Wikipedia:Talk page highlights

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

Shortcuts

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:

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

Talk:Topfree equality

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

Priorities Really Far Out Of Whack

((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)

Talk:Deep-fried Mars Bar

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)

Talk:Giant squid

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]

Talk:867-5309/Jenny

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]

Talk:Zombie

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)

Talk:The Sopranos

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

Talk:Rodney King

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

Shakespeare in Texan

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. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Non-notable (from Talk:Sun)

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]

Talk:Gasoline

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]

Talk:Bradlees

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

Talk:Mammary intercourse

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]

Takeru Kobayashi

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]

Talk:Ted Haggard

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]

Cubic zirconia

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]

Talk:Zoophilia

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]

Talk:Orange (fruit)

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

George Washington (inventor)

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]

Talk:1 Night in Paris

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?

Talk:Homer's Phobia

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... Ab e g92contribs 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)

Talk:Main Page

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)

He was just trying to follow policy...

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]

Talk:Courtney Love

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.)

Talk:Anthony Kiedis

"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]

Talk:Homeopathy

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. Jim62sch 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]

Proposed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2008

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

User talk:jc37

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]

Talk:Main Page

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]

Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2050 or later)

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]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles)

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]

From Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table

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.

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)

Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Entertainment

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]

Talk:India at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

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]

Talk:History of the island in Lost

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!

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 4#when was oral sex invented?

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]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms

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]

From Talk: Now That's What I Call Music! 73 (UK series)

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

Talk:Wesley Willis

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]

From Wikipedia talk:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

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]

From Deletion review

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. Tito xd^{(?!? - 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - 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]

From Wikipedia Talk:Lamest edit wars

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]

Talk:Terry Gilliam

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]

Wikipedia Forever 2009 Fundraising Campaign

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]

Talk:Tesseract

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]

Talk:Saruman

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]

Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems

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]

From Talk:Cuteness

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]

Unrelated Ego War

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)

From Talk:2010–11 UEFA Europa League

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]

Early morning prank phone calls

... 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

Picture

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]

older comments (from Talk:Nashua, New Hampshire)

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]

m:Automatic edit war squashing#Drawbacks

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.

Disappeared? (from Talk:George Mallory)

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]

Talk:Fondant

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]

Talk:Queen Elizabeth II High School

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]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

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]

Talk:List of iCarly characters

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]

Description of WP:AN

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]

Talk:Tusko

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]

Talk:Larry Ellison

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]

Talk:Frédéric Chopin

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]

User talk:2Awwsome

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.

User talk: Jimbo Wales

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]

From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2015 February 4#Spontaneous Hummingbird Combustion

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]

Talk:Sexuality in ancient Rome

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]

Talk:Catmando

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]

Talk:List of federal political sex scandals

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]

Priorities Really Far Out Of Whack

Giant Squids are sweet

9035-768

Shakespeare in Texan

Macbeth Act 5 Scene 1

Clearly Non-notable (from Talk:Sun)

Move for deletion?

Unflattering Picture of a Sectioned Orange

Pic

He was just trying to follow policy...

Proposed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 31, 2008

Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2050 or later)

Scope of species inclduded

From Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table

Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Entertainment

Talk:India at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

From Talk: Now That's What I Call Music! 73 (UK series)

From Wikipedia talk:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

From Deletion review

From Wikipedia Talk:Lamest edit wars

Wikipedia Forever 2009 Fundraising Campaign

Image

From Talk:Cuteness

Yet more reasons for keeping this article protected

Andy

Unrelated Ego War

From Talk:2010–11 UEFA Europa League

Early morning prank phone calls

Picture

older comments (from Talk:Nashua, New Hampshire)

Disappeared? (from Talk:George Mallory)

The photo is too clever

The spelling could get even better

The alternate spelling is too clever

Protection

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

Suggested change to the section on Medals

Spencers Sexuality?

Description of WP:AN

LSD

Pompous

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:UFO Moviez

From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2015 February 4#Spontaneous Hummingbird Combustion

Talk:List of federal political sex scandals

Cleanup

See also