User talk:FAMAS

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Modhats (sticky)[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat * Icon fedora.svg

@everyone: FAMAS talks weird. We're not sure why. FAMAS says "this user" instead of "I" and uses formalism at all times. FAMAS also tends to create small stubs on missional or semi-missional articles. Nonetheless, they're a good faith contributor and shouldn't be blocked. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat * Icon fedora.svg

@everyone: This is an addition to the above. FAMAS will probably forget to sign his/her posts. Also, asking him/her to stop referring to him/her self in the third person will probably result in a third person response.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, FAMAS nearly always remembers to sign. Christopher (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This user[edit]

Stop with the "this user" stuff. Christopher (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As the User page consists of a link to their contributions, what do you expect? (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Many people can't think of anything to put on their userpage. You don't have to say "this user" all the time though, it gets really annoying after a while. Christopher (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You can say 'Hi, there, I am (your name) and I am a Rationalwikian. (and my interests are)'

And at least very the term used, so the most you can be accused of is pretension/hipsterism. (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You could just call Famas "that user" until that user gets confused. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Please could you stop creating lots of tiny stubs? It looks as that user is hoping other people will finish the articles for that user. Why should they bother if that user doesn't? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that this user is utilizing article creation in the attempt to bring about the existence of the article topics in mainspace in the attempt to have the collaborative effort towards the articles via pressure over the community to improve stubs and increasing focus on the articles by having them in mainspace in contrary to their places in to do list. this user asserts the additional fact that that user is nonindicative as to not referring to the user being referred by that and thus the correct format of said form of referral is user followed by the usernameFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 18:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That user isn't making much sense. Christopher (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS, nobody wants to "collaboratively" work on tiny stubs. Try getting at least one reference into any article you create. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That user just wants to write one sentence on each topic and expects everyone else to write the rest, basically. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user FuzzyCatPotato, this user noticed that the articles on various woos and woomasters started as tiny stubs and collaboratively expanded upon. this user asserts the fact that this user is presently in a state of not possessing the resources to gather indepth data on the currently required articles and is in a state where this user has to rely upon the users of the remainders of the internet for data moreso than the past, thus necessitating collaborative effort and to summon bigger fishes.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Is that user saying that that user is unable to google stuff? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
[EC]In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that that user's stubs are substantially smaller than how most other articles start. Christopher also asserts that summoning fish is counterproductive to the creation of articles on RationalWiki. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user is currently less able to search the correct terms followed by memorization of the data and associated links and to form them within wiki language code of which, this user possesses almost zero knowledge of, thus always the choice to remain as a metawikian and to summon the community and the big fishes such as FuzzyCatPotato, which is innovative to the matter as to the summoning via bringing the articles into mainspace and in a bigger "ring target" where the stubs are less likely to go ignored and spawn the obsessive compulsion in others to improve them.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[5]] [[6]] 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Christopher asserts that that user is beginning to sound like an incoherent Ed Poor. Christopher (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Or Lumenos. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that the associated wiki philosophies are [[Inclusionism]], [[Immediatism]] and [[Structurism]], thus necessitating immediate creation and insertion of articles with data to the maximum capability of users.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[7]] [[8]] 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that RationalWiki doesn't need copies of Wikipedia project pages. Christopher (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(EC) That user s just copying stuff over fom other wikis. Stop or this user will block that user. This user is not going to spend this user's sunday evening playing wack-a-mole with that user. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Christopher and Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the opinion that this user is copying only the wikiphilosophies as is required for understanding of the concept of what goes in the mind of various wikians across all of existence and is not attempting a total copy of every project page of wikipedia and in the event of retributionary action, this user will resort to the previously undertaken measure of reporting matters to the supreme commander of the wiki as in the person who possesses the highest authority over all matters and await verdicts as this user lacks any privileges outside of such reporting.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[9]] [[10]] 18:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
It's still just copying stuff. If these users want to know that, a link would suffice. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
[EC]In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that we don't need any pages copied from anywhere. Christopher also asserts that there isn't a supreme commander of the wiki. Christopher (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that the supreme commander of the wiki is the one responsible for having the final word in all matters of policy as in the person bypassing all other authorities, which this user noticed that user @FuzzyCatPotato possesses.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[11]] [[12]] 19:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzy has no more authority than any other mod. Christopher (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That users assertion falsely assumes that ultimate authority is the only authority. These users are also familiar with site policy, standards and culture, and these users are trying to get that user to act in accordance with them. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


I have blocked you for nine hours, and desysoped you. We have tried explaining to you where you're going wrong but you just won't listen. Use the following nine hours to read the rationalwiki pages and get a feel for how the place runs. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user awaits the verdict from user @FuzzyCatPotato regarding the matter of whether the articles on wikiphilosophies edited to fit all wikis be kept within rationalwiki or be deleted.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[13]] [[14]] 19:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
1) I can pretty much guarantee that Fuzzy will agree with me and Bicycle Wheel, 2) So what if he didn't? Fuzzy doesn't make the decisions around here, we all do. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, please remember to sign your posts. You forgot to sign one of your posts in the Policy poll page.-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that user intended their comment to be an introduction to the page. Other people then used it as a talk page. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo[edit]

Listen to me, FAMAS. If I can get a promise from you that you're not going to create project pages that could just fit into other pages instead, then I can unblock and re-sop you again. We don't need to go to the mods, we don't have to keep you blocked/binned, and we can all just carry on with our time. I mean, the stuff you write isn't bad in itself, it's just that it should be added as sections to preexisting pages. So what do you say? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's only a nine hour block, and some of that has passed already. Leave it for a few hours and see how things go after that. The person's a wikimartian who won't listen. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
And if he doesn't, then we just respond in kind. Like, permaban-type response. If he won't abide by the rules and won't listen, then I see no reason why his presence is necessary any longer. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that adding all the wikiphilosophies in a single page as multiple sections will result in a page size exceeding the 50 kilobytes limit that is recommended to be followed for dialup users and users above dialup but on metered connection and users on dialup and metered connection which are common and the majority on most of earth's noneuropean and non-north american nations and one of those nation is where this user is from and at present time, thus necessitating article splitting into pages to reduce page sizes. this user is requesting @FuzzyCatPotato for the final word on this policy as to whether the pages should be kept seperate or merged. this user asserts the fact that the final word belongs to the supreme commander.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[15]] [[16]] 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
See? This is what I mean! We can just talk things out like mature humans. OK, so why don't you use drafts for your wikiphilosophies. That way, you can make as many pages as you want or need, and they're out of mainspace, so everyone's happy! RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
In reply to @that user, Christopher asserts that WE DON'T HAVE A SUPREME COMMANDER! Are you capable of understanding that? Christopher (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that while user christopher asserts what the user is asserting, there is possibility of things being the opposite, with that possibility in mind, this user is checking all possible avenues. this user has no specific preference on whether rationalwiki is run on mobocracy or on a semi-mobocracy where the says of the supreme commander, be it user @FuzzyCatPotato or any other user who is that, has any bearing over the mob. this user is running a diagnostic on the matter and is requesting the says of user fuzzycatpotato regarding the issue of wikiphilosophy project pages being allowed or not.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[17]] [[18]] 12:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @FAMAS for addressing by my rightful title, Supreme Commander:

Four more years!

Now please try to get community consensus instead of {{ping}}ing me all the time. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 12:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS would it be possible to, for once, address everyone by their name and yourself with pronouns? 'This user' is beyond annoying. Chris, I'm with you. I don't like the stubs. I have been known to impulse buy books 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Look, FAMAS, just use the draft template for any wikiphilosophies you want to create. Just keep that stuff out of mainspace, and everything will be fine. I'm fairly certain that FCP agrees with us, so you just agree to use drafts, and I'll give you back your mop. Deal? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that this user created the wikiphilosophy pages in rationalwikispace and away from mainspace. there is the possibility that this user mistyped the article titles thus placing them in mainspace, in the matter being such, this user is requesting others to correct the typographical and coding mistakes of this user and this user was in agreement regarding keeping wikiphilosophies away from mainspace.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[19]] [[20]] 14:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What Roninmacbeth is trying to say is "put them in a subpage of your userpage" (like this). We don't want your pages you make if they're copied off somewhere else or really short. Christopher (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! Just do that. Keep those articles as your subpages, and we should be good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @RoninMacbeth and Christopher, this user is requesting a temporary return of the sysop privilege for restoration of the deleted pages followed by page move to draftspace.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[21]] [[22]] 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Why do you want thm at all? Just link to them, you don't have to copy everything over. We're not a mirror site. You still haven't exlained why they need to be here. I will delete anything you copy over unless you can come up with a really good reason it needs to be here (such as the other site being under threat of extinction). BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that the articles copied over possess modifications to indicate that they cover all wikis and are not limited to wikipedia only.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[23]] [[24]] 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You could say that when you link to them. And the sort of people who read meta. stuff are intelligent enough to assume that anyway. Or are you proposing radical changes to the text? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that modifying the texts to fit the context of all wikis would change much of the texts as most of the "wikipedia" words are changed into wiki and pedian changed into wikian and more.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[25]] [[26]] 20:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that systemically changing a few words that occur frequently throughout a text isn't radical change and is still copying. Christopher (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(EC)But as I said, the sort of person who reads that would easily adapt it to their own circumstances, without having to have it written down. That's not a radical rewrite, that's a minor tweak. Still no. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user can create the external redirects to the meta site pages and is requesting a return of the sysop privilege.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[27]] [[28]] 20:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You're asking for sysop rights in order to create an external link? You can do that anyway. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
No. You don't get resopped until you agree to the terms I laid out above. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@FAMAS It's so simple! Just say you agree to put your pages in your namespace and I'll give you back your mop! I'll even try and help you with your project(s)! It's. Simple. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I got this from DiamondDisc1's page:
Input box type "create width=42 default=??? prefix=User:Insertusernamehere/ preload= buttonlabel=Create new draft break=no" not recognized.
Please specify "create", "comment", "search", "search2" or "fulltext".
Just insert your username where it says to and you can create your own drafts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that this user agreed to the treaty provided by user roninmacbeth.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[29]] [[30]] 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links[edit]

External links are quite simple, here's how to do them:

Just typing out the full url resulting in this:

Putting brackets around the url results in this [31]

And putting this: [ FAMAS' official website] (remember to put a space after the url) produces this: FAMAS' official website

See Help:Links for more info on other sorts of links. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

this user is requesting help from users @Christopher and Roninmacbeth in page for fixing the cite web link display.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[32]] [[33]] 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
You require my assistance? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I should note that I need to go to bed in 11 minutes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You have a sandbox[edit]

Stop creating stubby mainspace articles, please. You've been asked this many times before. If you tune up the article in the sandbox, then you can create it int he mainspace. Cheers!--Spoony (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @Spoony, this user asserts the fact that sysops @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, and Christopher observed the tiny stubs created by this user in the past and chose to keep them due to agreement on the matter that the userbase will help to expand them regardless of size.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[34]] [[35]] 06:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that to be the case, reading the conversation regarding the stub. Do not restore the page again. And please keep in mind that Rationalwiki is not run by three people alone--Spoony (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Spoony, this user asserts the fact that due to the inherent nature of power relations and control, there are hierarchies amongst the users even in the stated mobocracy in that there are sysops who are active and sysops who are inactive on-site. this user pinged the sysops who were most active at the time of this discussion and were active in the engagement of issues brought up by this user. this user also asserts the fact that as a lesser-active user, this user did not possess any prior knowledge of the said "doug...." account being a sock of any other user and took the assumption that following the wikian philosophy of always warning a new account first with a template and then blocking is the sound matter with additional emphasis on the matter that user @Spoony took no effort in notifying this user of the matter before blocking.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[36]] [[37]] 06:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Spoony is correct. Stub creation is generally not helpful. You were given a chance on some stubs that you created by User:Christopher, but don't take this a license to keep going at it. If you don't know anything about a topic, don't make a stub for it. Do some research on it first or don't make the stub. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
And stop addressing yourself as "this user". That and your faux-polite way of replying to others is extremely obnoxious, and your behavior is making it slowly more difficult to assume good faith. I only had one time to tell you this, but I'm sure the others agree with me, and are getting sick of it.--Spoony (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@FAMAS: Please use your sandbox to draft articles. Small stubs aren't useful to someone who has encountered some bullshit they haven't heard of, turn to Google for answers, and stumble upon the RationalWiki page -- which comprise the majority of viewers of RationalWiki. It's better to have 1 thorough debunking than 10 sources-needed stubs. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@FAMASAgreed. @DiamondDisc1 is good at creating drafts, so I'd recommend asking him for help there. If you need help editing anything, you know where to find me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, DiamondDisc1, and Spoony, this user asserts the fact that this user resorted to summoning the remainders of rationalwiki community in R&D efforts for the articles thus necessitating the stub articles with templates displaying the need for expansion, which will act as massive notices for the community and persuade the community to expand them.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[38]] [[39]] 14:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Creating stubs isn't helpful, if a link is blue people will think "this article already exists, it doesn't need my attention." If a link is red people are more likely to want to make a decent article on the subject. Christopher (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This user wishes to tell that user that this works:
-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming users[edit]

Hey FAMAS, just so you know, we generally only welcome users after they've made some contributions. Just for future reference. Thanks. Also, do sign your welcome post, mmk? I have been known to impulse buy books 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"This user asserts the fact that that user is welcomed to the rational wiki, and anticipates that that user will create pages the the community of the rational wiki will develop along the lines of its purpose in relation to its mission, which will act as a notice for the members to contribute to the articles of the rational wiki." They'd run a mile. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your Stubs[edit]

I'll stop deleting them, as I've been assured you're a good faith user, but I would like to ask you to expand upon them at least a tiny bit after you created them. And apologies for my rude attitude last night. --Spoony (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying templates from Wikipedia[edit]

Please stop doing that, a lot of them don't even work due to differences between us and Wikipedia and most of them are never going to be used. Christopher (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Blank slate[edit]

This user has removed user FAMAS from category sysoprevoke, allowing any other user to re-sysop user FAMAS if said user thinks user FAMAS is being a useful editor.

This user requests that user FAMAS not fuck this up. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user asserts the fact that this user never did anything to misuse the privileges, contrary to the claims by user fuzzycatpotato. this user is requesting a return of the privileges in order to restore deleted pages.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[40]] [[41]] 19:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's an idea: how about you try writing a page that isn't a one-line stub so it doesn't get deleted in the first place? Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@FAMAS Do something good with your regular editing powers, and then we will give you back your mop. Add sections, use drafts. Do something with the regular tools. We see no reason to give you more powers if you're not using the ones already at your disposal. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This user would like to ask you to consider the following: If you believe you did nothing to get them revoked, maybe it's what you didn't do? Most, if not all, of your edits are downright unproductive at best. You have an opportunity to show you can be productive around here, and no one here wants a good-faith user perma'd. We know it might be tedious, but maybe lurking a bit or consulting what makes a good RationalWiki article could put you on the right track. If you agree, your record is wiped, and you have an opportunity to prove yourself.--Spoony (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @RoninMacbeth, FuzzyCatPotato, Spoony, and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user has been reblocked while this user asserted the fact that this user will perform discussion for reasons for the edits by this user. this user advises checking the block logs for the current block incident followed by the edit summaries of this user and to decide whether the block is one made in justification in accordance with the rules laid out by the authorities.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[42]] [[43]] 10:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That block was unnecessary, I've unblocked you. Christopher (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, he's only doing the same thing he's constantly been told not to do by everyone with a pulse. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
this user enquires to user @Nog Bogmire as to whether the users who do not find any problem with the conversational mode utilized by this user to lack possession of any form of pulse and the basis of said claim by user nog bogmire.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[44]] [[45]] 10:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
[EC]What specifically was that block for? FAMAS' only edits today were changing the number of articles randomly displayed on a few navsidebars and discussing those edits. Christopher (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Undoing your edits on those articles, edit-warring afterwards, and creating yet another useless stub (deleted). Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the stub. To be fair to FAMAS, they did end up taking it to the talkpage. Christopher (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but my internal asshole moderator sense tells me that's only because I have a rollback button and he doesn't. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Christopher and Nog Bogmire, this user advises checking the edit summary of said useless stub which this user claims and holds the opinion that said stub is of highest priority in that bypassing other article priorities.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[46]] [[47]] 10:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You've been told before on several occasions that it doesn't matter how important you think an article is if you're not willing to write it. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Nog Bogmire, Christopher, RoninMacbeth, and Spoony, this user refers to showing attempts by this user to build up from the useless stub format, additionally referring to the timestamp of edits performed by this user with the aid gotten from user @Spud regarding the useless stubs. this user asserts the fact that it is the nature of power relations that disagreements amongst the nodes involved in a power structure occur and in such matters of disagreements which are formally referred to as insurrection, the nodes with the higher levels within the power structure as in numerical strength and connection in mobocracy/democracy or connection to the elites of the power structure in tyranny or so on, would possess the final words within the structure. this user has in past and in present is representing the policy proposals in various matters by this user which may or may not be accepted by the commanders possessing the final words in all policy matters and that said system applies to all users wishing to establish their policies as the final word.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[48]] [[49]] 10:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Then build up the article in a word processor application before posting it. Also stop talking about power structures, I don't care and neither does anyone else. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Nog Bogmire, this user asserts the fact that the user nog bogmire would have to attempt an increase in rank within the power structure for the self in order to ensure that the words of user nog bogmire becomes the final word and bypasses the words of anyone within the rank that may agree to the policy changes presented by this user if any such rankholder exists.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[50]] [[51]] 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoda. Nog Bogmire (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
What Nog said, only I'm a tech (there are only 16 techs on the wiki). I know that techs, just like mods or plain sysops, have no community authority but FAMAS doesn't seem to understand that. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
[[ping|FAMAS}} I am going to try and express this as clearly as possible. No one, mot even Trent, has any more "authority" over the wiki than anyone else does. The mods have more power, sure. But you cannot invoke the RW hierarchy because there is no RW hierarchy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


People are being dicks and deleting your stubs before they can grow. I suggest:

Please draft articles in your userspace before creating stubs. Stubs aren't useful to our usual readership: People who find some bullshit they haven't heard of, turn to Google for answers, and stumble upon the RationalWiki page. A useful metric is: Does the article provide any information that a casual reader would have a hard time getting? If not, it's not worth it. It's better to have 1 thorough debunking than 10 sources-needed stubs. Pick one bullshit idea, one crank idiot, one nutty website. Sit down, get a dozen sources quoting of them saying crazy shit (or debunking the crazy shit they say), and put it in a sandbox draft:

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user asserts the opinion that articles be made first regardless of size and the userbase will expand on it upon noticing the stub template. this user asserts the fact that user fuzzycatpotato possesses the authority to bypass the authority of other users and establish the words of the self as a final word and thus to utilize it.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[52]] [[53]] 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wrong -- people often add to articles in userspace. That's why {{draft}} exists. See example: User:Onychoprion/sandbox Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user took notice to the fact for some years that draftspace articles are not worked on anywhere near as much as mainspace and rationalwikispace articles. this user deleted two dead redirects from draftspace during the time of elevated privileges for this user.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[54]] [[55]] 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Getting people to work on your pet projects is your problem, FAMAS. Use the drafts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As Supreme Commander, I order you to create workable drafts before putting them into mainspace. While most users can create and leave stubs -- because they have built up a trust that they will eventually finish the article -- you cannot, as you have created so many stubs. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As an example, see Johanna Michaelsen. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"{{stub}} Health woo is every [[woo]] that claims to give the user good health, boosted immune system, cure for cancer, aids, hepatitis, fit body, fit mind, extreme muscle, fat burning in 12 seconds etc. =Major Offenders= *[[Alternative Medicine]] *[[Acupuncture]] *[[Psychic Healing]] *[[Exercise woo]] " isn't really comparable to the last revision of Johanna Michaelsen before it was edited by anyone else other than the initial author. Christopher (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""