User talk:SuspectedReplicant
From RationalWikiWiki
| Welcome to RationalWikiWiki, SuspectedReplicant!!! Please see our policy on editing your own article, and why not tell us how you found the site. Any questions? Please see RationalWikiWiki Help. |
humanbe in 02:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Officer
Welcome to the force, I made you a police officer so you can block vandals. Tyrannis 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It seems there's quite a bit of wiki wandalism going on at the moment. Are there some policies somewhere about block lengths and suchlike? SuspectedReplicant 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- RationalWikiWiki:Block policy Tyrannis 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Splendid, thank you. BTW, if you think this is bad, check out the Oblivion Mod Wiki. Almost nothing but wandalism for a month now. SuspectedReplicant 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I almost made you a crat, but felt I needed someone to lord over. Tyrannis 15:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- (*tugs at forelock*) Gawd bless you and keep you sir. You're very kind sir. SuspectedReplicant 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I almost made you a crat, but felt I needed someone to lord over. Tyrannis 15:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Splendid, thank you. BTW, if you think this is bad, check out the Oblivion Mod Wiki. Almost nothing but wandalism for a month now. SuspectedReplicant 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- RationalWikiWiki:Block policy Tyrannis 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Adpetus Administratium
Congratulations. Tyrannis 23:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Teh Powah! Bwah ha ha ha! SuspectedReplicant 08:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Checkuser data
seems to be helping a bit. Ty 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fingers crossed. It should start to help a little - not every computer in the world can be a zombie! SuspectedReplicant 12:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- They just keep coming. Ty 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously pissing me off now. It's interesting that they're hitting RWW, OMW, ASK and WikiIndex but not RW or UESP. It's like they're only targeting smaller wikis. SuspectedReplicant 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is strange. Ty 14:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously pissing me off now. It's interesting that they're hitting RWW, OMW, ASK and WikiIndex but not RW or UESP. It's like they're only targeting smaller wikis. SuspectedReplicant 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- They just keep coming. Ty 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] I personally dislike you
Just thought you should know that I dislike you; ie, I dislike your personality. I believe mankind flourishes when we're open about things like this. Hope this made you feel better. Your loyal friend, MC. 86.45.238.56 15:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- For what else it's worth, I like you SuspectedReplicant. So not everybody is against you. Conficker 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I like you too. Being disliked by MC can only count as a good thing, too. SuspectedReplicant 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- See what such honesty does? Now mankind must be flourishing more than ever! Thank you, MC, for allowing us to be so open. Conficker 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I find SR to be a pretty cool guy. Ty 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I wasn't being mean or anything. If everyone told each other the truth all of the time humanity would be much richer. One of my lental obligations this year was 'to be a better person and tell the truth'. 86.45.238.56 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. If everybody told the truth all the time I think civilisation would fall apart pretty quickly. Good to see you back, Ty - hope the camping trip went well. SuspectedReplicant 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- No bears, but I had a run in with a bat. Ty 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- A cat? SuspectedReplicant 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- No bears, but I had a run in with a bat. Ty 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. If everybody told the truth all the time I think civilisation would fall apart pretty quickly. Good to see you back, Ty - hope the camping trip went well. SuspectedReplicant 18:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I wasn't being mean or anything. If everyone told each other the truth all of the time humanity would be much richer. One of my lental obligations this year was 'to be a better person and tell the truth'. 86.45.238.56 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I find SR to be a pretty cool guy. Ty 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- See what such honesty does? Now mankind must be flourishing more than ever! Thank you, MC, for allowing us to be so open. Conficker 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I like you too. Being disliked by MC can only count as a good thing, too. SuspectedReplicant 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] SInce I'm feeling lazy
Why did you switch accounts from Rpeh? Ty 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ironically in the light of recent events, it was an argument over what should be allowed to be revealed about CP sysops.
- My POV was that once you allow your Internet persona to be linked to a real life entity, then you can expect people to Google you and you have to live with the result. BUT with limits. Even back then, I remember making a post about how somebody posting info about TK's mum had overstepped massively. Relatives = no. The argument wasn't about that, though - it was about using pure TK Googles to give info about TK.
- My argument was that RW operated a double standard on this - something I think is still probably true. Googling TK and adding stuff about him was, for some reason, wrong. But the stuff on Roger Schlafly having won a hotdog-eating contest was okay. Ditto a lot of the stuff RW hosts on Ken. Basically, I burned a lot of bridges in defending the position I thought was right. I LANCB'ed for a little while then came back as SR just before the site's summer holiday to the TEFLwiki. I gave a donation to that site and ended up in an email chat with BobM, where he suggested I would be welcome back at RW under my original name. I decided to keep the new one instead, but "out" myself - hence the redirect.
- Since then I've stuck with SR, but I'm open that I'm also "Rpeh". SuspectedReplicant 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, so much has been explained that was once a mystery. Ty 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Botting
Fun, isn't it? :) Ty 15:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely! SuspectedReplicant 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Uncle Ed'd be disappointed
It's his main second third claim to fame (after his grandfather founding Grumman and being WP user 188) (the age template, that is) --Beauregard Mousefeather 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. I just didn't see that template on this site before. SuspectedReplicant 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] The hell?
Why on Earth did do this and then change all "inactives" to stalkboxes? IIt made one hell of a mess, and I have no intention of cleaning it up. THe mess, for those interested, is that we now have an assload of articles about inactive users that are stuck with the "Active users" category. Conficker 00:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh noes!!! You broke MY Wiki!!!! How dare you break MY Wiki!!! Punky McPunkersen 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's stupid to have two templates that are almost identical. If I made a mistake with a category, ask me to fix it, or fix it yourself instead of whining like a little bitch. SuspectedReplicant 07:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- It makes about a kazillion times more sense for it to be a single template with a switch as if you want to change the formatting, style or coding behind it you only need to change one template and you only need one thing to transclude. The category thing can be solved later. Armondikov 09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. I fixed it this morning. Sorry about the mistake. SuspectedReplicant 10:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh, we should totally fly off into an HCM over this! It'd make my day! Punky McPunkersen 14:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. I fixed it this morning. Sorry about the mistake. SuspectedReplicant 10:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- It makes about a kazillion times more sense for it to be a single template with a switch as if you want to change the formatting, style or coding behind it you only need to change one template and you only need one thing to transclude. The category thing can be solved later. Armondikov 09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's stupid to have two templates that are almost identical. If I made a mistake with a category, ask me to fix it, or fix it yourself instead of whining like a little bitch. SuspectedReplicant 07:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
| For demonstrating valor in the line of duty, Tyrannis has awarded you a gold medal. |
Ty 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please to be thanking you very muchly, kind sir! SuspectedReplicant 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] I don't get it
What is it about me that you seem to hate? For the record, I rather like you otherwise. Conficker 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I apologise profusely if I've given that impression. I'll admit that a couple of edit summaries were slightly harsh earlier, but that was because I honestly couldn't see how your actions were helping - it was a problem that had spilled over from RW and I was trying to stamp it out here before the fire could spread. I was slightly irritated by the way in which you highlighted my mistake on the Stalkbox template - it would have been fixed faster if you'd posted on my talk page rather than the Treehouse - but OTOH, I'll admit that I should have done more checking after I put the changes live.
- So no, I don't hate you at all and I'm honestly sorry that you think I do. I'll try to be more polite from now on. SuspectedReplicant 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry that you took my over-reaction to the stalkbox mistake so seriously. I was actually being overly dramatic for humor purposes, and not to be serious. So far as earlier is concerned, I get what you were doing. I dunno, we've not had an HCM here in a while, and I had no idea how to help, so I tried to go with my instincts on it. I still like you, don't worry. Conficker 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I like you too :) Glad we got all that sorted out. SuspectedReplicant 23:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry that you took my over-reaction to the stalkbox mistake so seriously. I was actually being overly dramatic for humor purposes, and not to be serious. So far as earlier is concerned, I get what you were doing. I dunno, we've not had an HCM here in a while, and I had no idea how to help, so I tried to go with my instincts on it. I still like you, don't worry. Conficker 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Leave it
Just leave it. Ty 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not letting that dickhead fuck up the article. SuspectedReplicant 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've consistently failed to make a case for why my edit didn't provide highly relevant information while the article offered a conclusion that's not resolved by the show trial you instigated. Nutty Roux 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone shut up, or I'll make Colby write the article. The conflict is not done, just let it sit for a while. We do not want the site to return to the Hans era do we? Ty 20:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c)This has all been explained to you before. The two situations were totally different. The vote on Sterile's 'cratting was ongoing so it was not appropriate for Human to preempt the vote and 'crat Sterile immediately. Blue was restoring the status quo ante. Human's de-cratting of Blue, however, was an unjustified use of his user rights as revenge. Is this clear enough now? SuspectedReplicant 20:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not clear at all. The guideline expresses a preference for discussion but doesn't require it. You can read it for yourself in the relevant material you removed from the article. Further, it's inappropriate to assume Human's state of mind when Blue was warring with him over his prerogative and the crat guidelines may or may not permit him to temporarily remove her rights to prevent what he viewed as destructive behavior while the coop she started nearly immediately resolved the matter. Is this clear enough now? Nutty Roux 20:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've consistently failed to make a case for why my edit didn't provide highly relevant information while the article offered a conclusion that's not resolved by the show trial you instigated. Nutty Roux 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] I hate to do this
But orders from on high says you are to temporarily lose crat rights, pending punky's return. Ty 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification: if you continue to edit war and strip others of their rights. Ty 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. As civil disobedience, I will restore SR's rights if they are taken away with that as the justification. Liveware Problem 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Nutty has been issued an ultimatum as well and wishes to speak to you via another channel of communication. Ty 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, Nutty does? Or Goonie? Liveware Problem 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Check your email. For once it is important. Ty 21:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, Nutty does? Or Goonie? Liveware Problem 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Nutty has been issued an ultimatum as well and wishes to speak to you via another channel of communication. Ty 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. As civil disobedience, I will restore SR's rights if they are taken away with that as the justification. Liveware Problem 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Only following orders, Ty? Wow. I will just point out again that I've been proved right about edit warring on this site. If Punky wants to perpetuate a situation in which one person can get whatever he or she wants through edit warring, that's just fine.
As I just explained to Nutty, I'm taking 24 hours off from here and RW. Do me a favour and don't post here during that time. Okay? SuspectedReplicant 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with LP here. I'd hate to see people lose rights just because they are fighting. Punky McPunkersen 01:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- He didn't. he still has them. Ty 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind that what I say here is not the golden rule. I will try to prevent edit wars, and will intervene as a so-called "leader" if this site becomes a hate site. But I'm not the Andy Schlafly of this place. We have a community here. A small community, but a community. And I'm just another dumbfuck who is a part of that community. Punky McPunkersen 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are too few of us here for us to dislike each other. Ty 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also keep in mind that what I say here is not the golden rule. I will try to prevent edit wars, and will intervene as a so-called "leader" if this site becomes a hate site. But I'm not the Andy Schlafly of this place. We have a community here. A small community, but a community. And I'm just another dumbfuck who is a part of that community. Punky McPunkersen 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- He didn't. he still has them. Ty 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
