User talk:FuzzyCatPotato
(→blocking policy.) |
(→blocking policy.) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
:::The nature of the original edit, and then the "Screw you clown, evolution is a lie" as a response to being reverted gives the distinct impression our IP friend was not here to engage in constructive discussion with us over the issue. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | :::The nature of the original edit, and then the "Screw you clown, evolution is a lie" as a response to being reverted gives the distinct impression our IP friend was not here to engage in constructive discussion with us over the issue. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::::You may be right. But now that he has been instantly blocked I guess that we will never know.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."</sup>]] 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | :::::You may be right. But now that he has been instantly blocked I guess that we will never know.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."</sup>]] 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::If by "never" you mean for a bit less than nine hours then that's true. I'm biting my nails in anticipation of his return.--[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::See Miekal's response. {{:User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig}} 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ::::See Miekal's response. {{:User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig}} 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 11 January 2015
Contents |
Parogar's moved edit
Parogar: My apologies. Sometimes it's difficult to detect humor or distinguish it between a genuine extremist belief. — Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs
- This was months ago, just didn't see it, moved it here for reasons FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirecting talk pages
Hello! We don't usually redirect talk pages when merging articles, instead just add Category:talk pages for redirected articles. thanks. SophieWilder
19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, sorry. FuzzyCatPotaters ☢ The invisible and non-existent look very alike. 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hat tip
For adding this gem. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- File:Hat Tip.gif
- FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
*glares*
It's like looking into 2009.. where I was known as "Fuzzy" and "Mr. Cat". 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I'm tired, someone asked about "The origin of 'Kettles'"... don't mind me
- ILUMENATI CONFERMD FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
So
What exactly makes something deserve an entry in your history sub article, out of curiosity.--Miekal 04:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- 3 criteria:
- 1: Notable impact on future direction of RationalWiki. Hence, the attempt to update the license and the attempt to remove Recipiespace.
- 2: User rights, user blocks, hiding revisions, etc, that aren't just standard "we trust you so you get sysop" or "spambot must burn" incidents. Hence, Exiled Encyclopedist's information, Elvis is King's information.
- 3: Massive stupidity. Hence, LogicMaster777, Elvis is King, Burkean.
- Curiosity satisfied? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- mhm. Fancy --Miekal 05:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Parogar might be worth including?--TiaC (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- User:Parogar might be worth including?--TiaC (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- mhm. Fancy --Miekal 05:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions
How do we incorporate this into dolphin?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- go rit ahed bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what is more important? The tantric yoga shit or the fact that they can make a human dolphin hybrid?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Up to you bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know which woo is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do both then bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know which woo is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Up to you bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what is more important? The tantric yoga shit or the fact that they can make a human dolphin hybrid?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
argle
I tried to ban you with an expiry time of 10 furlongs but the system would not accept my Proper Use Of Measurements >:( King Skeleton (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'LL BLOCK YOU FO 50 POUNDS YO HOOLIGAN" FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Assuming a day which is nine hours of 81 minutes of 81 seconds and almost certainly messing up the math because it's bedtime) King Skeleton (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Blowhard
Why are you removing proof about the illuminati? All anyone has to do now is simply show the fossil record of what hacks you are. WE OWN YOU. YOU PUSSY BITCH
- Because this "proof" needs talkpage discussion before addition to the article.
- Heh. Pussy, cat, my name. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, thank you?
I have no idea what that word salad was, but thank you for granting me sysop status. Asarelah (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was Template:Rit. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Pantera
Let's get this straight: are you copying sources from Wikipedia without actually reading/checking them? Because if you do, you are not much better than User:Exiled Encyclopedist.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I copied over, now I'm parsing through. For example, this is an incredibly stupid source that doesn't even go over the topic, and it will now die in the fire. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to parse through them first...?--Miekal 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep.
but CTRL C + CTRL V is even easier and I forgotMy most sincere and humble apologies, I hope this transgression causes no signfificant harm to any parties involved. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yep.
- Wouldn't it be better to parse through them first...?--Miekal 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
blocking policy.
Hi. You might just want to confirm your knowledge of our blocking policy. Cheers. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why bring up? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because you blocked an IP who objected to our evolution article and then made an unfortunate edit to a user's talk page. Our mainpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." It is possible that blocking people under the circumstances outlined above will not allow us to have any dialogue with them.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The nature of the original edit, and then the "Screw you clown, evolution is a lie" as a response to being reverted gives the distinct impression our IP friend was not here to engage in constructive discussion with us over the issue. --Miekal 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may be right. But now that he has been instantly blocked I guess that we will never know.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- See Miekal's response. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The nature of the original edit, and then the "Screw you clown, evolution is a lie" as a response to being reverted gives the distinct impression our IP friend was not here to engage in constructive discussion with us over the issue. --Miekal 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because you blocked an IP who objected to our evolution article and then made an unfortunate edit to a user's talk page. Our mainpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." It is possible that blocking people under the circumstances outlined above will not allow us to have any dialogue with them.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)