User talk:PacWalker

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Removing archived material, linking to archive)
(What specific nonfederal entity, person, activity, product, or service did I associate with the lincoln cent?)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
::My article mentions several religious deities. It also mentions coins. That does not mean it is associating the coins with a religious deity. I notice although I asked which specific deity you think it is that I specifically associated with that specific coin, you have not actually provided a responsive answer to my inquiry - You still haven't cited an example of a specific deity which you claim I specifically associated with the coin. Do you even know? Perhaps you didn't comprehend the material in the article. That's not a reason to vandalize. Refrain from this sort of mischief in the future if you cannot articulate a specific example of the rule you claim I broke - remember libel is illegal and actionable.[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 05:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 
::My article mentions several religious deities. It also mentions coins. That does not mean it is associating the coins with a religious deity. I notice although I asked which specific deity you think it is that I specifically associated with that specific coin, you have not actually provided a responsive answer to my inquiry - You still haven't cited an example of a specific deity which you claim I specifically associated with the coin. Do you even know? Perhaps you didn't comprehend the material in the article. That's not a reason to vandalize. Refrain from this sort of mischief in the future if you cannot articulate a specific example of the rule you claim I broke - remember libel is illegal and actionable.[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 05:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 
::Also, the Painting you deleted is a product of the Federal Government, which means it is automatically public domain. Please find a more productive activity than vandalizing my work such as perhaps educating yourself on the copyright laws.[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 06:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 
::Also, the Painting you deleted is a product of the Federal Government, which means it is automatically public domain. Please find a more productive activity than vandalizing my work such as perhaps educating yourself on the copyright laws.[[User:LogicMaster777|LogicMaster777]] ([[User talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 06:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 +
:::Please find a more productive activity than writing some nonsensical essay nobody here wants to read, such as doing nothing. [[User talk:PacWalker|PacWalker]] 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  
 
== did you issue a /16 rangeblock? ==
 
== did you issue a /16 rangeblock? ==

Revision as of 01:43, 12 April 2015

This page has an archive.
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, PacWalker!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Welcome to the goatfest, have fun! ScepticWombat (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Contents

Pffffft.

We might have two 1000-edit+ users this April. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's deceptive, though, because a lot of my edits are minor. Also that rash of grammar corrections in proper noun stub templates really inflated that. PacWalker 00:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor or not, lotta edits. Keep it up, and pretty soon people will scorn the sight of both of our names all over recent changes! ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*looks at recent changes* Well speak of the devil... PacWalker 01:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What specific nonfederal entity, person, activity, product, or service did I associate with the lincoln cent?

You vandalized my article with a reference to a coinage rule:

"(c) any other nonfederal entity, person, activity, product, or service."

What specific "nonfederal entity, person, activity, product, or service" do you allege I associated with the Lincoln cent?LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You associated the federal gov't with a smattering of alleged deities; using an image of circulating coinage to do so appears to be verboten. PacWalker 13:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So yes, I guess I "vandalised" your "article"... in order to drag it something resembling accord with the law. PacWalker 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My article mentions several religious deities. It also mentions coins. That does not mean it is associating the coins with a religious deity. I notice although I asked which specific deity you think it is that I specifically associated with that specific coin, you have not actually provided a responsive answer to my inquiry - You still haven't cited an example of a specific deity which you claim I specifically associated with the coin. Do you even know? Perhaps you didn't comprehend the material in the article. That's not a reason to vandalize. Refrain from this sort of mischief in the future if you cannot articulate a specific example of the rule you claim I broke - remember libel is illegal and actionable.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, the Painting you deleted is a product of the Federal Government, which means it is automatically public domain. Please find a more productive activity than vandalizing my work such as perhaps educating yourself on the copyright laws.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please find a more productive activity than writing some nonsensical essay nobody here wants to read, such as doing nothing. PacWalker 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

did you issue a /16 rangeblock?

If so, please don't do that again. If not, my apologies. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid one, engaged in minor snippiness at User talk:Ryulong, and then unundid it. PacWalker 20:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ban Everyone? Shit Yeah

Because, really, FCP taking what should have been a simple discussion in the bar and adding that and all of the clusterfucky bullshit and putting it in the coop and THEN voting and THEN decided votes should be invalidated and started over and THEN issuing a notification in the cocksucking bar to come to the motherfucking coop and revote and debate AGAIN is fucking bullshit annoyance. Thinking over it has pushed me into "I like to shoot people in the face." territory, because it's goddamn normal for me when I get irritated by asshat cockmonglers. If FCP had done that to a debate in my own house, I'd rip off his fucking arm, beat him to death with it, set him on fucking fire, and then resurrect him to put it all back to normal. WITH BURNED SKIN. Why? BECAUSE FUCKING BEERS, STEERS, AND QUEERS, that's why. Fucking Texas.
...
...
SQUEAL! --Castaigne (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

...u wot αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
SEX ON WHEELS, BABY, IT'S THE KISS OF DEATH. I've gone totally irrational, joined the Thrill Kill Kult. --Castaigne (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh well I don't know how to get everyone in a timely fashion. And I don't know what goes where or any such, apparently, so...
The block was not meant to express displeasure of any sort with you, to clarify. At this point I'd just like to recapitate chickens in a timely fashion and go back to writing articles on heretics and such and fixing der grammer. PacWalker 02:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Writing articles? Fixing grammer? Heavy scene.--Castaigne (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That was an over-reaction. Tielec01 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
All zero*pi seconds of that block I issued him? Sorry... PacWalker 02:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope - the OP, which I enjoyed immensely. Apology accepted though. Tielec01 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This thread is great. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I just wonder what I'll think in the future when I see this in an archive. PacWalker 03:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you DO understand the copyright laws

But products of the federal government such as the Lincoln Memorial are what is called "public domain". In other words, it's not copyright protected. So please try to find a better use of your time than trying to vandalize evidence simply because it causes cognitive dissonance with your religious beliefs. Sorry your irrational faith based belief system has no evidence and that must be rather uncomfortable for you, but please try to refrain from vandalizing my work because the evidence presented to support my falsifiable, evidence-based theory makes you uncomfortable and causes you cognitive dissonance. Thanks. If it makes your denialism easier, you don't have to read the article or try to understand it but don't let your lack of understanding lead you to vandalize the evidence.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Show me where in the lawbooks it says this. Because the things the military develops are most definitely not public domain. CorruptUser (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Man, it's astonishing seeing someone so clueless act this condescending. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Where in the law books it says this. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Military artifacts may be kept from the public domain by being treated something like trade secrets. There is also the difficulty of reproducing them with the means available to civilians. That said, makers of sewing machines and typewriters were pressed into manufacturing small-arms (rifles, carbines, and pistols) during the unpleasantness of the 1940s.
If anyone wants to evaluate LM777's cluelessness, here is a data point, and the context in which it sits. Note well, the image shows a toddler about to stuff sand in his own mouth. As for condescension, this picture of Willy Wonka (hosted by thelibertycaucus.com) was offered in the same context, by the same logic abuser. MaillardFillmore (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What I referenced with regard to circulating currency: http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=circCoinPolicy For clarity, this image of the coin was used in arguing that the federal gov't is associated with some deity whose second coming was Lincoln, contrary to 2c of these policies. PacWalker 21:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you can't copy money willy nilly. PacWalker 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As to your picture of the Lincoln Memorial et al., you claimed fair use, which is a term ONLY applicable to copyrighted works. If you want to upload something with correct license/fair use/PD claims, go ahead. PacWalker 21:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
And I don't give a fuck WHICH deity; any non-federal entity is a non-federal entity, and no deities happen to be federal entities. PacWalker 23:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Some random BoN bitching

Here. Was reverted because he deleted an existing section; I am putting this here for the record lest it be said I am burning the evidence without archiving or some such. PacWalker 23:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support