Talk:The Poopsmith's Shovel

From Homestar Runner Wiki

This is the talk page of an article that has been merged with The Poopsmith. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

Um, why is this currently pending deletion? Leave it on. We have no need to delete it. --Darklinkskywalker 22:43, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I conquer! I mean——concur! --VolatileChemical 02:31, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just actually merge it with the The Poopsmith? --Darklinkskywalker 21:56, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Keeping this here is like making the 'homestar's eyes' section on Homestar's page a page of it's own. User: Undabite

The Daisy dukes aren't pending deletion, and it is accesed less. Rogue Leader / (my talk)

[edit] Merge

Ok, all against merging, speak up now!!! User:Undabite

Um, I think it should be merged. There's no need for a separate article. — It's dot com 19:46, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm against marging, but I can find no reason to it. Maybe just becuase I like The Poopsmith. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:54, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Merge it, keep it, don't DELETE it. The Smoking Monkey 17:48, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've put all relevant shovel information onto the The Poopsmith page and removed almost all links to this page. So somebody should delete this, stat. -Polly 11:47, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, you guys merged all my hard work into one sentence. I spent one hour on that page! I could have been...um...eating or something instead of that. But I did it anyways. So just a word out: Thanks for basically deleting all but like one thing from my page! - Pants 3000

Really, it was no trouble at all to do. No thanks necessary. — It's dot com 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want no sass from you! I'm just saying that it annoys me that I didn't have a say in this, seeing that I created the freakin' page! -

Pants 3000

Wait, so you're allowed to sass but I'm not? And you had a say in this as much as anyone else. — It's dot com 18:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine. You get sass, too. However, when did I get a say? And when did you juys merge it? You...did...um...merge it already...didn't you? - Pants 3000

Aha, I see what happened. There was previously an article here that got merged and deleted. The discussion to merge happened over a year and a half ago. — It's dot com 19:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job, It's dot com! Nobody really enjoys staring at the dates (unless they're some kind of Bionic Super Nerd). What confuses me is how you participated in this discussion what two years ago and didn't tell me. And who deleted my new page that I made last night? - Pants 3000 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No one deleted the page. It's still right here in the history for the page, just like any other page. The page was simply redirected to The Poopsmith (as noted in the edit summary). -- Tom 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for showing me. I'm surprised how many people completely "ruined" it after I made it. Wow. -

Pants 3000

14:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After you made it (for the second time in the wiki's history), a user changed it to a redirect. I'm not certtain what you're on about, but when you contribute work to a wiki, it is subject to change by other users. That's how a wiki works. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. Thats the whole point of Wiki. But if you go ahead in the history after I remade it, a lot of vital information was taken off and reverted to "This shovel scoops crap." Thats what I'm on about. - Pants 3000 11:25 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But your re-creation of the page was the second-to-last edit to the page. Other than making a redirect, all other edits happened nearly 2 years ago. This is why your reaction surprises me. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it. He's reading the history in reverse. He must have thought the top version was the oldest, and the bottom the newest. --TotalSpace shipGirl 3 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you got it. I wanted to see what happened after I made it so I hit the "Newer revision" button without looking at the date it was revised. Like Strong Bad says, you get the really high score and it goes back to zero. I went to the newest possible revision and kept going which put me back to the older versions. Sorry about all the confusion guys! It seems that I just can't pay attention to the tiny details! -

Pants 3000

16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that when you go to his re-creation of this page and click forward through the diffs, the events are out of sequence. Is this a known bug? - Qermaq - (^T/C) 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The diff system uses the oldid of the revision, not the timestamp (bug 6551/bug 8062) for ordering things. It would appear that the restore of the old revisions gave them all a new oldid at the time of the restore, which was chronologically after Pants 3000's edit even though the edits really occurred years ago. I'd imagine I could fix it by deleting all the revisions and restoring them all at once, but this serves as an interesting example that might be useful in finding a fix for the issue. -- Tom 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I SAI WE MERJ IT WTH TEH PEWPSMTH!!11!I also say that we should be allowed to make pages with no relevence to the site al all. -Rad

This disscussion is pretty much long gone. It has been merged.