User talk:ISlayedTheKerrek

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 02:13, 13 November 2014

Hi, i'm Dinoshaur, not Dinosaur, you should create a user page. So.... have fun! --Dinoshaur 20:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i'm Color Printer, not Printer, and you should stop trolling talk pages. he already has a user page. --Color Printer

Hi I'm Jellote, not Jelaton, and that wasn't trolling.--Jellote 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible addition of joke on your user page

Hi, ISTK. I just wanted to suggest to you that you could add something like "...but I didn't slay the peas-an-try" to the first line of your user page. When I first saw your username and clicked on your user page for the first time, I thought sure I'd see a joke referencing Eric Clapton/Bob Marley in there somewhere, but alas. Just a suggestion that I thought I'd throw to you, since I figured you'd like jokes TBC might use since it appears you're a fan of their style of humor. Cheers. —THE PAPER ^PREEEOW 17:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About your user page...

What be up Mr. Thekerrek? Sorry, but I just thought I could make a suggestion. Your user page seems a little (how should I put this) white. Since you supposedly slayed the Kerrek why not add a pic to your page depicting your triumphant victory, like...

I mean, take a look at my user page. It's been overrun by pix! Cheatachu72 03:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, Cheatachu! I think I'll add this. --ISlayedTheKerrek 17:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cool. You're my newest homeslice! Cheatachu72 04:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Dude!

I think your webpages are AWESOME!!! For real. -Kinsey

-I have a fan? Cool. Muchas gracias, Kinsey. --ISlayedTheKerrek 19:15, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to STUFF

Hey there ISlayedTheKerrek. You really need to take a look at the instructions for how to STUFF. — It's dot com 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I did. I don't know how it came out the original way, and besides the point, why was STUFF made so hard to do? The old version was a lot more serviceable- never really understood why it was changed. --ISlayedTheKerrek 02:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It was changed because it was too unorganized. It had deteriorated into a haphazard forum where votes were hard to tabulate and personal attacks were rife. — It's dot com 02:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the Winds

I didn't revert your change of Winds to Brass because it's still technically correct, but it's not true that the trumpet isn't a memeber of the Winds; you're thinking specifically of woodwinds. Brass is a subsection of Winds (i.e. instruments you blow into). —AbdiViklas 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya got a point, but I was always told that wind instruments usually referred to woodwinds. That's what they taught me in school, that's what I stick with. --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Brass and woodwind are both wind instruments. Brass just have mouthpieces, while Woodwinds have reeds. -- Salty 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Either way, sign your piece. --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot. Also, I don't know why it says my name is Salty. I'm Lappy 486. -- Lappy 486 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you weren't doing that yourself? That's weird. —AbdiViklas 04:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean how I didn't make it say Salty? I don't know why it does that. My username is Salty on some forums, though. It just says Salty when I do the two hyphens. -- Salty 04:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Check your preferences, maybe? --DorianGray

I was gettin' a little worried...I thought my talk page was possessed, lol. --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, that's still weird. Are you signing with "-- ~~~~"? And it's piping your link for you? —AbdiViklas 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what I sign off with. But I guess it's okay, because I decided to request a name change. To Salty. Cuz Salty is my name on a lot of forums. -- Salty 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC) <---Still says Salty

[edit] Hello

Just felt like saying hi.--Homsarroks 19:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Yo I give you a Kerrek So you slay it I'm never giving you anything again.TheThingé 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider said Kerrek slayed. Muchas gracias, Thing. --ISlayedTheKerrek 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summarize

Hello, and thanks for contributing to the HRWiki. When editing a page, there is a field labeled "Summary" under the main edit-box. Please remember to always fill in the summary field, as even a short summary is better than no summary. Indicate in the edit summary field why you changed the page; this will greatly help other contributors in understanding your reasoning. Thanks. (BTW, some great editing lately!) - Qermaq - (^T/C)  17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Hey ISlayedTheKerrek, I noticed that there are some stray table fragments (| and |-) on your user page. Would you like those removed? If so, all you have to do is add the line {{userboxtop}} before the userboxes and |} after them. The thought also occurred to me that you may have omitted these tags on purpose because you didn't want the boxes on the right side of your page; if so, I can make it so that they're centered or appear on the left. Just let me know if you want me to tweak 'em. Best, Trey56 05:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to, Trey, by all means go ahead and do it. I didn't know what I was doing. I'd appreciate that. --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool — I'll just set it to the standard right justification unless you'd like otherwise. :) Trey56 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing STUFF

Hey, I noticed you tried to close the "Chocolate Cake" STUFF item... there is a procedure we like to follow when closing STUFF items – see HRWiki:STUFF/Verdict. If you don't plan to follow all of the steps on that page, please don't close the STUFF item, it just makes things confusing (for instance, the template says "The votes and arguments have been moved to HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/unnatural", but you hadn't actually moved the votes and arguments to that page). --phlip ^T_C 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was automatic, Phlip. Apparently not. I do apologize for that. --ISlayedTheKerrek 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

Re: STUFF:dreamail - I noticed you voted for the version saying "shows like SBTB" and not for the one saying specifically "SBTB". If that's your opinion, that's great, I just wanted to be sure you hadn't overlooked the revision which removed and TTATOT wording. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I voted for that one because I felt the revision was unnecessary. I mean, the intentions of TBC were rather clear in the DVD commentary, Qermaq. TTATOT doesn't exist there, as I stated before. --ISlayedTheKerrek 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's totally cool, just wanted to be sure you saw it. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stains on Head fact

Hey there, ISlayedTheKerrek. I read the comments you made on the STUFF fact Stains on Head, and I just wanted to mention a couple things. First, that fact has been open for a week and has had a 10+ vote difference for a few days now. I meant to close it earlier today, but I didn't have a chance before you posted your comment.

Second, you mentioned that the decliners' votes were invalid — a vote is never invalid just because the voter didn't provide an argument satisfactory to those who voted the other way. It could be that those who voted against simply didn't feel like taking the time to explain why they were voting the way they did, or, more likely, their arguments don't seem satisfactory simply because they were voting the other way. Either way, there's no obligation for an item's arguments to be suitable to both sides for the outcome to be valid.

At any rate, I just wanted to explain why the vote was ended since you posted a comment close to the time at which I closed it. Later, Trey56 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I said the votes were invalid was because none of them were apparently based on whether or not the stains themselves resembled a smiley-face, but whether they were intended to. To me, that was not what the fact was about. If you're going to decline it, fine, I got no problem with that. But I sensed false pretenses. --ISlayedTheKerrek 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

I've noticed that you like to change image captions, but a lot of the time it seems that what was already there is better than what you're replacing it with, and that you're changing it just for the sake of changing it. — It's dot com 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes that is the case. However, I fail to see what was wrong with that caption, as well as the one Loafing changed. I only change when I feel there's better fitting captions. If they get reverted, so be it, but I don't have to like it. --ISlayedTheKerrek 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Things should indeed be changed when you feel there is a real need for change. Not simply, "this would be cool" but "this would be better and I can justify it somehow". Still, if your only justification is "I think it's funnier" then prepare for other senses of humor to form an opposing consensus. If you find changes are being routinely reverted, it might do you well do discover what it is that causes that. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I do let it go. The only problem I've had lately is with those two reverts, only because 1) in case #1, I thought the "results" of the theme song was a better fitting caption than the one in place (obviously no one else did), and 2) I thought the second caption fit the sad end for The Paper better than its quote. I know people have reverted before, and I don't care if they do or they don't. Most of the time, I'll concede, the reverts are fine. It's only when I feel that a revert was either spiteful or just done because it's a thing to do to a caption that bugs me. But like I said just now, if it happens, so be it. I don't have to like it, but it's not a big deal. Discussion over. --ISlayedTheKerrek 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Belaying your last statement: if as revert is spiteful, I'm all up against it. If it's a thing to do to a caption, well, you have to ask why. Why does a caption need rewording/revision? Gotta have a good reason, and be able to express it. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never reverted anything out of spitefulness, and I don't think that any of the sysops like It's dot com (or accomplished users like Qermaq) would have reverted your caption changes just because you made them. That's quite an allegation, too. Sure, people say things like "ISTK changed another caption. Let's see what it is this time." But if we actually revert an edit, then this is purely based on the merit of that edit, not on your reputation. It's not something personal for me, and it should not be for you either. Loafing 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I came to your talk page today out of curiosity to ask why you change image captions apropos of nothing, only to find this thread. I guess some things don't change. — It's dot com 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Your Signature

Hey there, ISTK. As you may know, we have a policy regarding signature size: HRWiki:Signature. Your signature here is way too long. Please keep it shorter in the future. Thanks for understanding, Loafing 08:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, your signature must link to your userpage. Please fix it so that it does. --DorianGray 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Good Jorb slaying that Kerreck. You get a Pizza-Trophy. --Jellote 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Pizza trophy

Too bad that's not an image. Tee hee. --Jellote 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yo Gabba Gabba

In that edit summary you responded to a few hours ago, I was talking about the edit that was made two before mine, which suggested that the Yo Gabba Gabba appearance was the second time for a show released in the 2000s rather than the first. What I said was that the show "Home Movies" started in 1999 rather than 2001. I never said anything about the debut of Yo Gabba Gabba. Thanks for understanding. Also, welcome back! Thanks for the improvement to the page. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)