Wikipedia talk:666,666th pool

This pool is evil

Needless to say, this pool is evil. Now let me make a more evil proposal:

The winner marries the 666,666th article's contributor regardless of gender, age, religion, social class, and geological separation.

This pool is so evil. We'll make it truly satanic. (I am worse than Sun Myung Moon, ha!) -- Toytoy 09:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

If I win the pool, I promise to marry the 666,666th article contributor, provided she's female and wants to marry me. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what if the winner is the contributor of the 666,666th article? — JIP | Talk 06:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool, let the winner try: Image:Autofellatio.jpg or Image:Autocunnilingus.jpg. -- Toytoy 09:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's a bit too evil.... Sango 123 23:01, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I DISAGREE. 666 666 is actually a lucky number. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What will the article be?

I say hexhexhexium, or possibly List of people vanished in the Rapture. Nickptar 18:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I vote more than once?

Well I'm going to.

--Mark J 19:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Close pool now!

It's time to close this pool. Is anyone ready?? Georgia guy 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Close it before people like me sneak in last minute changes! Sango 123 00:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Linebreak

I've added a linebreak at the current time. All guesses before it were wrong. Ingoolemo ^talk 2005 June 28 05:21 (UTC)

I turned it into a double line break to increase its visibility. Sango 123 July 3, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Stop making articles!

I propose a one-week mortorium on the creation of new articles. There are simply too many already in existence (and it would greatly enhance my odds of winning this pool). Wikipedians may of course continue to edit existing articles. Rast 14:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly! What we really need to do is start deleting more articles -- Joolz 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone stole my date!

Whattup with User:Kostja picking the same date as me, with no time difference? [1] Bastahdz. —RaD Man (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he means 16:49? Kostja? —RaD Man (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't sign it properly, either; "August 8th: Kostja (Talk) 16:49, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)" seems to indicate that his guess was made six days from today. It doesn't matter, though. The winner is obviously going to be Angela or (long shot) Neutrality. And "close" only counts in horseshoes. Rast 15:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Then obviously time travel is involved, so he will be the winner. Unless his vote causes the time to change... Nickptar 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So who won?

File:Wikipedia 666666.png

The magic number.

And what was the 666,666th article? :) —RaD Man (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one, yet. We didn't hit it. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap its coming soon. The WikiApocylapse is coming! Better join the church! Redwolf24 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 666,666th article? We already hit it. --Jojit fb 06:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those wanting to relive the moment, I froze it in time. See the image to the right, which anyone can use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another user took a better shot, so I am going to delete my image and we could use the one on the main page instead. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One day out

Ohhh. I was so close. :( Well done Neutrality. Angela . 04:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you were! If I may ask, what method(s) did you use to forecast the date, or were you just (almost) lucky? —RaD Man (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just luck. I guessed August 3 because it was my birthday. :) Angela . 23:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You would have won if the deletionists hadn't woken up and started clearing out the VfD backlog! -- Joolz 16:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exact time of 666,666th article?

What was the exact time of creation of the 666,666th article? Up to one minute. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once we figure out what article got it, we go to New Pages and we can get the exact time it was posted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that 666666 (the original 666,666th article) was deleted pretty much right after its creation. Is it possible to find out the exact time when it was created? Or otherwise, can we find out the 666,667th article (which should now be the 666,666th one)? — JIP | Talk 14:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted at 06:45, restored at 06:46 and then deleted again at 06:49 ;) -- Joolz 16:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Winners?

Wasn't there two winners? Project2501a had as his guess Thursday. I guess technically he was sort of right. Well, I'm going to give Neutrality 99% of the win, and Project2501a can have 1%. Nice work to all who were close. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Sasquatch might be up for some honors (or stoning). Oh - wait. I forgot the marriage bit. Ha. Never mind. --Mothperson cocoon 13:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of right? no fair! It's not my fault that Thurday's suck and there's people trying to kill me, i tell you! and there's a dead man in my house. I demand you do something about it. I'd prefer you do it before the buldozer knocks my house over, please. See, now, I'll have to call the Vogon constructor fleet and a United Confederaship full of Microsoft Laywers! Cabal! Cabal! Rogue admin! Project2501a 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*

Project2501a 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would take you all out to Millyway's but you have flies in your eyes.