User talk:FuzzyCatPotato
(→Why I deleted the BoN's edit at Talk:Holocaust denial: big D) |
|||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
::::The physical evidence for the holocaust is a pile of shoes in the Soviet zone? [[Special:Contributions/58.141.99.113|58.141.99.113]] ([[User talk:58.141.99.113|talk]]) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::The physical evidence for the holocaust is a pile of shoes in the Soviet zone? [[Special:Contributions/58.141.99.113|58.141.99.113]] ([[User talk:58.141.99.113|talk]]) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::How can "holocaust denial" be an a priori justification? Are you guilty of creation denial? [[Special:Contributions/58.141.99.113|58.141.99.113]] ([[User talk:58.141.99.113|talk]]) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::How can "holocaust denial" be an a priori justification? Are you guilty of creation denial? [[Special:Contributions/58.141.99.113|58.141.99.113]] ([[User talk:58.141.99.113|talk]]) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::::Do you have a point to these questions? because there are literally museums full of physical evidence. Do you want a full index of them? {{unsig| | + | :::::Do you have a point to these questions? because there are literally museums full of physical evidence. Do you want a full index of them? {{unsig|SuperDude}} |
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums Step ahead of ya]. [[User:FuzzyCatPotato|FrizzyCatPotato]] ([[User talk:FuzzyCatPotato|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/FuzzyCatPotato|stalk]]) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums Step ahead of ya]. [[User:FuzzyCatPotato|FrizzyCatPotato]] ([[User talk:FuzzyCatPotato|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/FuzzyCatPotato|stalk]]) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 5 March 2015
Contents |
Racialism archive + block
The racialism talk page should be blocked again for confirmed editors to stop Mikemikev trolling there like he is doing now. Put many months or 1+ year on it. I agree the main page could be improved more, but I've done enough now, and am not spending any more time on this topic. Mikemikev has Asperger syndrome and his fixation is race. He's on 40+ wikis and forums each day "debating" it. You have to lock the pages to get rid of him. This is what Wikipedia did. I think most the comment sections on the racialism talk after locked can then be archived. Dust77 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether that's a good idea, I can't because I'm presently not a sysop, because I was naughty. Ask User:AgingHippie or User:David Gerard or anyone on this list that's active to do it. Good luck! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Porting templates from Wikipedia
If you are going to port templates from Wikipedia, please, please, please have the decency to write some documentation about how and when they should be used and put them in the appropriate template category so that other people will be able to find them and use them. Also, if a template depends on another in a non-obvious way, add a link to it in the documentation, so that it will be visible to the "Pages that link to" page.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mk, sorry. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Equally importantly, Wikipedia asks that if you fork a page(and I don't see why templates wouldn't count), you link the history url as attribution to meet creative commons requirements. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Will do, for the 4 templates I ported. If either of these is really an issue, there's a hella templates that don't meet either requirement. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Will do, for the 4 templates I ported. If either of these is really an issue, there's a hella templates that don't meet either requirement. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Equally importantly, Wikipedia asks that if you fork a page(and I don't see why templates wouldn't count), you link the history url as attribution to meet creative commons requirements. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking over edit statistics
it's a tedious job to prepare, but it's nice to be able to check on from time to time. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- No prob, I think exactly the same. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Libel
I know you're trying to drop this issue, but I wanted to say that you raise a good question, "If the threat is in the person, I again ask: 'If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews [whose author has raised legal threats against detractors] or similar articles?'"
There are a lot of ideologies whose supporters seek to suppress their critics through the threat of lawsuits. Scientology comes to mind. It's assumed that to defend against these lawsuits would be expensive. I wonder if that's so? Could the RWF file a pro se response that would be favorably received by the courts? It's a well-established legal principle that pro se filings are supposed to be liberally construed.
Also, there might be some value in standing and fighting, rather than surrendering to those who would seek to intimidate the RWF through legal threats. Defending free speech is arguably within the RWF's mission (since the RWF opposes authoritarianism), and unfounded libel suits threaten free speech. Maybe there would be donations to the RWF for a legal defense fund, if it were needed, or the publicity surrounding an unfounded libel suit would attract donations. Landmartian (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this discussion is relevant. I am not commenting further, in fear of Nutty. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can comment further without getting kicked off, but they might take issue with bringing back the actual content they considered libelous. Landmartian (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, Nutty was pretty explicit that talking about libel is off-limits. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can comment further without getting kicked off, but they might take issue with bringing back the actual content they considered libelous. Landmartian (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Coopage of AH
I think you'll find 6 of us have proposed AH be punished with hookers and blow, not 5. --MtDNotorious Sodomite 02:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reading numbers displayed directly above what I'm writing was never my strong suit. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
He removed the talk page comment for a reason
And that is that holocaust denial JAQqing off is almost certainly trolling out-of-the-gate. There's very few people who have sincere questions about our lack of references for the surplus of physical evidence of the holocaust, but plenty who want to raise doubts because holocaust denial is what they do. I understand wanting to address the post, and take it seriously(feel free to do so) but it's not really that much of a question why it was yanked. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably trolling. But it wasn't vile, and there was a (slim) possibility BON was just asking for us to add citations, rather than JAQing off. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Why I deleted the BoN's edit at Talk:Holocaust denial
Hi FCP, I usually don't give much of a hoot about the inane stuff people posts at talk pages (bar deleting outright linkspam).
However, this BoN has already been blocked for a day by AgingHippie for inserting "citation needed" tags in the same "Physical evidence" section that this same BoN has posted the following question about on the talk page "This section is uncited. What specifically is the physical evidence?"
Considering what's already in the section (incl. the (in)famous picture of the heaps of shoes), I really don't see how this question can be asked in good faith. Combined with the earlier ref-tagging, I concluded that this was effectively Holocaust denial inserted on first the RW Holocaust denial page(!) and subsequently, when this was thwarted, the same crap was posted on the talk page. I have very limited patience for Holocaust denial - especially when masquerading as innocuous wiki-housekeeping (by tagging and talk page posting) - which is why I removed it. Oh, and the same BoN has also trolled the Saloon Bar and contributed zero worthwhile material. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- There're some indications that the IP is Mikemikev. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was my suspicion too, and I thought I'd seen it in a response to some other of the BoN's activity somewhere, but since I couldn't readily find it, I didn't mention it. Then again, keeping track of Mikemikev's gazillion BoNsocks is pretty hopeless. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I restored this particular comment because it didn't appear to cause any harm, aside from taking up space. It might be in bad faith, but it has no bad effects. That said, I really don't care about the comment, feel free to do as you wish. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The physical evidence for the holocaust is a pile of shoes in the Soviet zone? 58.141.99.113 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- How can "holocaust denial" be an a priori justification? Are you guilty of creation denial? 58.141.99.113 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a point to these questions? because there are literally museums full of physical evidence. Do you want a full index of them? — Unsigned, by: SuperDude / talk / contribs
- Step ahead of ya. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a point to these questions? because there are literally museums full of physical evidence. Do you want a full index of them? — Unsigned, by: SuperDude / talk / contribs
- I restored this particular comment because it didn't appear to cause any harm, aside from taking up space. It might be in bad faith, but it has no bad effects. That said, I really don't care about the comment, feel free to do as you wish. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was my suspicion too, and I thought I'd seen it in a response to some other of the BoN's activity somewhere, but since I couldn't readily find it, I didn't mention it. Then again, keeping track of Mikemikev's gazillion BoNsocks is pretty hopeless. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)