This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Shortcuts WP:TPH WP:HIGH

Talk page highlights: In the spirit of Wikipedia humor, this page is a repository for some of the strangest exchanges that occur between editors. Please add short quotes that:

1. Concern articles, lists, or policy discussions.
2. Are relevant to the article subject.
3. Arise from legitimate editorial discussion.
4. Don't insult any particular person.
5. Don't extend an edit war. (For examples of edit wars, see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.)

For one moment, I was expecting something to do with denotational semantics. -- The Anome - 20:30, 27 June 2003

((Plautus satire on Talk:Chess [1]. BEST EDIT EVAR - David Gerard 10:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have just made a few changes to the chess entry and when I get done picking my jaw up off the floor I'll finish typing this... `

\
 *

Okay I'm ready now.

I find it very alarming that no mention was made in the overview that each player has 16 of the pieces for his own, only that there were 32 pieces. Would communists assume each player "owns" half the pieces? Yes, nitpicking, that's what we do here, we pick nits. Also no mention is made that the pieces are differentiated (usually by color though not always) and the squares on the board are also differentiated. There are many pictures, but what about the blind? Let me know if I'm too aggressive hunting nits here. To put it bluntly, that overview sucks a$$...

Scrolling down, however, we find over one hundred links to chess history, chess literature, chess moves, chess games, chess people, chess places, chess everything and this *BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP* lousy overview.

I think the priorities of people around here are SERIOUSLY out of whack. - Plautus satire 14:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I too have eaten a deep-fried Mars bar, but in Wales rather than Scotland. This was a week's school (or rather, CCF) winter hill-walking trip in Snowdonia in December. After a day's slogging up and down Triffan (sp?) in the whirling snow, 3 million deep-fried calories sounded extremely welcome. I enjoyed it then, but I don't know if I would in any other situation.

Oh, and I get the impression that they're a bit more common than John makes out. PeteVerdon 19:07, 8 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then truly, mankind is doomed. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Giant Squids are sweet

Giant Squids are sweet, and i'm pretty sure that they have the real ultimate power. Cephalopods in general are pretty sweet, too. Thanks for having such a nice resource here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atog (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9035-768

How often do people reverse Jenny's phone number? Did they ever discontinue use of the reversed version of Jenny's phone number in all area codes? I becha there are dimwits that might reverse a phone number they see or hear. If the reversed version Jenny's phone number was discontinued, mention it in the article. --SuperDude 03:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- You could possibly reach a satanic Jenny. --User:Dotto 00:37 14 Oct 2005 UTC

-lol Possibly satans girlfriend?24.144.137.244 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1981, +1-areacode-903-5768 would not have been valid in most areas because a 0 or 1 in the second digit was reserved for area codes, while local exchanges could *not* have 0 or 1 in either of the first two digits. This was done so that calling a number like 1-234-5678 would actually reach (long distance) +1-your own area code-234-5678, something which was completely broken by issuing area codes with "wrong" middle digits from 1995 onward. In a few places which were short of numbers, this pattern was broken early (just for calls within that area code) by allowing 0 or 1 into the second digit of the local exchange (NYC and Chicago likely as early as the 1970's) but these were relatively rare. (A long-distance call from a +1-212- number to another in the same area code was too rare for this to matter as the code doesn't even reach to Brooklyn). The B52s had 606-0842 in a song title in the early 1980's, but in most places in North America that was an invalid number as it would be taken as area code 606 (eastern Kentucky) followed by 084-2xxx as an invalid local number (leading zero, and three digits too short). The number might exist now, but nobody cares as the corresponding vinyl album track was forgotten after only brief note three decades ago. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does a zombie really engage in cannibalism? Zombies in fiction will eat humans but not other zombies. It seems to me that if a zombie ate a zombie or a human ate a human, both would be cannibalism. But since a zombie is no longer human, a zombie eating a human or a human eating a zombie would not be cannibalism. This argument was pointed out in Dawn of the Dead (1978).--Burzum 4 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

I added the following to the criticism section. It's actually quite a nice addition. I'd appreciate a response. thanks. From an analytical perspective, here's a comical summary of the nature of the series thus far: Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Jimmy Altieri was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Brendan Filone got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Big Pussy was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Richie Aprile got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Raymond Curto was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Jackie Jr. got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Jack Massarone was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Ralph Cifaretto got whacked. Tony fetched the paper in his robe. Adriana was a rat. Meadow needed to shut up. Tony Blundetto got whacked. And now...the sixth season premiere of The Sopranos. YAY! - Zarbon

This already got deleted (rightfully), but I just want to point out that Tony didn't fetch the paper at the beginning of season five. Tim Jan. 23, 2006 6:56.

- he fetched the paper in season 5 episode "Test Dream" in the plaza hotel, in his robe. so there. - Zarbon

You got that from the Two Tonys TWoP recap by Aaron, didn't you? Sfufan2005 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. So Zarbon ripped off a Television without Pity recap word for word except for the "Yay!". (which is a commercial copyright breach by the way) here's the link.

I didn't rip it off. it's good to add. i'm still wondering as to why it shouldn't be added actually. It pretty much sums up the series so well, it's unmistakingly perfect. I just liked it for the fact that Brendan Filone was mentioned, since he's my alltime favorite character and all. - Zarbon

I think it is only fair that someone take Zarbon out back and shoot him. And of course, pick up a newspaper.

hey, as long as i get shot right in the eye, like Brendan Filone, I'm happy. - Zarbon

This article alleges that Rodney King was on PCB even if it goes on to say that tests for PCB came up negative. The article itself refutes the claim. Also the speed King was driving at should be alleged, unless it was proven also. I find the article largely states the point of view of the police report as fact, even if the police were defendants in the issue. That, I think, is wrong. Also this article does little to cite its sources, eg. 'alleged by whom?' - 17:01, 9 February 2006

He was high on printed circuit boards? - 16:56, 13 February 2006

From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language:

Macbeth Act 5 Scene 1

What is the modern translation of Macbeth Act 5 Scene 1

Shakespeare wrote in modern English. Which other language did you want it translated to? - Nunh-huh 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps s/he wants it translated from Early Modern English to, uh, contemporary English? --Chris S. 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be a translation. It would be a paraphrase. If he is having problems with a specific sentence, he'd do better to ask here for an explanation of its meaning, if he wants some useful help. - Nunh-huh 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't be translating. It's taking a source text that's in one dialect and transforming it to a text in another dialect. That is the essence of translation.--Prosfilaes 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is a rendering from one language into another. It's not about dialect, it's about language. - Nunh-huh 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they prefer a Texan American paraphrasing? Doctor: Go to, go to; you have known what you should not. / Doctor: Now git. Y'ain't spos'd ta know thaet. I don't have the never to paraphrase the whole thing.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly unlikely that this "sun" is notable. It doesn't even appear to have its own website, as sun.com is a link to a computer hardware company. Furthermore, I believe it may be a hoax, based on the existence of this garage band's myspace account: http://www.myspace.com/thesun . I'm unsure whether to simply add a speedy deletion tag, or use the full AfD procedure. Your thoughts? --Xyzzyplugh 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever think of calling the article "Gasoline (petrol)" or conversely, "Petrol (gasoline)"? Wouldn't that be a compromise? Stevage 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll compromise with this as soon as Orange (colour) gets changed to Orange (hue or color or colour since Wikipedia can't come to a consesnus on spelling) Hbdragon88 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about gasouline? ;-) Doovinator 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this store went bankrupt, do I still have to repay the credit card?? - 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who enjoy playing 6 degrees of separation, you may attempt to find out how I got from Asian Elephant to this article. But I digress. I was just wondering about this sentence, in the introduction:

"As long as the semen is cleaned using soap and hot water, it is a form of safer sex with a low risk of leading to pregnancy."

Now, I may be reading too much into this, but the above seems to imply that if semen is left on someone's lovelies, it might just be absorbed into the skin, pass through many layers of fat, muscle and tissue, and end up depositing itself in the vagina. Leading to pregnancy and all the horrors that follow.

I don't think I know anyone short enough to have trouble keeping semen away from their bajingo, when it's on their boobies.

I'm not joking, I'm honestly wondering what this sentence is trying to tell me. — riana_dzasta • t • c 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence looks like it should be split in two...there is some risk of disease transmission with semen to any part of the body (Herpes Simplex 2, for one), but I don't think anyone thinks that the sperm can migrate and cause pregnancy. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly the greatest competetive eater of all time. Not to start a wiki war but unless someone comes up with a good argument for not including this, I'm changing it--Pbasu 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to use the phrase "of all time" in any claim. It is far more accurate to use "in written history". How do we know there wasn't a greater competitive eater in prehistoric times? --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my final comment - for us to call him gay or bi (or put him in those categories) would be our attempt to "set the record straight" (pardon the pun). That is not our job as editors, in fact it conflicts with our job. Putting him in a category like "Preachers married to women who have had extensive sex with men" would be NPOV, but putting him in the "Gay Preachers" category would be POV. At least based on how things are today. Again, there are alot of opinions gay media that have not been included in the article yet. They are making similar claims about Ted and that viewpoint belongs in the article. Mr Christopher 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can we start that category?--Chalyres 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move for deletion?

My wife found out that her ring was cubic zirconia. I told her that that meant it was extra rare and valuable. I propose we delete this article, or I am in some serious shit. She is a big wikipedia user and she might see this page, but I don't want to vandalize... Please :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo man (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm afraid you're doomed. Tuck your head down and kiss the boys goodbye, is all the advice I can offer! --Grey Knight ⊖ 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a special right to request an article's deletion just because you screwed up. But you have to say, cubic zirconia is shiny, and we all know people can't resist shiny objects. :D The First Doll 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're screwed. But I do agree that cubic zirconium is shiny. --science4sail ^talkcon 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people who have sex with animals are zoophiles. But we can discuss the title. "Zoonoses and sex with animals", "Health aspects of sexual acts with animals" or "Zoonotic aspects of sexual acts with animals" is probably about as neutral as it gets. Would you be okay with that? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following appears to be a conversation about the image at left.

Unflattering Picture of a Sectioned Orange

I think this picture is unflattering if not disgusting. Who would want to eat an orange after seeing that picture? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were inserted by somebody in the apple industry (known to be unscrupulous) or somebody with an extreme dislike of oranges. A picture that unflattering does not occur by mistake and I'm quite certain there is an agenda behind it. I know that this page is meant to be informative and not pro-orange, but that picture is treading into the dangerous territory of being anti-orange. I'm not saying that we should use the most flattering picture of a sectioned orange available on the 'net, but surely a compromise can be reached. I nominate that it be removed or changed in favor of a more neutral picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.60.98 (talk • contribs)

Yes this is clearly a far-malus conspiracy to drive down orange sales among the compulsive wikipedia browsing population. Please take whatever action you feel is necessary to restore the vital balance of presentation so that the prolitariate may once again rejuice. - JustinWick 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture is acceptable, and I think it is difficult for a picture to be neutral. Note that the same IP address also believes that oranges do not grow on trees WLU 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you truely grasp the extent to which apple fans will go to sabotage their competition. I hereby declare that all images of oranges on Wikipedia should be examined for NPOVness. 216.164.60.98, why don't you get on this ASAP? - JustinWick 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLU - That is disingenuous and a complete misrepresentation of anything I've ever posted. Of course oranges grow on trees. I have a lot of knowledge of and experience with oranges. I simply made the point that there are those who remain unconvinced - and those people do exist. If you don't think that's worth noting, then fine, I can live with that. But that's not really what we're talking about right now. Anyhow, if I can find a more flattering picture do you really mind if I change it? JustinWick sees exactly what I am talking about (lol @ rejuice!). I am not about to accuse you of being the person who posted the offending picture or of being involved in the apple industry, but my antenna is up. Cheers!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 04:09, January 24, 2007 216.164.60.98 (talk • contribs).

All the power to you if you can find a better picture of an orange. The rest of your contributions are POV, unsourced and use weasel words. WLU

Pic

In lieu of contemporary photographs or paintings, here is an artist's rendition of Washington, with coffee. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you've read the article recently, he should really have a monkey sitting on his shoulder :)--Pharos 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♥♥♥ ShadowHalo 20:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Plot section have a Spoiler Warning, as is usually the case with movies of any kind?--84.145.222.231 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>OK....this may be the funniest wiki-thing I've ever read.

Yes, I want to be suprised when I first watch Paris' sex tape. What on earth could happen??? The globetrotter 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you mad? why do we need a Spoiler Warning?

The Wikipedia Gay Lobby must be revelling in this article. Articles such as this clearly demonstrate that advocates of homosexuality intend to strongly affect children, knowing that young people are easily influenced. Also, by emphasizing it as a feature article, the damage is maximized. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself.Lestrade 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

What? Take your anti-homosexualness (is that even a word?) elsewhere, thankyou. Gran² 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you listening to what you're saying, Lestrade? How can you possibly have an opinion like that? You make it sound being homosexual is the end of the world. We live in the 21st century. Grow up. Metty 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may be kidding... Abeg92contribs 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We live in the 21st century. Grow up. This is proof that homosexuals are succeeding in making their psychosexual aberration seem acceptable. They have systematically achieved this through the entertainment media, which appeals to younger generations. Wikipedia is encouraging this by giving such articles a featured article status. It is ironic that Metty tells me to grow up. The reason for the irony is that homosexuality is, itself, adolescent behavior that is exhibited by immature persons. Mature people grow past that stage into normal, healthy, natural heterosexuality.Lestrade 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Gee, thanks for your wonderful insight, Fred. Tony Myers 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truly sad thing is, he's not kidding. Freshacconci 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really love and all, but take it somewhere else. The talk page is the place to discuss improving articles, and comments stating an article should not become featured (re: that an article should not be improved) aren't productive. If there is something in the article that promotes homosexuality, then please point it out, though you should note that the subject of an article promoting homosexuality and the article itself promoting homosexuality are two very different matters. And if you're going to go on tangential rants about the gay cabal, then find somewhere off-wiki to do it. 17Drew 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! CaveatLector^Talk 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't somebody please think of the children! Freshacconci 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I applaud Lestrade's comments. It shows they've been thinking about homosexuality and gay issues a lot! It's hard in a world full of change to assert what is normal and therefore needs defending - bravo! Benjiboi 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official statement from the gay cabal, if there was one, which there isn't: There is no gay cabal. At all. There is no, I repeat no, massive conspiracy of hundreds of editors across several continents scheming via talkpage and hidden IRC channel (which if it existed, which it doesn't, would called #evilgaycabal, and the password to it would be "Mariah!") to carefully construct Wikipedia articles in such a manner that innocent young recruits children reading them will suddenly be possessed of an urge to wear pink (or flannel) and watch Queer as Folk (or The L Word) five times in a row before our crack Faery teams swoop down on them and carry them off to our perverted nests high up in the Brokeback Mountains for unnatural instruction in lisping and DIY. No conspiracy at all. And there is no "gay cabal". In fact, the words gay cabal don't exist. You're imagining it. And yes we would revelling in the article right now if we existed, which we don't. Well done Gran, if he existed, which he doesn't. All hail Xenu!(if he was real, but he really, REALLY isn't). Signed (or not), Dev920, Supreme Mugwump, if there was such a position, but there's not, of the Wikipedian Gay Lobby ™, if there was one, which there isn't. But if there was, would we tell you? 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly a great deal of confusion here. The Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805, well after both acts of union. Why he chose to signal "England" rather than something more accurate is not known to me, although clearly it would have been a considerable pain in the arse to signal "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty" in semaphore. I'd still like Tourskin to point me to the discussions that provide reliable sources that the island of Great Britain (or the wider UK) was referred to habitually as "England" at the time - to the best of my knowledge, that just isn't true. One naval order on one day from Admiral Nelson does not a paradigm make. Badgerpatrol 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After I sternly warned an IP about attempting to have Ham speedy-deleted, he left this on my talk page:

Hello sir!

I am thanking you for alerting my attention to this new deletion process. I was being under the aware of prod being the proper method to nominate article for delete. I am not vandal - I want improve wikipedia by deleting false ham article. I have not hear of this meat in my entire life. I am sure it is not notable enough for this great encyclopedia!

Thank you, and I will follow proper procedure from now on! Thank you! 67.60.57.82 02:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we possibly get a blurrier image of the side of her drunken face? I think that would really help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash2108 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Somehow, I don't agree Chickpeaface 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lolled. Wardrich (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See this former infobox pic.)

"Around this time he revealed that he considered himself to be bisexual and that he was having a non-romantic sexual relationship with band mate Anthony Kiedis; the two were often to be seen kissing or fondling one another in public and in fact had a high-sexual kiss in the video "Warped"."

http://www.onlineseats.com/dave-navarro-tickets/index.asp

I disagree. Anthony has said many times that he only kissed in the video to shock people, and there was no relationship of any kind involved. Besides, he's cute!!!!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Anthony couldn't be bi, because "he's cute!!!!"? I just want to make sure I'm reading that right... 74.77.98.235 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one group of editors were to say the Earth is flat and another group were to say it is round, it would not benefit Wikipedia for the groups to compromise and say the Earth is shaped like a calzone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what a delicious compromise it would be! Baegis (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a soft red wine (the pro-homeopathy editors get their wine diluted 30X). Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, I contend that any light beer brewed in the United States, is actually homeopathic beer, because it's been diluted so much, that anyone drinking it, only imagines that it's really beer. But it makes one urinate like it was beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the water it contains has retained the memory of the urine it once was. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. Well, that pretty much sums up both Light Beer and Homeopathy. Neither of them are very good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The greatness of User:Raul654 is overwhelming, as portrayed by his contributions. He deserves to feature himself. Raul has been a bureaucrat for some time here on Wikipedia, and is doing an excellent job!

Join in taking a moment to honour him.

Mark won in a landslide victory in spite of all those who opposed him. He has done his tasks with diligence and upheld the honour and standards of Wikipedia.

Recently featured: – Motörhead, Archimedes, Battle of Ramillies

Added per request. (Though it's now been archived and blanked.) Find it at this link].

The effect of the text to affect should speak for itself. : ) - jc37 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is main about this page? Should it not be called the Front page or Cover page instead?--User:ProperFraction 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly 1 year after the moment we land a person on Mars. (please move this vote when we've landed on Mars :)) -- BRIAN0918  15:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" Exactly 1 year after the moment we land a person on Mars". Jim Kirk will be President first.=] Trekphiler 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "we" mean Americans or mankind?? (it may will be two different landing events)

  "We" refers to the squirrel population in Antarctica, of course. Sango123 July 5, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Does a monkey still count? :) Smartech 02:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Since people are technically just a breed of monkeys, yes. --86.130.24.206 15:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No - technically people are a breed of ape, not monkeys. Both though a part of the primate group. David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just say:

When a lifeform from Earth intentionally lands themself or another lifeform from Earth onto Mars or one of its satellites.

--Joe Schme^(ssages)dley 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Isn't this supposed to be a place where you bet rather than discuss nonexistent squirrel populations from Antarctica ;). Dixonsej 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wondering if bacteria count, and how sterile the various craft which have already landed on Mars are. Hiding T 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of species inclduded

It is not clear if this proposal is meant to apply to only humans (homo sapien), or also to beavers (castor canadensis, castor fiber), particularly the american beaver, which also has red fur (and builds water control systems). Peet Ern (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few beavers are going to reach septuagenarian status, and if they do, then that in and of itself is notable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is more than you might realise. I assume we are counting species years, for example, human years versus dog years versus beaver years. Peet Ern (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. But does this mean expanding this page or adding another more specific guideline re Beavers who plumb in old age? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the old age plumbing beaver is also a horse jockey who formed a pop group and recorded one song then they should have their own guideline. Otherwise they should be included in the generic WP:NF70+PB guideline. Peet Ern (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Phelps should be ranked, seeing as how if he were a country he would be in a tie for second with South Korea, behind only China. USA loses 5 golds due to Michael Phelps declaring independence, leaving them in fourth with only 4 gold medals. Phelps does indeed retain a tie for second, since the table sorts by gold medals, not total medals, and Michael comes before South in the alphabet.

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	China (CHN)	13	3	5	21
2	South Korea (KOR)	5	6	1	12
3	Michael Phelps	5	0	0	5
4	United States (USA)	4	7	9	20
5	Italy (ITA)	4	4	2	10

(User name removed)

<snip>

I'm sorry but Phelpsyvania can't be considered perfect. They didn't even qualify for most of the events. They can't get credit for failing to compete in gymnastics, judo, and weight lifting, etc.(User name removed)

<snip>

Sure... just get him to start his own country and he can have his own chart. (User name removed)

I have to ask - how does the Phelps nation win a relay medal with only one swimmer? (User name removed)

We also have this comment on the same talk page, about whether the table should be printed the way the American media prints them - i.e. by total medals, then by colours - or the way the International Olympic Committee and the rest of the world does it - i.e. by the colour of the medals:

Its not going to change. Deal with it. - (user name removed)

<sarcasm> Now that's what I like to see -- a well-reasoned argument. "Deal with it." Why did I ever doubt? </sarcasm> -- (User name removed)

he —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.224.4 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See he. DAVID ŠENEK 11:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the highlight, an explanation. In 2008, India sent 57 athletes to the Olympic Games. China - perhaps unsurprisingly, since they were the hosts - had 639 athletes. Despite this:

What does this article show about our Olympics power/ Why is it so short? After all our altheles are better. It should be longer than the China Olympics page.

This just seems rather odd...

Does the film Romeo Must Die have a character in it called Romeo? The central male character (played by Jet Li) isn't called that, and nobody mentioned in Wikipedia's plot synopsis is.

If not, why (apart from the Shakespeare parallel) is it called Romeo Must Die?

Isn't the Shakespeare parallel a good enough reason? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, is it? AndyJones (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, it is. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has been deleted, so the title has a red link instead of a blue one.

i dont know what a talk page is.

<snip>

"i dont know what a talk page is." Where do you think you wrote those words!

OK, I'll bite (possibly an inappropriate choice of words in a thread about oral sex). What animals engage in prostitution? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know of penguins but there are probably others. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the fact that they're all walking around in tuxedos has something to do with it... 94.27.168.220 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not. Tuxedo-clad entities would be more likely to be the clients of prostitutes than the prostitutes themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article explains why the subject is notable, and is very, very well sourced. Only someone who hasn't actually read the article would claim that the subject is not notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By that do you mean that it is clear from the way the article is written that it's creator went out of their way to make explicit claims of notability as a sort of pre-defense to the inevitable challenges this article would face? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea what the intentions of the person who created the article were. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, given that you created the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you walked right into that one... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki - I just checked the article's edit history, and it turns out that you are correct. Thanks for telling me. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't be serious... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. If the creator of the article even doesn't remember that s/he created it S/he should go with delete considering notability. How funny... lol... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't speculate here, where can we speculate?

• On an internet discussion forum ([2] should suffice). Or on your blog. Or in your house. Or in your head. But not in any place to do with an encyclopaedia.79.79.77.166 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a blog,house or a head
• lolz

I saw Wesley Willis in concert once, in San Diego, California. I had no idea what I was in for, as I was there for a different band. My business partner Tim Shell's brother (Scott Shell) was touring with Wesley Willis, and drove across country with him. I went to see Scott.

Anyhow, from the first yelled "Don't make me madder than I already am" to the last song about licking Bactrian camel's asses, it was jaw-dropping. I'm not saying it was good, because it certainly wasn't. But I will say that I don't expect to ever see another show like that in my entire life. Jimbo Wales 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• As the head of the page says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." But then, perhaps, this talk page edit is from the Good Old Days when Wikipedians were Wikipedians and pigs could fly. Piyush (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: VfD is votes for deletion, now articles for deletion; VFU is Votes for undeletion, now Deletion review; BJAODN is Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, now Silly things.

Nominated for deletion

The VfD itself was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep. — JIP | Talk 13:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was closer to oh God no please don't do that when does the hurting stop, but yes, this attempt at recursion was nipped in the bud. JRM · Talk 13:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear from theis VFD that the consensus is that things in the wikipedia name space can be listed on VFD. Therefore technicaly VFDs can be VFDed.Geni 14:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And those Vfds will themselves be nominated for deletion, Now your recursive logic is attempting to suck my brain dry, arghhhh! --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The initial VfD process itself can do exactly the same as 'VfDing a VfD', with speedy keeps (as indeed was the case with the VfD of the VfD being as good as VfDed). To allow such recursion would just lead to never-ending arguments dragging on for months and years as they continued to be nominated for fresh VfDs, long after the issue would have been resolved otherwise. KeithD (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear from theis VFD that the consensus is that things in the wikipedia name space can be listed on VFD. Therefore technicaly VFDs can be VFDed. No. It establishes that some things in the Wikipedia namespace can be VfD'ed. VfDs cannot be VfD'ed, even though they happen to be in the Wikipedia namespace. Why this must be so is left as an exercise to the reader, but while said reader is figuring it out, I'll make sure they're killed immediately regardless. JRM · Talk 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so can deleted vdfs be listed on VFU? This leads to a whole new opertunity for recursion.Geni 23:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but VFU is not trying the vote on the VFD, but rather only for questioning the legitimacy of the decision to delete based on the vote. The merits of the article are not considered, only the merit of the way the VFD was conducted. Tomer ^TALK 23:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer's reasonable interpretation notwithstanding, I would answer no to that as well. I seriously hope nobody is going to demand I write up a guideline for this. You do not VfD VfD's, period, because it's either pointless or WP:POINTful. They shouldn't be created; likewise no discussion of undeletion should be taking place when they are speedied. None of this is explicitly forbidden, of course, just like it's not forbidden to put the Main Page up for deletion or redirect your talk page to a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head. That doesn't mean such actions must be tolerated.
Incidentally, a VfU on a VfD nomination itself would not be recursive if it failed. And I do hope Wikipedia has enough sanity left to ensure such VfUs would fail, but if not, I guess I'll just have to become one of those rouge admins I hear so much about! JRM · Talk 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the best place to be discussing this. That notwithstanding, I was speaking in more general terms of files of any sort that have been deleted. I neglected to point out, however, that VFDs don't get deleted unless they're frivolous, which is, AFAIK, never a result of a VFD request on a VFD itself. Every VFD (except for those lost possibly several months ago in "the crash") is still out there. Regardless of how this one ends, the record of it will still be out there. Even if the project itself is deleted, the VFD will still hang around for posterity. Tomer ^TALK 00:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've generally given up on trying to get discussions to their proper place, unless they are really of some importance. That notwithstanding... No, let me try that again... :-) For clarity: I am only speaking of the only issue pertinent to the discussion: deleting VfD nominations of VfD nominations. I'm not talking about your regular, run-of-the-mill, everybody-understands-what's-going-on VfD nomination. You are right: in general a VfD nomination isn't deleted, ever, even if it's patently absurd, like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus. The VfD of the VfD was deleted with extreme prejudice not because it was frivolous but because it was just plain wrong as an application of procedure. A gateway to infinite recursion. An abhorrence. A freak of nature. VfDing VfDs is just something that ought to be impossible. I took Geni's remark as referring only to VfUs of VfDs on VfDs (oh dear), not VfU in general, which works as you outlined. JRM · Talk 01:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm yes this line does appear to end rather than become an infinite recursion one you have listed on VFU the vfd on vfd that got speedied I can think of any way to deal with you loseing there (assuming no one lists the VFU on VFD which since VFU doesn't use sub pages could be tricky).Geni 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! SOMEBODY! PLEASE! I think my brain is stuck in the spin cycle!!! Tomer ^TALK 01:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Geni. If we reform VfU to use subpages, we could VfD VfUs. If we tentatively accept that VfDs can be VfDed, we could hence VfD VfUs of VfDs of VfUs of VfDs... Mutual recursion at its finest. I note at this point that the infinite recursion I hinted at isn't really possible, though—only if you insist on adding new levels. The process isn't self-perpetuating and you can stop at any time. Probably when you go absolutely bonkers, decide Wikipedia is a silly place, and go back to reading paper encyclopedias like the rest of the world. JRM · Talk 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages of VFU are clearly unnecessary. When a VFU for a VFD on a VFD fails, obviously the natural thing is propose a VFD on the VFU process. If that fails, you then VFD the VFD on VFU, and start again. Dragons flight 01:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, subpages of VfU are clearly necessary. If there is just the one monolithic VfU page, and it is VfD'd, where would we be able to place the VfU of the VfD'd VfU? Eugene van der Pijll 07:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Perhaps we should hold a vote on it? WP:VfDoVfUoVfDoVfU... Shimgray

If the VfU of the VfD was about something entirely different, and wasn't about WfD, but was about VD, or worse still, an image of VD viewed on a VDU, would that be an FU to the WfD, or only those WfD members who come from UF and play the Ud? KeithD (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. The above exchange needs to be copied to [[BJAODN]. - SoM 00:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been! ^_^

‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note, the Jesus VfD gives a whole new meaning to the term "bad faith nomination" ;-P IByte 00:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete the discussion of whether VfDs can be VfD'd? I'm not trying to be silly, but BJAODN might like this discussion here.

It is already thereWikipedia:WARNING:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense ahead#VfD of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency.Geni 22:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States

It looks like we've got a vandal who got hold of User:Curps account and he's started to delete articles including this one. Please speedy handle this. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I (and, I assume, a hundred other people) tried to restore it. It errored out. I would guess at this point a developer needs to look into it. Friday (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy, tigers! The talk page says Curps is repairing page move vandalism, which at least seems plausible. -Splash^talk 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, non-notable nation. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if we get to invade and get another cessation. 68.39.174.238 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, it appears to be a database problem. Sorry about the ruckus, but with such a notable article, I felt like it was appropriate to shoot first and ask questions later. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete all the other countries have articles, and I've been hearing a lot about the United States lately. 1,300,000,000 Google hits, plenty of media mentions. Notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aah, but Google is not indicative of notability! This is part of an organized effort to keep Wikipedia free of non-notable content. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Hopelessly POV, and in violation of the our policy Wikipedia:No invasions without United Nations approval. -- SCZenz 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on AfD. in seriousness, I think I tried to fix this page move vandalism at the same time, and the database was a bit wonky at that moment - we probably crossed the streams. Phil Sandifer 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely strong undelete. Somebody cut-pasted to United States of America and deleted United States leaving more than 7000 deleted edits. Georgia guy 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did? Really? Delete United States of America too. -- SCZenz 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. You can see this by clicking on the United States ghost link and it says how many deleted edits they allow you to view. Georgia guy 23:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh gosh, that's usually the first thing I do when a page is listed here as a redlink. Guess I must've forgotten this time. Also delete Freedom, Democracy, War on Terror, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Library of Congress. -- SCZenz 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Georgia. If that's taken, try the Gerogerigegege. --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Serious comment/question: United States briefly was a redirect to United States of America. Until a developer can sort out this mess, shouldn't that redirect be temporarily recreated? —Lifeisunfair 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious answer: Simply re-creating the re-direct (please let me know if this is wrong) will simply leave the thousands of edits before the deletion mentioned as deleted and have the new re-direct a page with a one-edit history. Georgia guy 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence the word "temporary". The edits will be restored per GFDL. The redirect would be useful unless it interfereces with fixing the problem somehow. -- SCZenz 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, which is why I stipulated that the redirect should have been temporary (until the technical problem preventing proper restoration was resolved). Another option was a temporary copy-and-paste recreation at United States. It appears, however, that all of this has become moot. —Lifeisunfair 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot: Look up, it is a blue link now. Fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Overthrow and merge with Canada. Friday (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe merge both into United States of Canada...? -- SCZenz 23:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Spelling ending the entry about the Eastern gray(sic) squirrel is the humorous comment "The British are coming! The British are coming! To arms!" however in Paul_Revere#The_Midnight_Ride_of_Paul_Revere it is made clear that Revere did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects. Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Should the corruption of history be removed? --Drappel (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole section of this bio devoted to the fact that Gilliam did not direct any of the Harry Potter films. I actually updated and clarified it, even though I am one of those Wikipedians who generally feels that the Wikipedia is not the place to catalog things which might have happened, but didn't. In this case, there are a couple of extenuating circumstances: the Harry Potter books and movies were clearly inspired by Gilliam's (and the other Pythons') work, and Gilliam has commented on the fact that he was passed over for the Potter films. He is not the only Python to not direct any Harry Potter films: Terry Jones also has not directed any Potter films (nor, for that matter, has John Cleese.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither of those other Pythons directed any Potter movies. But, neither of them were favorites of Rowling, as Gilliam was. She wanted Gilliam to direct one, or more, of the movies, but was shot down. Therefore, it is relevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree it's just about worthy of being included, if only for the sake of completeness; but that 3rd paragraph is just OTT and silly. He isn't going to direct a Harry Potter film, end of. Stuff about it being impossible for him to do so unless the director is pulled on an on-going project readers can figure out for themselves in the unlikely event of the thought crossing their minds. "Gilliam has not ruled out the possibility of directing a film based on the Potter-related book Beedle the Bard" Really? Has he been asked? If so, cite it. Along with him not ruling out the possibility of directing adaptations of The Brothers Karamazov, Five Go to Smuggler's Top and The RSPB's Book of British Birds. Declan Clam (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look at that third paragraph, I see that you are correct. I reverted too quickly without really looking at the content of that paragraph, which is clearly too speculative to be relevant. My apologies. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to strike a Pythonesque tone with the last paragraph: the Pythons often relied on the strategy of overstating the obvious. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OT: Tim and Declan, you are brilliant! Next you two're gonna be insinuating that when Terry drove up and down Mulholland Drive furiously, he tried to re-enact The Killer Cars! XD --79.193.90.221 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [3]. I was basically lauding Timothy's and Declan's mimicking of the Python style in "overstating the obvious", and added another fitting Python reference from one of Terry's cartoons. --79.193.119.189 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the criticism I've read w/r/t the banners has included the "only Americans like these sorts of ads" trope....well honey, lemme tell ya, I'm an American and I'd rather be punched in the mouth than have to look at these ads. In fact, they give me a great, big sad. It's like the Tropicana repackaging launch and the new Pepsi logos all rolled up into one...then dunked in a feculent swamp of ordure and rolled in sprinkles. Capital-letter sprinkles. And don't even get me started about the cultural tone-deafness inherent in many of the slogans...or the way the contribution amounts were originally expressed in $USD...or refer to tax laws that only work in one country...Way to prove that we're not America-centric, hm? There are literally dozens of levels of YUCK! that this ad campaign--and by that I mean the concept, the final product, the implementation, the whole shebang--passes through, on its way to the pinnacle of Do Not Want. Please: Take WIKIPEDIA FOREVER! and all its little friends, its mommies and daddies and aunties and uncles, and put all of them in the Bad Ideas Poorly Excuted box--then fill the box with rocks and sink it in a nearby river...of battery acid. And as I read somewhere above, please, for the love of all that is good: Don't do it again. Failure to Suck, FOREVER! GJC 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tesseract seems pretty interesting, but what the fuck is up with the net?! Is it really six cubes or is it some other fucking optical illusion. Maybe that should be explained in the article. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt tesseracts have anything to do with sexual intercourse and none of the secondary meanings in Fuck (disambiguation) seem applicable. Think you could manage to make the question more meaningful thanks? Dmcq (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Why has the picture of Saruman been deleted? Could someone find another pic of Saruman? It would make the article more complete.

I would imagine because it was a copyrighted image without the correct permissions to legally use on Wikipedia? Besides, one cannot get a picture of Saruman, because one cannot find him to photograph. —Morven 12:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folks,

I've had a change of heart about the paraconsistency stuff. I'm convinced now, we should rewrite this article to give proper recognition to the far-reaching contributions of Professor Hewitt. His older results should be included too. In fact here is my proposed new timeline:

• 13 billion B.C. (T=0): The big bang. The cumulative hierarchy is created as debris from the explosion of a large cardinal (see "Actor model in physical cosmology" for more info). Only one baby, Car-El Hewitt, escapes the explosion in a rocket built by his father, Jor-El Hewitt.
• T=10^-43 to 10^-34 seconds: the unification period. The boolean values "True" and "False" separate through spontaneous symmetry breaking, as do the four fundamental logics. These are classical logic, intuitionistic logic, infinitary logic and Direct Logic^TM, the Logic for the Internet Age^TM. Residual inconsistency from the Big Bang fades until it can only be detected with radio telescopes, as the "cosmic inconsistency background".

• T=10^-34 seconds to 75 million B.C.: Using the power of inconsistency, Hewitt becomes overlord of the Galactic Confederacy, which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as "Teegeeack". A government faction known as the Loyal Officers eventually overthrows Hewitt and his renegades, locking him away in an electronic mountain trap.

• 75 million B.C.-20th century A.D.: Hewitt sleeps in his electronic trap beneath the sunken city of R'lyeh, waiting for the stars to be right. Telepathic emanations from Hewitt's dreams introduce inconsistency (Russell's paradox) into Frege's foundational system, and later (1931) inject incompleteness into Peano arithmetic, derailing the program led by David Hilbert, John von Neumann, and Wilhelm "The Big Topper" Ackermann. Don McLean later commemorates this event in his ballad "The Day The Logic Died".

• 1970's A.D: At the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, Hewitt awakens from his slumber in human form. Seeking to recover his power of old, he joins the faculty of the Potrzebie Institute of Forbidden Lore.

• 1970's-2008: Hewitt's first experiments with inconsistency at Potrzebie lead to the accidental collapse of the polynomial hierarchy (news report here). After this disaster, Hewitt temporarily retreats to his fortress at Isengard where he breeds and trains an army of sockpuppets who will carry out his later missions, while continuing his inconsistency work.

• 2008-2010: After many trials, Hewitt succeeds in tapping the cosmic inconsistency background to create the flux capacitor (see "Actor model in time travel"). He requires only one more component, the 1.21 jigawatt cold fusion energy reactor that powers the Wikipedia servers and is zealously guarded by a super-administrator known only as "WMC". Using portable computers equipped with extra-powerful special-purpose batteries Hewitt and his sockpuppets (now called "Hewitt on Wheels") enter mêlée combat with WMC. This proceeds for many grueling rounds until WMC misses a saving throw and is desysopped by Chairman Kaga of the Arbitration Committee.

Hewitt's takeover of Wikipedia is now complete, and all articles are to be rewritten using paraconsistent logic and the actor model, starting today, April 1, 2010. Onward with the new regime!!!!!

66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more reasons for keeping this article protected

Cuteness is also very commonly associated with the name Whitney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsugirl1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your reason. --78.34.99.63 (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy

Your beautiful, admit it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashhsock (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, Andy will surely come to reveal his beautiful when the time is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar-Pharazôn (talk • contribs) 09:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of two very active contributors and editors fighting it out for top ... in fact its hard to be sure just what they wanted to prove on someone else's user page in a very personal tangent. PasswordUsername and Colchicum both also have colourful talk pages. Pay attention to what Peltimikko says.

Hi, Peltimikko. I think you're making well-intentioned edits, so I don't personally see this as a serious thing, but you ought to be wary of the 3RR restriction. I got blocked by Colchicum just a day ago - so just take it as a friendly warning.PasswordUsername (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Peltimikko (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you got blocked by William M. Connoley, not by me, for what you did yourself. And you managed to bring this before the 3RR noticeboard even before I did. So I had very little to do with all this. Peltimikko is indeed making well-intentioned edits, possibly unlike some others. Colchicum (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess – this is another of the pages added to your 8,804 article watchlist, Colch?PasswordUsername (talk)

Yes it is. I watchlist the talkpages of every interesting user (you are not one of them, though). Colchicum(talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly don't know what to say to that.PasswordUsername (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be envious. This is how it looks like; quite unmanageable:

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎; 22:01 . . (+337) . . Dweller (talk | contribs) 
(→User:Matt Giwer:  indeed)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Peltimikko‎; 22:00 . . (+186) . . Colchicum (talk | contribs) (→Reverts)
(diff) (hist) . . 2009 swine flu outbreak‎; 21:59 . . (+66) . . WAS 4.250 (talk | contribs) (→Notes: restore 
deleted source)
(diff) (hist) . . m North Korea‎; 21:59 . . (-141) . . MexicanWoman (talk | contribs) (→Major cities)
(diff) (hist) . . Template talk:Did you know‎; 21:59 . . (-1,055) . . Giants27 (talk | contribs) (→Evangelical 
Lutheran Church of St Peter: to prep1)
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment‎; 21:59 . . (+132) . . KieferSkunk (talk | contribs) (→Requesting 
clarification: Hello? Bueller?)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Fascism‎; 21:58 . . (+600) . . 89.241.135.133 (talk) (→Proposal)

Colchicum (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised "Fascism" is up there.PasswordUsername (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specially for you:

Communist Party of Estonia
Communist Party of the Russian SFSR
Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Communist party
Comoros
Comoros forests
Conceived in Liberty
Conestabile Madonna
Congress of Estonia
Conioselinum tataricum
Conium maculatum

Excuse me for this chat, Peltimikko. Colchicum (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of bored by this. You're not just the sort of user I find interesting either – however curious the first article you edited turned out.

 – PasswordUsername (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? This was very far from my first edit. Mr. Boring. Colchicum (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one which began your presence was Mussolini.PasswordUsername (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just like your presence here didn't start with Helena Sheehan and Communist Party USA. Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't start with 166.217.251.170. Anyway, kick-ass expansion on that Duce article: Ultimo atto is a biopic must-see for old and young. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please people, chat elsewhere. Peltimikko (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ha ha ha. You have to admit there Peltikikko, that is one of the funniest comment wars ever no? I wonder if my tiny page will ever have one. Shabidoo 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Seeding in 3rd Round ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.230.248 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
¿¿ Aheyfromhome (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... from Wikipedia talk:Contact us:

I have no idea if I reporting my problem at the right site....but this is concerning the early morning phone calls about Sandra Day O'Conner. This moring at 12:45 AM the first one came telling me about O'Conner, then if that wasn't enough the second call came at 1:45 AM I guess in case I fell asleep again, same message. Now, I am 80 years old, and phone calls at time of morning can never be good, as far as I am concerned, maybe it was a mistake on the recorder, i don't know, but whatever it was I certainly hope it does not happen again. thank you. <name redacted>, 10/25/10 Carson City, NV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.179.224 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the right place. But I'll notify our retired supreme court justice call center. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

...see Sandra Day O'Connor

This article needs many! JimRaynor 15:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Settle down there James. --Lord Voldemort 13:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't get out of character. JimRaynor 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keeping you under control is all part of my evil plan. --Lord Voldemort 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should have apparated a nuclear bomb into the ministry of magic and then set it off. JimRaynor 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well the reason I didn't was because... well, I never... well, I should have gotten... well, well, shut up. That simply would not have been evil enough. --Lord Voldemort 19:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll help you out here LV. There are two reasons he couldn't have done this. First, wizards don't use Muggle technology. Therefore, a nuke is out from the start. Second, Hogwarts was described (in one of the books) as a non-apparation zone. If these can be set up, surely the Ministry of Magic has one (or at least now that they're openly at war with He Who Has a Silly Name.

*giggle!* --^pirate 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but that's the thing, with a nuke you don't need to be inside. Hell, you don't even need to be close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.149.251 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: BAE is all-caps in BAE Systems. BAe with a small "e" was (is?) the acronym of British Aerospace, which created BAE Systems when it subsumed Marconi Electronics Systems.

It is correct in the article. (There was a lot of discussion about this somewhere a while back; I thought it was on this Talk page, but I guess not). - DavidWBrooks 12:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops ... I just responded to my own, undated comment from a year ago! - DavidWBrooks 12:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a clear sign of something, but I'm not sure quite what. :-)

Atlant 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

by 81.56.72.4

"Reduces the opportunity for users of operating systems that spontaneously combust every now and then, people behind shaky Internet access or living in the Third World and therefore subject to frequent power outages to actually make nontrivial contributions."

Note:Click hyperlicks to find lol.

He's listed in the "disappeared person" category, but his body has been found. He can hardly be said to have "disappeared."

Well, for 75 years it was true to say that he had disappeared. The fact that his body finally turned up in 1999 doesn't alter that. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that a person had disappeared and was finally discovered after being missing for X years. JackofOz 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a "formerly disappeared" category? --Mr. Vernon 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we have different ideas about what the word "disappear" means. Scenario: I walk out my front door, having told my partner that I'm just going to buy the newspaper and will be back in 15 minutes. But after 5 hours I still haven't returned. He phones a few friends, drives down to the shop, calls the police .... After a week I still haven't returned, and there have been no sightings of me. I have disappeared. That's what disappear means. Then one day I turn up, with some sort of weird explanation about where I was. It's still true that I had disappeared for over a week. I didn't cease to have disappeared, and I didn't "formerly disappear". I did disappear, that's one event. Then, I turned up; that's a separate event. Mallory did disappear for 75 years, and the finding of his body doesn't retrospectively change that. JackofOz 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would greatly expand the number of people in that category... you'd have to add Agatha Christie, for instance. A brief glance at the others in the category indicates that it includes those who have vanished but the bodies have not been found. --Mr. Vernon 02:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the category needs expanding, so be it. Although, I think that most people who disappear do so forever, so the number of names of those who turned up again would not be large. (In fact I was going to mention the Agatha Christie case in my post above, but I got distracted while writing it.) Cheers. JackofOz 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "and found" subcategory? :) You're right though, the number of people who turn up later would be rare - I would suspect most would be crime victims or explorers of sorts (like Mallory, Earhart, etc.) In any case, let someone else solve this problem, that's what the editors are for. --Mr. Vernon 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rm'd the cat listing, following the apparent intent of the category, "missing, remains not found." Gwen Gale 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is too clever

It looks so much like a real sewing kit, that, well, where's the cake? I recommend replacement. ←Ben^B4 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ←Ben^B4 06:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling could get even better

I would like to suggest the alternate spelling "fondon". Not only is it sheerly brilliant, but it simply rolls off the keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.129.249 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate spelling is too clever

Indeed. It reads so much like a real spelling, that, well, where's the fake? I recommend implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.129.249 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability questionable

How is he notable? 11th President? Not first or tenth of 50th, but 11th? I don't think he's even on any bills. I move for deletion, or at least merge with other presidential articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.1.24 (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Why is this page protected if it is a major stub and needs expanding? 217.28.3.143 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is semi-protected until July 23, 2012 because anonymous editors have been vandalizing it. If you wish to modify this page, you must create an account and reach autoconfirmed status (at least four days old and ten edits) before you can edit semi-protected pages. Otherwise you can make an edit request by placing ((edit protected)) and describing the change you wish to be made. benzband (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history and I can see that now, I didn't check before sorry. But yes protection was definitely the best option to stop the vandalism. 217.28.3.143 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these were students from the school, given the nature of the edits ([4], [5], etc). benzband (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to the section on Medals

The line "Each gold medal is made up of 92.5 percent silver and 1.34 percent gold, with the remainder copper." probably needs changed to "Each gold medal is made up of 92.5 percent gold and 1.34 percent silver, with the remainder copper." I could be wrong, but I assume that Gold medal contains mostly GOLD... 148.134.37.3 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more research on these interwebs has revealed that the gold medals are only gold plated, thus my mis-informed comment above. I'd therefore suggest instead that the section be clarified to state that the gold metals are only gold plated silver. 148.134.37.3 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are basically just plated in gold, according to the sources. Silver is cheaper, and cheaper is very, very good when you're talking about hundreds of medals. If they were 92% gold, LOCOG wouldn't have been able to afford George Lazenby, let alone Daniel Craig. I'll wait for others to chime in on whether or not the prose should be adjusted. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's necessary to say they're plated, I understand the confusion though so if a credible source can be found to support it then I wouldn't argue its inclusion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spencers Sexuality?

first off, why would something like this come to question in the first place in regards to a childrens television show, and second of all, having watched the show i have seen him with women various times. in the episode where carly takes an art class he makes out with the teacher. i think thats proof enough. i just wanna know why the article implies that he is not homosexual, but ASEXUAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.149.11 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the dance episode, he finds himself in a dress surrounded by cute boys and says, "I don't know what's going on... but I think I like it!" Then later in the episode where Neville steals their website, Carly asks Spencer what dress size he wears and he immediately responds with a 10. Both of these imply he's at least a crossdresser, if not a homosexual (the first reference). Also there have been a few, "iffy," remarks from him. Like, in the episode where the iCarly gang is taking care of chicks, and Spencer finds one in his shower, he says, "Good thing I found out [it was a chick and not soap] before I-" it's possible he was going to do something homosexual with it. And lastly, in the episode you already mentioned, when Carly's going to the art classes, when she first is going to ask Spencer for art lessons, she sits down and says, "Hey, can I ask you something?" and Spencer responds with, "You didn't go into my room did you?" nervously. This implies there's something in his room he doesn't want her to see, which is probably sexual, and could be homosexual. I do admit he's been with many females and there's no doubt he's attracted to them; but he is at least a crossdresser, and possibly bisexual. Definitely not asexual though.209.173.122.191 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, the dancing thing was becasue it was the same thing carly dreamt when she was sitting there. and you dont always have control over what you do in a dream. the chick comment was probally meaning he was going to start scrubbing himself, which deffinatally wouldnt be good for a chick. the room comment, well i know numerous people who are territorial about there room(me amognst them) and its fairly common. plus he might have had somthing sexual in a non homo way which he still wouldnt want carly seeing. anyway, theres tons of times you see him dating, kissing, or making out with women. youve fund only 3 things that could point towards homosexualiy and only the last thing is somwhat realistic. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Spencer is bisexual because of the dancing scene and the awards show with the swimsuit models. He still often makes out with girls and other things.Naomim10 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm a guy from iCarly wiki, and we're just reminding you people that iCarly is a comedy show! It's full of Innuendo: there was controversy regarding Freddie's apartment. So Spencer isn't Gay, he's Not Straight, he's fictional. He doesn't exist in real life. --Edward Rankin (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From a discussion about Special:UnwatchedPages on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

Most of those seemed to be proposals about opening it to registered accounts which is much less restrictive than my idea. If it is technically possible to create the restriction I stated, I'd consider opening a discussion at WP:AN. Ryan Vesey 23:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree, they do. Thank you, Ryan, for your helpful advice, as ever. Having just taken a quick look over at WP:AN, I see that it seems to resemble a bizarre cross between an out-take episode of Upstairs Downstairs and the latest shouting match from EastEnders. I think I'd be happier locking myself in the cellar for a while longer, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LSD

LSD links here for an Elephant suspected to have died of an LSD overdose in an experiment. But that Elephant is not listed ...

Why did anyone administer LSD to an elephant? -ErinHowarth (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 60s. --87.82.207.195 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pompous

From the article: " Louis Ellison was a pompous government employee who had made a small fortune in Chicago real estate, only to lose it during the Great Depression.[6]" That doesn't sound very NPOV.

I removed it. Perhaps (I get that impression) this is based on something Ellison said personally, then we can quote him (or write "Ellison describes...)if we wan´t it in. He´s not a WP:RS on whether his stepdad was pompous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit ridiculous that a guy with a French name and French nationality would be listed as "Polish" without qualificagtion. Personally I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that you're trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes by denying that someone called "Frédéric Chopin" is in any sense French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.192.243 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's resolvable: call him "Fryderyk", as he was baptized in Poland. As for the French surname, what are all those Americans doing with English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Haitian, etc., names? Nihil novi (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the small detail that he wrote his own name in French, not Polish. But, if you so insist, change his name to "Fryderyk" then. And change his surname to "Szopen" while you're at it. And are you sure Wojciech Żywny wasn't Polish? You should look into that. Certainly Marie Curie was Polish...

Nihil novi, would you care to explain to me why you have edited three articles so that the Marie Curie, born in Poland but moved to France as a young age is listed as "French-Polish"; Wojciech Żywny, born in Czech but moved to Poland at a young age, is listed as "Czech-born Polish"; and Frédéric Chopin here is listed solely as "Polish"? 178.222.192.243 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:UFO Moviez

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Talk:UFO Moviez, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.} _{See where I screwed up.} 17:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get why this is here, look at both the section heading and the name of the user posting.

I wanted personally to let you know Jimbo, how gratifying it was to receive your kind note of support and encouragement. Coming as it did from someone all too familiar with just how taxing a campaign can be, it meant all the more to me.

I have taken the liberty of sharing your kind words with the other members of our fund-raising committee--the real movers and shakers in this enormous effort. Your words were visibly heartening to them. They, as much as I, deeply appreciate your endorsement and promise of future assistance.

Please accept my sincere thanks. I look forward to future collaboration. I look forward to meeting you again at the Wikimedia Annual Dinner next weekend. --Civivlaospei (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to being somewhat confused.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. If there's a dinner. I want an invite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it claimed that if a human's metabolic rate was somehow increased to match that of a hummingbird, the human would burst into flames. Is this true, and if so, how was it calculated? And for that matter, what prevents hummingbirds from spontaneously combusting if their metabolism is as high as this claim implies? 75.4.22.29 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've stated is a common misconception. Hummingbirds are bursting into flame all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[...] What do you mean? African or European Hummingbirds? It's a question of weight ratios. really all it means is that we'd have enough muscles and energy to flap hard enough to fly and use the air as coolant. Probably be very fast swimmers too. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, the issue is that the hummingbirds don't combust when they carry a coconut together on a line. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a cold snap the other night. The only birds that weren't flash-freezing in mid-flight were the local hummingbirds. New York One news was advising people who found sparrows and other songbirds frozen in mid-air to scoop them up with a fishing net, and microwave them on low for five minutes or so, depending on the make and wattage. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"And as I fricaseed him, he gave out a yell: 'Oy! Willow! Titwillow! Willow!'" --Allan Sherman[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is showing up on Special:Longpages. It currently has about 197 kB of readable prose, which is twice the 100K limit recommended by Wikipedia:Article size and according to that page would take about 2 hours for the typical person to actually read. Some details definitely need to be moved into subarticles.

I'm agnostic as to how this is done, but it seems like content is spread out among multiple sections and could be more easily moved or condensed if it were collected. I think the split between male and female sexuality is probably not helpful in this regard, and the article could be restructured along other lines. For example, I think we could collect all the law-related content and spin off "Sexuality and law in ancient Rome". All primary coverage of homosexuality and gender identity could be consolidated into a single shorter section, since we already have Homosexuality in ancient Rome. I think we could also spin off something like "Sexuality and art in ancient Rome", collecting content from several sections. For example, the long section "Breasts" has a lot of prose about artistic representations and cultural significance of breasts, which are not all that interesting to those that don't care about artsy things. -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habeo Belandum pro viro, quod viri celeriter finiunt, cum feminae numquam defatigant. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@80.187.110.67: I'm sorry, you'll have to speak English. -- Beland (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mildly naughty joke in reference to your initial post and our article topic. "I hold Beland to be a man, as men finish quickly, while women never tire." Ah well...might still be enough for an entry over at Wikipedia:Talk page highlights. Though I was originally hoping for a reply of "Ridevi." ("LOL!") --80.187.110.67 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article, but can you really call a cat a politician since he's unlikely to have any awareness at all of what his role entails? It raises some interesting (as well as potentially libelous, if comparisons with human politicians are made) questions. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltingpot (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meltingpot (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should not discriminate. A cat can be just as much as a politician as any other being. It would not be libellous to compare a politician to another, and this cat is a politician. Jorgesca (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree. A cat can't take an active part in the political process, which is what a being has to do in order to be a politician. The only thing he could do (and then not reliably) is walk through the doors to one or other of the "Yes" or "No" lobbies whan a vote is called. Even then he'd be uniquely susceptible to bribes (since all you'd have to do to get his vote is put a plate of fish in one of the lobbies). So no, I don't think a cat can realistically be called a politician.

BTW, there's no picture for him above the article. Has it been taken down now?

Meltingpot (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I just finished going through this article and fixing some of the links and formatting. I only really made a dent in what needs to be done, so I also left a tag at the top of the page. I think the article should probably be split into two parts because of how long its bound to become. Maybe it should be turned into a table as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Kat* (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy?

As long as infidelity keeps making headlines and as long as people feel they have to resign because of one and as long as someone keeps making family values, or traditional values or total honesty a campaign issue, I quess someone will have to keep track of them and keep them in perspective. Remember, Bill Clinton came within 10 votes of being impeached over a blowjob. This list shows that many of his most ardent accusers were guilty of the same thing AND lying about it. That alone is enough reason for this article to exist. But you're absolutely right. We should have bigger issues to deal with than this. Richrakh (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rickrakh, do you understand the difference between a blowjob and perjury? because if you don't i'm not sure you should be editing this article. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you know the difference between stating an opinion and being a jackass? Because if you don't, you definately shouldn't be editing anything.Richrakh (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all about his social life or sex life? Did he have kids? Was he gay?

Mysterious total absence of info about his personal life other than his early life and education. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOFIXIT! - best, --Smerus (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• He was alleged to have contracted syphilis from a prostitute. That's the extent of my current knowledge of his personal life, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Male or female prostitute? EEng 21:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That would come under WP:UNDUE, I rather think.--Smerus (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Had quite a thing for Grindr, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  Not to mention the organ-grinder… Double sharp (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Double sharp: ... Zingarese talk · contribs 02:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s the last straw. I declare this discussion closed. EEng 22:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!!

I'm trying to make an article for Billie Eilish's intro "!!!!!!!" because it charted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 79 but says only administrators can edit. What can be done about this? DarklyShadows (talk)

The article Billie Eilish is semi-protected but I'm not sure if this is what you mean. Which article do you want to edit?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's !!!!!!!, which is covered by the title blacklist. I've redirected it to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go. Have at it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, "!!!!!!!" is the opening track of the album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? "!!!!!!!", is a short intro in which Eilish slurps saliva from her Invisalign aligners and announces that "this is the album," before she and her brother descend into laughter. You learn something new every day.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever become a famous singer, I'm going to make a song titled "music'); DROP TABLE ALBUMS;--". creffett (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call my album Special:UserLogout just to annoy every webdev in the world. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already created an album, and named it <!--, but no one can find it to listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gives new meaning to a "hidden track" creffett (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You all are a bunch of nerds. Natureium (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Creffett, Ah, little Bobby Tables. Guy (help!) 14:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Talking Seattle Grunge Blues" redux.— Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of goodies picked up when having a "discussion" on PMTOK's genre. It is pretty big, I know. But cut me slack; the discussion was 70,000 bytes large, essays were sent back and forth. Here's a couple of direct quotes I found were goodies. – Le Panini

-A cut response when someone tried to join the discussion-

"You weren't even part of this discussion until the last couple of days! The consensus on this page was established LONG before you ever got here! Also, it's not my "personal opinion" when it's 100% FACT! Nintendo has misworded the games for years- that's a fact! The games are still RPGs- that's also a fact!"

-When asked about reliable sources and original research-

"I am strictly a facts-based person, meaning that I only ever go by information if it's 100% facts! That means that what I say CANNOT be considered "original research", because "original research" is NOT based on facts, whereas what I share is!"..."I don't spew lies and nonsense like the vast majority of so-called "gaming journalists" do- oh no! I only share the facts! There's a difference there- a HUGE one!"

"I am 100% fact based, which means that I acnnot BE wrong, as I only go by the honest facts! I do research into these things on my own- legitimate research mind you- NOT original research! Why you continue to refuse to accept that 99.9% of reviewers are entirely paid off to lie about these things is beyond me!"

-When evidence was suggested that the creator of the game (Kensuke Tanabe) calls the game action adventure-

"You're believing Kensuke Tanabe- a person whom I've already said cannot be taken seriously whatsoever! If you had done the proper research- like I have- you would know that Tanabe misunderstood...(a long paragraph why he's an idiot)

"I'm "dismissing" Tanabe because he's an idiot! He doesn't know a damn thing about RPGs in general, and neither do you!"..." I gave you factual proof that Tanabe is NOT to be trusted whatsoever, yet you continue to refuse to accept it out of the fact that your ego prevents you from accepting that you and the vast majority of other people are 100% wrong on everything regarding Paper Mario! The Paper Mario fanbase hates Tanabe and they know damn well that he is an incapable producer who should've moved on years ago."

-When asked to stop-

"Yeah- reverting my edits just because I'm right and you don't like that! Figures! It seems like you DON'T want Wikipedia to become a legitimately reliable source, because reverting the edits of the person who actually knows these things is just making you look even worse than you already are! How would you feel if I went onto every page you've ever edited and undid all of YOUR hard work? Huh? Of course, I'd never do such a thing, as I'm not a dick, but the question/point still remains! I'm sure you'd feel pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? Yep- I figured as much! For that reason, you shouldn't be reverting the edits of the expert in this department! Use your brain from now on, man! Come on now! Don't let your closed-mindedness/ego get in the way of accepting the truth! That wouldn't be good at all!"

-The result-

"Go archive it already. This whole debacle is just embarassing to read."

Why is this article about birds? Is this an elaborate joke? 24.62.5.69 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, tits are birds. See Tit (bird). I think the the usage referring to breasts came from Teat. -- œ^™ 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work with boobies, and that never stopped being funny. Until they tried to peck, they have bills like steak knives. I still have scars from handling young boobies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

handling young boobies - the images that conjures up! 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our new goal is to draw an anime Jimbo Wales and add it to his userpage. Shii (tock) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... why not become a fan? --Sigmundur (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Our new goal is to draw an anime Jimbo Wales and add it to his userpage. Shii (tock) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)" Fascinating! Pandelver (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that a three year old editor with more than 10k edits hard-redirected their userpage, and talkpage to two different articles in mainspace. I went through their few previous edits. It is not clearly visible if they were having issues on wikipedia, neither there were any signs of retirement. Is it possible that the account has been compromised? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a three-year-old doing editing Wikipedia anyway? EEng 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I think what they meant was that they have been editing for 3 years, not that they're only 3 years old. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. EEng 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: For future reference, it's quite unlikely that three-year-olds are editing Wikipedia in a way that involves proper redirect syntax (although, doubtless, some of them do possess the ability to read and even to type on a keyboard). Hopefully this is a helpful rule of thumb for the future, by which you might avoid instances of confusion such as this. jp×g 19:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I think a three-year-old can't do redirects but probably can participate in AfDs. Another good job would be turning down protected-page edit requests, since on those all you have to do is say "Please get consensus first" over and over and over. EEng 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked Absolutely Certainly for a month but that does not mean that I believe that the Ark of the Covenant actually existed. I do not know one way or another, but I do know tendentious editing when I see it. Even the username is an indication of a dogmatic approach that may well be incompatible with a collabortative editing project. Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I came here. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely exists, I saw it in a documentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As have I, featuring noted expert Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.! Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not the place for this discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it belongs in a museum. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not. If I had a choice between trusting a compulsive liar locked in a straitjacket in a padded cell scrawling his inane ramblings about how the lizard people secretly run the world through an extensive mind control programme on the wall of said cell with his own faeces and trusting what is written in The Sun, I'd flip a coin because they truly are about equivalent in reliability. It's about as far away from a reliable source as you can possibly get. It's a tabloid rag filled with sensationalistic bullshit and made-up nonsense. It has about as justifiable role in an encyclopedia as Jimmy Savile does in the dormitory of a girl's boarding school. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put you down for a "maybe." Zad68 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are minority views mentioned on Wikipedia that I believe are due, and it is frustrating to see other editors misuse policy to exclude their mention or diminish their importance. I perceive this to be a an important problem to fix. That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. I would strongly oppose any policy changes that help solve the first problem by weakening the tools needed to solve the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. Is there really, Firefangledfeathers? I do humbly beg your pardon in pointing this out, but that sounds like a classic "bogeyman" type argument that has been used in the past over nonexistant/greatly exaggerated witches, communists, etc. I will grant you that that WAS once the case here, ~15 years ago; and there are still the junk/spam/promo articles that get published and not deleted, because nobody even sees them in the first place. But I wouldn't call that "successful" if no one even sees it. Nor would I call it a huge problem, just a very aggravating annoyance. But any mainstream, high traffic topic area nowadays, fringe material is just about never successfully added. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am both a greatly exaggerated witch and a greatly exaggerated communist, and if you persist in argument-by-comparison-to-historical-travesty I'll hex you and collectivize your capital. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had to call it like it is and you did. Thank you for exposing wikipedia for the fraud that it is. (Die Snack 2.0 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The hell?-169.139.219.254 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can we unblock Pants as "time served"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self-requested block, not under a cloud. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: where 33% of posts to talk pages are attempts at humor, 33% are reactions to those posts which take them seriously, and 33% are explanations that the first post was a joke. (The remaining 1% is someone telling someone else to "fuck off") --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took Ritchie seriously. Woops, and sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Fuck off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floq you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a joke! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in humor on Wikipedia, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was joking... ––FormalDude talk 21:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it's clear that all of your POVs are bleeding into your editing on the topic of what edits comprise Wikipedia, may I remind you that the birthday in the article on obscure celebrity is obviously incorrect, and the caste I am part of is most definitely considered brahmin.^[1] Lastly, the article on obviously kooky conspiracy theory is full of lies, that's right I said LIES and I have a bitchute video to prove it. I demand you rectify this or I will refer you to the local prosecutor. Previously unsigned comment was posted by User:Some mobile IP you'll probably never see again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Finally someone I agree with! Oh, and what's wrong with being a Nazi? (I put that last part in just for MPants.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woah let's not throw around the real n word like that! I'm actually a part of fringe white nationalist group that uses Roman symbols, but I ain't no socialist! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see that you protected the page User:Lost on belmont. Just letting you know that it's probably best to protect Talk:Masturbation and Talk:Non-penetrative sex as well, since that IP keeps coming back and Lost on belmont keeps requesting that each IP the user appears under be blocked. Not to mention...IPs don't stay blocked long unless they are proxies. 107.22.97.105 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. I am going to keep my eye on it. I want to hold off protecting those talk pages for a bit, but I did ask an expert about a range block. Thanks for letting me know. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also keep an eye on Coitus interruptus and Onan as well. Those are his other two favorites. Lost on Belmont (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's just great. We got spermophagia under control, now this. I wish these sperm slickers and handjobbers would get a blog, together. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (talk page stalker)This above remark deserves a barnstar by itself. ;) Calabe1992 02:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I correct in reading that Drmies is going to watch masturbation and non-penetrave sex?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kelapstick, if you look at my log, you'll see that my finger is on the block button. Watch it now. No, you are not correct--I'm watching Fiddler on the Roof, and everyone is fully dressed. "I am the man in the house! I am the head of the family!" Drmies (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help this poor, lost soul? Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra! I apologize for the extreme delay responding to your request here. I've been... quite busy lately with work and... being an adult... You know, those... "fun" responsibilities that everyone's always talking about... ;-) I just checked the UTRS appeal, and it looks like it's since been denied. Again, I'm sorry for being so late to the party. However, if you run into any more UTRS appeals that you think could use my guidance in order to steer it toward a right and proper closure, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'll be more than happy to take the wheel and do what's needed in order to help. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no porblem. we all have lies --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LIVES. we have LIVES --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ban KQ because he's stubborn and sometimes terse or even rude. Also, he makes a lot of mistakes when he edits after a night out drinking, and so occasionally spams Recent Changes correcting his own mistakes. We'll show him! Koyaanis Qatsi 04:24 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Careful, KQ, admit to drinking and you'll piss off the temperance movement! --Dante Alighieri 05:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Long-time party activist Earl F. Dodge has run as the Prohibition Party's presidential nominee in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and again in 2004. Dodge received just 208 votes in 2000 -- the party's worst electoral showing ever."[7]

*smirk* Hephaestos

Isn't the temperance movement pissed already (not, of course, in the British sense)? I suppose next they turn green and smash poker games and pool halls?  ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi

I have an idea. Let's start a whole new wikipedia with all the banned good people. We'll do great I am sure. I have a couple of other names to suggest as well. Elk.

User:Sandbox for user warnings has been an editor since 2008 and I can without a doubt say they're one of the most disruptive editors I have ever encountered. Merely looking at their talk page shows nearly 10,000 warnings for disruptive behaviour [8] and not a single response from them to any of those warnings addressing the behaviour leading to them. [9] I have never seen an editor stoop to this level of WP:IDHT before. They should know better, given they've been blocked several times before [10] to the point they're a WP:UNBLOCKABLE.
I think it's time that we as a community finally say that we've had enough and ban this person for refusal to get the WP:POINT. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 14:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

• Strong Neutral I don't really have much of an opinion on what I just said. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 14:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note: this entire thread was this heated.

Ahem. If a person does not want their bio printed at all, then whatever you do to it, and no matter how you mess with it, you cannot be acting with the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others. In that case, these standards ("verifiable" writing, and love) are simply incompatable, even if you wish otherwise. At best, you may simply be an enabler or co-violator, who acts to mitigate the invasion of privacy, by acting to decrease the outrage. But that doesn't count if you give your assent to the whole process. Giving a drink in a torture chamber doesn't make you a saint if you assent to torture chambers. Being kind to a person in prison doesn't count if you assent to the imprisonment of a person who doesn't deserve to be there at all. If you've got two burglars in a house arguing over whether or not to steal just cash, but not an antique ring which might cause the owner some extra anguish, and one burglar starts talking about "standards of love and respect for the dignity of others," then you know somebody is mightily confused. People who care about love and respect for others don't violate their houses AT ALL. Nada. They don't engage in legalistic niceties about what's kosher to steal and what isn't. I hope that's enough metaphors for the day and that the point comes across. SBHarris 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean it's more like HITLER - David Gerard 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the point seems to come across -- we should forget about being an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is really, really similar to a torture chamber, and repurpose ourselves as a press release service, since "the highest standards of love and respect for the dignity of others" means saying whatever they want us to say (even if what they want us to say is something akin to "each and every one of my alleged victims is a publicity-seeking liar", which does not show much love and respect for said victims who are now being publicly accused of wrongdoing.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a fascinating exchange. On one side we see a person with a vision in which human diginity plays an important role (and that IMO, is the reason why may of us dedicate so many hours of our time, effort, and yes, love) and on the other side a person that views this project as a torture chamber, as if that was a 'good thing. I am very glad that the latter is not the modus operandi of this project, and that the vision of the founder is one that appreciates human dignity and respect, while maintaining the core of our mission to create a free source of human knowledge. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound like a fascinating exchange, Jossi. Can you tell me where on this page you'd find that exchange? I've looked all over for it, and I can't find a single exchange where anyone expresses the view you attribute to "the other side". Can you please tell me where I would find this fascinating exchange? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Antaeus, but your logic, argumentation style, sarcasm, etc, escapes me completely. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the understatement of the year, if you somehow read "we should forget about being an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is really, really similar to a torture chamber", with or without irony, as "on the other side a person ... views this project as a torture chamber, as if that was a good thing." I mean, really. Even if you manage to miss the irony, it doesn't come out as support for torture chambers or anything like them, and I surely would like to know how you came out with such a complete misreading. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rise in suicide of young men often straight and white is rising. And derogatory terms like this are used to put down young white men who cant get girlfriends or sex. The article never talks about the derogatory use of the word and how it basically says that men who cant get sex or girlfriends are basically bad and should be ashamed of themselves. Lefty feminists who are misandristic use terms like this to put down and belittle men and its just sickening and not on. 77.99.182.75 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just here to complain, or do you have suggestions for improvement, grounded in reliable sources? This is not a forum for discussion of the article topic, it's for discussing improvements to the article.

The population of men who don't get laid is vast, and the term "incel" covers a narrow segment of that. You've heard the joke about the difference between a priest and a man who's been married 10 years? The priest is celibate voluntarily. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, whatever will they do?! PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not helping, Praxidicae; in fact, very nearly as WP:NOTHERE as the ip's own comments. If you're going to respond to such a rant at all, please keep the criticism on point to policy, as Anachronist and Zaathras have done, rather than engaging in a snarky colour commentary that accomplishes nothing but to potential inflame the discussion further. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we see a citation that supports this assertion? Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 77-75, My fellow editors have already addressed the practical shortcomings with your post in terms of accomplishing any practical changes to the article: 1) you have not made clear suggestions based on reliable sources as to what specifically has changed, 2) you have not provided a cogent description (let alone also supported it with support) to support your implication in the section header that the article denigrates "straight white men", 3) your comments veer into polemic screed in places, completely uncoupled from any discussion taking place in reliable sources and apparently reflecting your belief that the term is first and foremost a slur by "lefty feminists" rather than a descriptive one embraced by discrete communities themselves, and otherwise used by social commentators and researchers, which is how the WP:WEIGHT of sources tells us to approach the topic.

And on a side note--and this is neither here nor there for any content purposes, but as a strictly educational matter--I thought you might like to know that, while it is true that suicide rates among white males have risen slightly in recent time (relative to other major demographic cross-referenced populations) this actually trends these values towards parity with most other demographics, rather than away from them. In other words, the rates of suicide in this class (as a relative value of overall suicide numbers) have raised very, very marginally to be a little bit closer to the (still significantly higher or much higher) rates in almost every other broad class of demographic population. Again, not terribly relevant to any determination I can see here, but still useful for perspective, since this detail seems to be of such concern to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mistergendering

I'm guessing the most common form of misgendering is (ironically enough) what might be called mistergendering i.e. assuming the person is male. Perhaps that can be recognized in the essay somehow. EEng 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do mention that, at the end of the second paragraph, and allude to it again at the start of § Why does it matter? Perhaps I'll make the second reference explicit rather than implicit, as one point I am trying to hit home here is that trans people didn't invent the concept of wanting to be called a specific pronoun. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you don't use the term mistergendering™ which I invented and demand you work in somehow. EEng 03:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing advice

[...]

Anachronist, if you are a cisgender male, you probably have little experience with being regularly misgendered on Wikipedia or more generally online. I cannot tell you how many times someone from a culture where the username "valereee" isn't a clear indicator of gender refers to me as he or even "sir" -- clearly trying to be ultra-respectful and polite in the customs of their own culture. They just assume everyone on wikipedia, and especially anyone who is an admin, is male. I usually try to let it go, but it does get a bit old even for me. I don't have the experience to be able to know what it would feel like if it were happening intentionally, but people who do have that experience tell me it is often deeply upsetting, and not just because it's rude but also because IRL it can signal actual physical danger. When someone reasonable who has more experience than I have in a situation tells me something about that situation, my default setting is to believe them. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're tired of being mistergendered. EEng 19:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just determined to get that word into this essay. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit it's delish. How often do the gods of humor offer up such an opportunity? EEng 22:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stipulated. —valereee (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me while I practice typing here using my gay friend's enormous penis.

Why the hell are you doing that?

Because I want to see if it will work.

Hi. I would like to ask anyone at the Teahouse if they would like to create a professional page on Wikipedia that includes the facts, the details, the historical information, and the verifiable proof thats undeniable, that also includes subheadings, images, dates, and photos, and website link refernces for The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth including: helping the world to be informed about the house so that they may all come to know, and learn, to assist the LORD and his anointed Son and Bride, to make this professional page able to be searched on Wikipedia with its own page to add to Wikipedias content and help Wikipedia build a historical Encyclopedia to the truth of The Kingdom of Heaven. Please reply if you are interested in helping us to the Glory of God!

We also do not mind offering you creit for this assistance. Thank you Kindly. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for fiction. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven, welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, independent, secondary sources have published about notable topics. Based on what you've tried to contribute so far, it does not appear that your mission is in line with Wikipedia's mission. Also, be aware that there are many dishonest people who offer to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for money, with the end result of your money disappearing and no article appearing - or appearing and being quickly deleted.

You will need to explain your relationship, if any, to user:TheKingdomofHeavenonEarth. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Firstly, could you let me know , Where is Wikipedia based in what nation and under what law?

and then ill answer youre question. Do you understand I have rights under the Consitution of the United States of America to the freedom of speech , the freedom to exercise these rights, and the freedom information, as to which this information is historical. The son of man is historical information in which you cannnot dispute under any article. You allowed the kingdom of heaven articles on other articles without any problems. What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia building when it refuses to let me under my amnedment rights under the consitution to speak freely? And can you please offer a link as to Wikipedias mission statement. you sir, have imposed or seemingly impose rudely, your opinions not based off of any history onto me, And by what authority or right do you have to ask personal information about my poersonal life? you have overstepped the bounds of my freedom, my rights, and violation should be onto your sight, i take it you hold youre own beliefs, and i do not ask your business. you called this "fiction" that is youre personal opinion infriging my rights as to which I broke no rule of law. And ahow come there are all these articles on what you call "fiction", even though our article has nothing to do with fiction but non fiction. By what authority do you think you have to impede, impose, invade, intrude, interrogate, like an inquisition to my personal life and relationships. Be advised you broke my amendment rights as to which I will fully use by my God given rights under the constitution to enforce by law any violation of my freedom, liberty, and rights under the constitution of the heavenly government which has full jurisdiction over the earth and every nation within it which falls in the territory of the heavens within the Kingdom of Heaven of the creator! You better believe it! becuase its not fiction and were not here to play games with those who are enemies against and who also commit treason against us. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your website and made up "kingdom" that you posted on your other account are not notable, and no there won't be an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to complain to sky daddy. We're all doomed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. 97.126.103.107 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew), which does what an encyclopaedia article should do, and summarises what reliable sources say about the subject. But please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few declarations here

• I am a believing, church-going Catholic (can't quite bring myself to say "good" Catholic), so of course, I believe in God, and in Heaven and Hell. Nevertheless
• The original poster clearly has some issues and problems with perspective, but beyond wasting a bit of time for a few people, he's quite harmless (and now blocked, anyway). That said,
• @User:Praxidicae, your attitude and comments are unnecessary and uncalled for, and quite frankly label you as rather like the Original Poster. You don't believe in God; that's your own choice/problem. But it's totally irrelevant to the question of whether any article is appropriate to Wikipedia or not. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a blocked editor who is trying to spam his wannabe cult. I don't think someone who threatens editors with eternal damnation and "reporting to authorities" is high on the list of people that we need to pacify. But do go on. My belief or non-belief has nothing to do with anything. Unless, of course you think that this Kingdom of God on Earth, which is what they were trying to spam is anything but fiction. It literally features marvel superheroes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the fact he invoked freedom of speech strikes me as incredibly suspect. If your most compelling argument in favour of your faith is that it is literally not illegal to express, that should be a massive red flag to any potential proselytes that something is wrong. That isn't an argument of spirituality in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If THOC isn't a sendup of Western religion-cum-hucksterism, I'll eat my keyboard.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I learned some new words today... PRAXIDICAE🌈 10:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read all this, now my brain hurts. The most useful part was the mention that Beautiful is now indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello will you please be kind to help supply me with a delicious recipe for a vanilla cake recipe thank you -tim Tim W. Jacobson (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at the Reference desks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Welcome to the Teahouse. Better still, why not just use a search engine and do your own research? I use that technique for a lot of my cooking, and would never consider asking Wikipedian's for a recipe. Good luck and good cooking! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing. Your question made me smile, but it does not fit here. I wish you good luck on your quest for a recipe, though!

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, cake would go well with the tea around here! Polyamorph (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't sit well with me. Someone please completely rewrite it to comply with my vague opinion based on sources which may or may not exist. I can't be bothered with the details, but I will be happy to talk to your supervisor. GMG^talk 21:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Die Nazi scum! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Referring to yourself as a bumbling dolt doesn't exactly instill me with the confidence to hand you the mop. Self deprecation is unbecoming. ... aa:talk 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Self-deprecation is the most importent trait that an admin has. An admin who thinks he can do no wrong and is infalliable is NOT the person we want holding the mop. -M^ask 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. Referring to oneself as a bumbling dolt is actually a bit of a plus, in my view (as long as one isn't actually a bumbling dolt). Note that this isn't an open invitation for future RFA candidates to refer to themselves as bumbling dolts. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that we will have had more RfAs by the end of this week in 2022 than we did for the entirety of 2021. I don't know if it was the pandemic, but we really had nothing last year (less than one a month on average) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I expect next year to experience another increase based on the editors who joined during COVID-19 quarantine or became active in that timeframe (like me) and have gained experience in the project. To clarify: I'm not saying I'll run just that there's a cohort of editors I've seen learn alongside me who I expect will be good candidates a year from now. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor that got active during the pandemic and that is finally developing some clue, I agree with this statement :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Since you've showed an interest in being an administrator, you're obviously unqualified ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need at least two or more years of saying "no way" like me and Hammersoft did :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. If you're not dragged to the altar kicking and screaming, you're obviously incompetent. Anybody stupid enough to become an admin is too stupid to be an admin. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note: due to the dismantling of esperanza, this has to be a permalink.

Has anyone seen SaturnYoshi around lately? ||||||||||||||||||||D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)||||||||||||||||||||[reply]

He edited The Ouija Code. Good for him! --Monkey 13!!! 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you look for him? Do you miss him? Do you have a desire for him?--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's creepy... Where is everyone?--SUIT⁴² 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares when I go away, it's all like: return my DVD or I'll take legal action ect. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're scaring me, Ed. I'm STRAIGHT, for the last time. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••C••• 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this keep happening?! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww... How sweet that I have friends who care. Sorry I haven't been on as much. I've been working with no days off for like two weeks now. I'll try to be on more, but my job is wearing me out. Oh, and Ed, stop thinking impure thoughts. Even if I am desireable... -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this keep happening?! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does what keep happening? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 17:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wha-za-wha?--SUIT⁴² 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem "confused", Defrag. It'll be okay... -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wh-za-wha-za-whaaaaaaa!? This is getting weird...--SUIT⁴² 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am so cold and lonely. Culverin? ^Talk 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user Sauce5544 is currently engaged in a spree of additions to articles related to Egyptian modern history. Unfortunately, all of the material is unsourced, and, despite exhortation, the user seems to have their ears closed to the need to actually source the content they are adding. They've technically continued passed four warnings for the unsourced additions, but their behaviour is not typically vandalistic in nature, so advanced vetting and reporting is not really appropriate - and yet, an editor with absolutely zero interest in sourcing content is more of a hinderance than a help to the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked to try to get their attention, as this is a mobile editor. valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what were saying here is that their content...is unsauced? *sunglasses* GeneralNotability (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

groan valereee (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature misrepresents you and is misleading. Signatures should contain your username. Please fix it. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in more detail why your signature is valid. How many times have you changed your signature? FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to file a complaint at ANI then, and while you're at it, go warn every single editor here based on your interpretation of policy. Beyond that, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAdesdae378: who appointed you the signature police ? Nick (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick I mean it's not like we just did this checks calendar in May 2021 at ANI. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures#Signature forgery. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not forgery, and you'd know that if you bothered to read what you just linked. But for clarity, please enlighten us all as to which part of signature forgery it is that you think I've violated, @FAdesdae378. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read carefully Wikipedia:Signatures. I understand that signatures are not required to display someone's username in its entirety. I hereby retract my complaint. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't address your previous comment about signature forgery, @FAdesdae378. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAdesdae378: There's basically two outcomes right now and I think both are going to get you blocked. The first option is that you lack the necessary competence to be editing - obviously we can't have users going around accusing people of breaching guidelines and policies without reading or understanding those guidelines and policies, or you're deliberately trolling and being provocative. What game are you playing tonight, FAdesdae378 and how should I proceed, do you think. Maybe refer to the blocking policy in your answer (and hopefully you've read it, eh) Nick (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read carefully Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. I have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. I have retracted my complaints about signatures. I am neither trolling nor being provocative. I am not playing any games. It is just that I sometimes make mistakes. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents (emphasis mine), per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P; 2021 RfC closure quote: there is a consensus that signatures are not required to display someone's username in its entirety, without changes. There is no requirement for a signature to be, or contain, an exact display of one's username; "Praxidicae" and "Pickledicae" absolutely do "to some degree" resemble one another. AddWittyNameHere 19:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a sig she's used that didn't have the suffix "dicae", which is what, half the syllables of her actual name? :-p Primefac (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Yup. Same starting letter in this case, too, for additional resemblance bonus. :p AddWittyNameHere 02:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the old days, a bunch of people would have started a Pickle Cabal by now. --Picklebeam (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't? I thought we got together at our weekly game. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, Praxi. I think you're just causing trouble again. Drpickle. 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I certainly wasn't nominated for my City's best troublemaker for my charm. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that pickleball is the national sport of the pickle cabal. Be forewarned, however, your troublemaker status will extend to my neck of the woods if you try to play it here (Oh! the! humanity!). This is all a Very Big Deal around here. I pretty much live in The Shire. @Drmies: these are the issues you'd have to deal with if you ever make your way here. Is it worth the aggro?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please page me if the pickle cabal is forming. I miss the cabal. An🐟re🥒 20:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there room for more? --Dylpickle620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Farmer Pickle 2¢ 00:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. Picklekingthree.00:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel so left out. PickledNotability (brine) 00:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Nice. Now it seems like everyone's changing their signatures to have the word 'pickle' in it somewhere. Weeklyd3 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— TheresNoPickle (talk • she/her) 00:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined the bandwagon. Picklesandotherthings (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this where the cabalgang hangs out? —Thanks for the pickle! ^{talk•contribs} 01:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! And don't worry, we have milk and cookies pickles for everyone! Pickleswipe (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a picklejar for your user page. Pickleswipe (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickleswipe, I don't know how to get that pickly box to display properly on my user page. Can you help? Drpickle 17:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia users, cucumbers, dill, water, white vinegar, kosher salt, spices, and a little bit of magic… — 3PPYB6 — HAS — BEEN PICKLED! — 02:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the sugar! — 3PPYB6 — HAS — BEEN PICKLED! — 02:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I turned myself into a pickle too. Funniest thing I've seen. Pickle Liliana ^(UwU) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No pickles (with the hamburger). And be sure it was made from real meat. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOU FORGOT THE PICKLES! — Pickled hawk 06:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was funny to begin with but per WP:ADMINSAREHUMORLESSBUREAUCRATS, I'm going to start handing out WP:BLOCKs to editors who change their sigs to include "pickle" just so they can hang out here with the cool people. --Pickle58 talk 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They'd be in a real pickle then... -- Pickled Frost talk 10:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I now tempted to start editing the MediaWiki namespace to change every instance of the word "block" to "pickle"? The pickle button, the pickle log, etc. stpicklester (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prep a patch. Pickleddon ^Pickletalk 22:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "pickle" is slang in the military for releasing a bomb from a plane (reference to the Norden bombsight's supposed ability to "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel"), I'm all for this. GeneralPickleability (what's your dill) 23:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seddon and GeneralNotability: I would support that. I really want a mediawiki instance that is a clone of enwiki (or something like that) with this change and its logo being a pickle hehe. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pickle blocked from pickling for persistently encouraging pickle puns. This has been done to stop this silliness.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Pickle Brown\2¢

Seriously, Pickle Brown? What is your dill? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an outrage! This is a serious breach of WP:PICKLEDACCT and has shaken the whole entire pickled Wikipedian community! Retract this pickle block immediately, or we will file a request for a brine bath! — 3PPYB6 — HAS — BEEN PICKLED! — 14:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Pickle Barnstar
	Hi Talk page highlights, you have been awarded the Pickle Barnstar for inspiring a revolution! Picklezone (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has given me so much joy. In honour of this event (and learning Ponyo is Canadian too!), you may get a custom signature for this occasion. ThePickleDoctor ^Talk 22:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do pickle doctors rescue pickles from the abysses of the stomach? 🥒 EpicPickle ^{(they/them | talk)} 22:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Uhhh, I hope they would for me too? In any case they'd need long arms like Mr. Pickle. And maybe a ladder. Or three. No-one said it was easy being my vet. Pickled giraffe ^{(brine at me · contribs)} 23:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I want a pickle barnstar too! Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No pickles for you! PICKLEDICAE🥒 00:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Talk page highlights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think unblocking PICKLEDICAE is the best coarse Stephanie921 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This user's unban request for eggalomania has been approved, as has their pickle puns, which have left me brining with joy StephanieBrine21 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this joke is okay. I thought it was fine since the nature makes it obvious I'm not an administrator but I'm sorry if it's not. I'll take it down if it is Stephanie921 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do galaxies start out as cosmic pickles?[11] The Hubble Space Telescope detects unexpected pickle shaped galaxies that evolve into round shaped galaxies.[12][13] Pickle cosmology is a thing! Picklezone (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  oh my god, you guys are still going? i just put you lot on WP:TPH! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone please help, my signature has been pickled and I am unable to revert it. I was told to come here for help, so is this the right place to report vandal-like signature-pickling? ARandomPickle (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Macintosh LC a significant product of technology in 1990? Please write up to 3000 words explaining your answer and submit your paper by 03/03/16 to Mr Turnbull's office. --Finderoomertæs (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to provide references and sources. --Finderoomertæs (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell if you're being facetious - but we will not do your homework. We will gladly volunteer our efforts to help you, though. Some of our reference desk researchers might even, you know, be good resources. Nimur (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have Macintosh LC, I think... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished and submitted the paper. The response I received from Turnbull's office was that they had no idea why I sent them a paper on the 1990's significance of the Macintosh LC but if I did it again Turnbull will ask Key to pull my pony tail. Not wanting that, I've deleted my paper. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only read "I have a pony tail" - that's surprising new information! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our RD powers do enable us to identify the OP's Mr Turnbull - his office is number 3xxE. Not that we would reveal the value of "xx", of course. Tevildo (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Userboxes, not "Userboxen", which is why the wikiproject is called WikiProject Userboxes, and the pages in WP space all use the word "userboxes". I will die on this hill. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Begun, the Clone Userboxen Wars has.</yoda> Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will join you. Goodness knows what madness lies further ahead, I shudder to think of possibly having to read about the heavyweight title match between two elite bexren. Two holdover exceptions and one poetic archaism are enough for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Wugapodes#Wugapodes? What's that?, the correct plural is userboxapodes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the terms "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" be deprecated for use in article prose? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[...]

• No. This is instruction creep at best, and euphemistic at worst. "Wheelchair user" implies that the person in question actively wants to use the wheelchair (compare with "computer user", "forklift user"). If a disabled person cannot walk and must use a wheelchair, then that is what we should say. If somebody, for some reason, is using a wheelchair by choice, then this may be appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All wheelchair users are using a wheelchair by choice. Some may have limited other options to achieve mobility, but there are no wheelchair mandates currently in place. —valereee (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: What about people who would prefer not to go anywhere in a wheelchair, but have no physical ability to assert their will in the matter, so some caretaker or family member puts them in one anyway and uses it to take them places against their will? It's an unpleasant reality, but is definitely a thing that happens. BD2412 T 05:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the politically-correct term for that is "kidnapping". Levivich 05:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change: "Far-right groups" to "Far-left groups". Nazism was a socialist theory. To use the term far-right is only a tool of the left wing to insult and slander conservatives and to change history and thus the future. RufusBlue (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 03:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't, since such sources do not exist. I'm deleting this as non-sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: Please don't close a thread on legal threats when there's been no discussion of whether anything needs to be done to the article. I've removed the content about alleged abuse per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE. A lot of it was indeed sourced to tabloids, including red-tier RSP ones. (Lol1VNIO, please be more careful about what you restore. It included a WP:PAGESIX cite and a seriously negative claim about Cummings' ex-wife, sourced only to him.) Some of it can probably be restored, but best that be sorted out on talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I apologise. I usually stay away from threads like this but thought this was a one and done deal. (Still, it's better than waking up one morning and finding you've been blocked, as I dreamt of last night.) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: I've had that one, and the one where I wake up desysopped, but the scariest Wikipedia dream I've ever had came when I was in the hospital recently, feverish and sleeping one hour out of every two. One night I awoke in a cold sweat, momentarily stuck in a reality where someone had casually tasked me with designing an edit filter to prevent caste-warring. The change in namespace balance from August to September is not a coincidence. /gen -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of edit filter-related happy accidents we've had, that's not a dream I'd want to experience. The block rationale was quite weird too; somehow I'd been disruptive for a long time and even got some (sudden) warnings for it. Obviously if I were thinking straight I should've known. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smite with a +6 Sword of Crushing, and gain 400 experience points.--Doc^g 10:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a saving throw vs. spam or take 3d6 typo damaeg. >Radiant< 11:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damage by spam is countered when in possession of Manual of Style.--WaltCip 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder if the book is only truly effective against trolls or man-spiders when wielding the tools of the admin, or at least hopefully the periapt of etiquette of wiki : ) - jc37 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Per WP:AGF, I presume that all the attempts at humour here are all in good fun, and are no reflection upon the nominator.) - jc37 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. We're all gamer nerds, after all.--WaltCip 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. --SmokeyJoe 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the bureaucrats have a split vote, how will the outcome be determined? WWGB (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at that point it's traditional to decide it via a game of chess against death. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This gave me a really good laugh. Thank you, @ScottishFinnishRadish:! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little humor can go a long way in contentious situations. I'm glad I could give you a chuckle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

"decide it via a game of chess against death" ... Yes and since at least the 15th C.... oh and in Swedish, too, please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What split vote? Seven haven't even entered their declaration yet. Theoretically, the way all outcomes are decided; by working together and discussing to hopefully come to consensus, which often takes multiple iterations in any scenario. Not a vote is a page somewhere, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still have 6 'crats, beyond myself that still have to comment, so I'd say lets see where the cards land. That will likely create a consensus. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, I'm practicing my openings. Do you think death knows fool's mate? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the typical trope death either has chess skills equivalent to a grandmaster or cheats. Or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well crap. Maybe I can challenge death to an animal husbandry contest. Certainly I have the advantage there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Death likes to play chess is that it knows what I just wrote and wants to fight on its terms to give a only faux chance to the challenger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a documentary once where he played battleship. I'm pretty sure it's an rs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the only winning move is to Melvin Death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has only one piece, it looks like a knight but is Death riding Binky. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but even with only one piece it could still put up quite a fight. And, to transpose the analogy back to Wikipedia, a game requiring near-perfection to win is unideal because we would never have been here if the candidate were near-perfect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm banking on "barely acceptable." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, if the vote was split, the outcome would be no consensus to promote, unless the closing crat found that some crat rationales had more weight in policy than the others.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escalate up the chain, and get a founder involved. Word up. In related news, it always amazes me how much energy is spent on these crat chat talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's INVOLVED, we talked about wordle once. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aww you cool like that. Probably have him saved in your favorites on your phone too. You da MVP. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that fancy, it was on his talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using "JIMBO" on Wordle once, but the bugger claimed it was an invalid word. NYTime's loss. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long has it been since Jimbo was involved in the RfA process? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jimbo ever been involved in the RfA process? The last time he had anything to do with promoting an admin was probably when he used to just do it himself.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally yes, as he closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation). Other than that, sort of; the initial version of RFA, when it was created in 2003, said If there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so. Jimbo Wales was what was then known as a developer at the time (the modern terminology for the role is "system administrator"), but there were several others and it appears Eloquence was the most active at the time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Straight walk off, old school rules. 'crat walks, SFR duplicates then elaborates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's no good, I'm not an ambiturner. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS THIS???? A SCHOOL FOR ANTS!?!?!? Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then your only other choice is a dance off. But I warn you, your opponent will be Kevin Bacon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]