining and more fun to be around that RA's Constitutional professionalism, it does leave Human often finding himself in contradictory quandries. MarcusCicero 18:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

My friends, this is change we don't need!

I will move this section and all above to the most recent archive late on Nov 3, unless anyone objects.

First, I would like to explain my "blank" absence. Things were spiralling into the ugly and tiresome, for the fifth time too many in two weeks, so I thought a bit of time away would be good for me, to let me ponder how much I might have contributed to the problem, and also to see what ensued without my participation.

Second, I would like to comment on some of what was said above - and also, the fracas I observed at talk:Hitler and evolution.

None of this is about power. As far as I know (and I may be very wrong here), I weild no more power than any other editor, whatever their level of demotion, on RW. True, I edit a LOT - more than most, and even around 1/7 - 1/6 of the site's activity. Does that mean I overrule other people? Are there editors who cower in fear at my almighty "powers" and edit rate? I think not - and I hope not. Just because I make 8 billion edits a month does not make me the rulzor of the site -- and most important, it does not prevent anyone else from editing as often as they want.

I just like this place - maybe too much - and hence spend a lot of time copyediting and proofreading edits by people who work far harder than I to make the site better.

If someone posts a huge edit in one fell swoop and then I spend 20 edits adding sections and fixing typos, who added more to the site? One surely cannot judge by e-penis size edit count. As I said, I like this place, and so I spend a lot of my edit-time just cleaning up the good stuff.

Am I perfect? Of course not, far from it - as we all are. I make mistakes in ordinary ways, and of course, as many of us do, I occasionally edit "impaired" and perhaps type things I shouldn't hit "save" after. But part of what was always fun about RW was that half the good stuff on here was put together by people half in their cups. I also, as most of us do, sometimes express my opinions in ways that might offend a sensitive editor -- but, like I hope we all do, I try not to. Of course, I fail sometimes.

Comment about no comment

Why did I not "say" anything when I deleted my user page and archived my talk page? Because under the circumstances, I don't think I would or could have said anything "constructive" - that is, I probably would have made things worse if I had tried to leave a "message in a bottle" behind. So I just went silent - for my own process, my meditation if you will, and to allow the wiki to rumble on on its own (after all, some may like me, but RW would also be just fine without me). I know some embarrassments exploded here and there, but my not being involved, I think, allowed them to deflate, to diffuse and be defused in a sensible way.

I think it would also be a good idea to address the concept of "bashing" another editor, and whether a short moratoriam on it - or an indefinite one - is a good idea.

Constitutional silliness

A 'nother idea - let us expand the vandal group tool to limit all editors to some agreed-upon limit, that they not "dominate" the wiki or any conversation. Shall we say, 20 edits per day? 30 seems greedy. Ought to shut up that guy who averages 60, at least.

A 'nother 'nother idea. A constitution!!! Let the absent dictator, Trent, appoint a "Senate" of, say, 13 "disrespected" editors to form this august body. Their first charge is to determine how and to elect a President, or Spokesthing, from amongst themselves. Then, they would be charged with determining rules for creating a "lower body", or "rectum" of perhaps 20-30 editors who could squabble meaninglessly about issues, since without a majority of the Senate and Chairthing's signature (validated via random captcha processes) their decisions would mean nothing. BUT!!! At least then we would have RULZ!

Further Fun!

I would also like to invite everyone to an old-fashioned RW party on my talk page on "election night", Nov 4. Please to bring the goats, the balloons, scour the image archives for the good stuff. We have beer of many kinds, hard liquor, food of many kinds, pianos, even swimming pools, as I recall. Let us all let bygones and silly over-seriousness be bygones and come together and make a complete mess of this place on this most horribly serious and important day. I'll be out until about 8 PM EST waving signs at my local polling place, but from then on I expect to enjoy all your company at the party.

I forgot to sign

Wrote all that junk above in notepad; consider it all ħuman 00:00, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Well

I like Human. He's been lots of fun to be around, and one of the main ones who made me feel welcome when I came here in the first place, and certainly one of the worthwhile people to keep me around (Ames, Trent, Linus, Sid and Dr. Pal are also notable). That is all. --Kels 23:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. And by the way, Edgerunner76 and I are having an election day drinkathon on Tuesday, so anything we may post that day may well contain vulgarities and tyops, so bear with us. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 23:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Fel free to ptos yruo drkunen coemenmts hree taht nithg! ħuman 23:57, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Cheers to that! A shot for every county that goes Obama! And I like human too :). tmtoulouse 23:54, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

YAY! Human's back. With his bat and ball and everything. Let me get a drink to celebrate!!! Drinks!!! PFoster 00:01, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Hurrah! Human has returned!

Wait. Was he ever gone? DickTurpis 00:09, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, don't overdo it, friends. Partly I had to think some things through and all (like how I was handling being the resident site-asshole from time to time). And: "Wait": No, I wasn't, really. Shit I missed this place and you people, and it was only what, three or four days? ħuman 00:12, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

my evil plan

My evil plan is to keep this place alive as long as it is worthwhile. I will keep linking here, and do whatever else I can, and hope that people continue to create content while having fun. And if folks take themselves too seriously from time to time, so be it. And I having been following the pissing matches, but we have a lot of personality around here. That's not a bad thing. If it wasn't for AKjeldsen soul, hugh's passion, trents tireless wikification, and everyone else, hey, it would be boring.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 00:26, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

"we have a lot of personality around here" - we surely do. I think that is our enduring strength, although sometimes it helps us go overboard. Hi Doc! And it's Huw, not Hugh ;) Unless you meant someone else, of course. ħuman 00:30, 2 November 2008 (EDT)