Wikipedia talk:Talk page highlights

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Department of Fun Bottom‑importance This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles Bottom This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Suggest inclusion of Wikipedia_talk:Miscellaneous_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency#Nominated_for_deletion which a lot of people appear to have found funny.Geni 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Graham87 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like citing of either archives or page revisions for these statements, it will help to prevent misrepresentation of editors.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, check out this entertaining thread: silly admins. -- œ^™ 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only seemed appropriate to leave this here. What this is.. I don't even.. sigh. I give up. The internet is too weird for me. DubiousIrony ^yell 11:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70.176.118.196 sure knew what he was talking about. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page hasn't been particularly active, but it should be noted that if someone says that they would prefer not to be included, standard practice is to honor that request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hell of a epic capitalisation of a bad title, both on the talk page and in the actual article. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the [discussion on the George Mallory talkpage] about whether or not it is possible to be "a formerly disappeared person" funny, but I don't know if that's just me or if it's actually funny enough to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.125.67 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hilarious, too! I've added it. Graham87 16:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

should add the talk page above for the following comments:

Cleanup [edit] 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.

         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````--Richrakh (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 

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) 

            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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:87C0:BEF:10C2:C039:CDC0:E33D (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]  

Thanks for the suggestion; I've cleaned up the talk page a bit and added it. Graham87 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"[Larry Ellison] is not a Reliable Source on whether his stepdad was pompous.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Ellison#Pompous and "WHY did anyone administer LSD to an elephant?" "It was the 60s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tusko#LSD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.67.183 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've gone and added them. Graham87 11:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for adding them! One more suggestion- "Giant squids have the REAL ULTIMATE POWER." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giant_squid/Archive_1#Giant_Squids_are_sweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.208.73 (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I've added it, with a timestamp, because I'm like that. Graham87 15:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another suggestion: "I think we should skip this topic and have some apple pie"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Ballard#Battleship_Bismark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's just talk page vandalism. But thanks for the note anyway ... that talk page needs quite a bit of cleanup. Graham87 01:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it is not entirely proper to suggest adding your own jokes, but I plead the excuse that some other editors seem to have found it funny: Talk:Franz Schubert#Nothing at all about his social life or sex life? Did he have kids? Was he gay? Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe I did notice that discussion while cleaning up the talk page. Why not? I've added it. Graham87 14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]