The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Let's have some fun, Funny posts, funny messages, funny edit summaries
mbz1
post Sun 25th December 2011, 3:29am
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 9:19pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 1:23pm) *


I think there are only about 3.5 billion living human penises on Earth. Is he including all humans, dead or alive? Let's dig up Lincoln for the next "Wikipedia Loves Penises" meet-up!

Here's my exchange with Commons admin(I believe it is funny, but my Russian sense of humor could be different than the sense of humor of the most people here) Anyway here it is:
QUOTE
Question: Fæ, you write: "we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." Does it mean that you're suggesting that Commons should host as many images of penises, and naked butts including the ones decorated with chains for that matter, as it gets? After all there are "around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet" than a boring and a very unique Nelson's Column. BTW did you mention this idea in your presentation to the Parliament? This sure would have helped Wikipedia UK to get a status of a charitable organization :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the number of unique penises and unique butts are relative, only "the Parliament bit" is not :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eppur si muove
post Sun 25th December 2011, 3:50am
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 3:29am) *

[
Here's my exchange with Commons admin(I believe it is funny, but my Russian sense of humor could be different than the sense of humor of the most people here) Anyway here it is:
QUOTE
Question: Fæ, you write: "we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." Does it mean that you're suggesting that Commons should host as many images of penises, and naked butts including the ones decorated with chains for that matter, as it gets? After all there are "around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet" than a boring and a very unique Nelson's Column. BTW did you mention this idea in your presentation to the Parliament? This sure would have helped Wikipedia UK to get a status of a charitable organization :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the number of unique penises and unique butts are relative, only "the Parliament bit" is not :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


It's amusing here. I thought you were starting a gradual reverse spoonerism there and were eventually going to call him muckbutt.

One of the people more expert with more expertise at transplanting things from YouTube might be able to find the Not the Nine O'clock News sketch where famous London landmarks including Nelson's Column and the clock tower of the Houses of Parliament are compared to phalluses.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Sun 25th December 2011, 3:52am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sun 25th December 2011, 3:59am
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 25th December 2011, 3:50am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 3:29am) *

[
Here's my exchange with Commons admin(I believe it is funny, but my Russian sense of humor could be different than the sense of humor of the most people here) Anyway here it is:
QUOTE
Question: Fæ, you write: "we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." Does it mean that you're suggesting that Commons should host as many images of penises, and naked butts including the ones decorated with chains for that matter, as it gets? After all there are "around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet" than a boring and a very unique Nelson's Column. BTW did you mention this idea in your presentation to the Parliament? This sure would have helped Wikipedia UK to get a status of a charitable organization :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is quite irrelevant, please keep your mind on the task at hand. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What "really is quite irrelevant" how many unique penises are there in the world or how many even more unique butts are there :-) BTW, muttbuck, while we are talking about penises I'd like to ask you please as an experienced admin:A policy states:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not an amateur porn site. Does it mean there is no problem with porn images as long as they are professional? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant the Parliament bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the number of unique penises and unique butts are relative, only "the Parliament bit" is not :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


It's amusing here. I thought you were starting a gradual reverse spoonerism there and were eventually going to call him muckbutt.

One of the people more expert with more expertise at transplanting things from YouTube might be able to find the Not the Nine O'clock News sketch where famous London landmarks including Nelson's Column and the clock tower of the Houses of Parliament are compared to phalluses.


I was thinking about calling him "mattbutt", but for anything smarter than that my knowledge of English and English/American cultures are not good enough. ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Tue 3rd January 2012, 4:55pm
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



Malleus Fatuorum after being sanctioned for using the words "dishonest cunts"
QUOTE
The thing I've always demanded, and I do mean ''demanded'', is consistency, and there's none here. Gentlemen's parts have been appropriated by the Wiki elite as representing some kind of sanctionable behaviour, but ladies' parts are out of bounds. Does that really make any kind of sense to you? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


And then he clarifies what he meant
QUOTE
Speaking non-hypothetically, I don't give a flying fuck. I see no reason why it's permissible to call regular editors "dicks" but not administrators "cunts".


This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 3rd January 2012, 5:58pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 11th February 2012, 1:04am
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE
...Fifthly you return to penises. This particular one must be taken in hand at Commons...Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Did you really just write that penises "must be taken in hand at Commons"?? O_o - Alison ❤ 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A nice one, Alison. smile.gif
And here's my English question about Alison's response: should not have this been "wrote" or "written" versus "write"? Thanks.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sat 11th February 2012, 1:06am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Sat 11th February 2012, 4:50am
Post #26


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE
...Fifthly you return to penises. This particular one must be taken in hand at Commons...Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Did you really just write that penises "must be taken in hand at Commons"?? O_o - Alison ❤ 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A nice one, Alison. smile.gif
And here's my English question about Alison's response: should not have this been "wrote" or "written" versus "write"? Thanks.

Alison's grammar is correct. 'Write' is the proper tense.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 11th February 2012, 5:42am
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 11th February 2012, 4:50am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE
...Fifthly you return to penises. This particular one must be taken in hand at Commons...Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC).

Did you really just write that penises "must be taken in hand at Commons"?? O_o - Alison ❤ 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A nice one, Alison. smile.gif
And here's my English question about Alison's response: should not have this been "wrote" or "written" versus "write"? Thanks.

Alison's grammar is correct. 'Write' is the proper tense.

Thank you. It is interesting. If I were to say the same thing in Russian, I would have used a past tense. Oh well, I will never learn English ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Sat 11th February 2012, 11:14am
Post #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 11th February 2012, 5:42am) *

Thank you. It is interesting. If I were to say the same thing in Russian, I would have used a past tense. Oh well, I will never learn English ermm.gif

It is not difficult. This is the "past interrogative". If you say "Did you have...?" then the "did" is a modal verb which carries the past tense, so the second verb is in the infinitive. Similarly, the "present interrogative" is "Do you have...?" with the second verb in the infinitive. Some interrogatives use a different modal verb. In particular, the future form is "Will you have ...?"


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 24th February 2012, 5:30am
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



Somebody just emailed me the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=478464437
QUOTE
== I hate everyone ==

In case that wasn't obvious. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride#top|talk]]) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
4 User(s) are reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 9 17, 10:03am