User talk:Miekal/Archive6
[edit] people talk
- What's with reverting my edit?--TemplarJLS (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Another question: Why did you delete my article for Godandscience.org?--TemplarJLS (talk)
- Because i considered it a waste of time to hold a vote on deleting a two-bit guys article--Miekal 05:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait are you calling me a two-bit? What was wrong with the article?--TemplarJLS (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- He's referring to both illumicorp and godandscience.org as two-bits not worth knowing about, afaik. Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Something tells me that asking why you reverted my edit without explanation would be a complete fucking waste of time.OGRastamon (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Whose ehr?
Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] +1
Correct action - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- +1. And locking that talk page (even if I could still edit it) kept me sane. Thanks! MarmotHead (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Your request for automation
Can you get me some links (even red ones) to the train-related wandalism you were talking about? I need to see what/where it was to be able to do something. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Still need it or?--Miekal 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted a chunk of that stuff, you could check my logs. SophieWilder
20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I was able to find a bit in the deletion logs. Unfortunately, the filter I wrote is a little instable, so I going to only use it if they show up again or else a more permanent fix will have to wait until I have time to reprogram it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted a chunk of that stuff, you could check my logs. SophieWilder
[edit] Hey
Why did you feel the need to block me? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- boredom. Teacher was answering a question i knew at the time--Miekal 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] BBC
A smear necessitates untruths. Everything I've posted is true and public domain. What specifically needs referenced in YHO ? — Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs
- One is less likely to trust someone who can't even SIGN despite being reminded at least thrice. Pillock. Scream!! (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
How about quadrice? I really couldn't be bothered to learn your little traditions. I've had a look around at what RationalWiki has become and these days it's only worth trolling, not actually doing any work for!! Have a nice day little scream! — Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs
[edit] About those giant free Scotland ion Scots
Osaka Sun (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Either way, scotland was going to get something: Yes gave them a country, no was going to give them more devolution. In the end, this is going to be a different united kingdom after this than there was this morning. --Miekal 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect magician categorization
The page said its for stage magicians otherwise it would be too long and confusing. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Re:
If they return, leave links to what happened and where on my talkpage, so that I can better create programs to fight against it. As it stands, I've amped up the abuse filters to deal with a lot of what went down in case the skiddie troll shows up. I suspect they will "dox" me next, even though I've given out my name numerous times on RationalWiki and am not scared by some twit with a computer. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Could I please have your assessment of what I need to improve on to be given sysops privileges back.
Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] help help I'm being repressed
:( King Skeleton (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just don't know how to feel about that discussion and am glad I got out of it when i did--Miekal 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's like a horror movie, it's grotesque and disturbing but you want to see what happens next. King Skeleton (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] EE
While it looks like the vote is going agaisnt him don't you think that you should wait for a decision before acting?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- He's going to other sites to encourage people to Harass DG while linking to a lot of Personal info on him, waiting for a discussion is just pointless. who's really going to come out of the woodwork and go "yah let's not ban him!". From there, If there's a quibble with the length of the ban, which is the only thing open to discussion based on voting, feel free to change it. 10 is just a nice good number so i picked it.--Miekal 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I said on the appropriate page I've not been closely following the drama either here or anywhere else and I'm not going to vote either way. It just seems odd that you would act before a decision has clearly been confirmed on the appropriate page. But I'm not going to reverse your block as I have no intention of getting very involved.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say 11 and counting votes on "ban", with everybody jumping ship from earlier votes in the same discussion (even nutty, who'd so far been defending EE's right to be here), was enough moral authority to go ahead. That and, using my mod hat, he was doxxing david while making threats about using Anonymous and other threats against users. To me, atleast, that is enough to preclude a discussion on banning a user, at that point they are a threat to the wiki/editors and shouldn't be given the time of day or the courtesy of a discussion.--Miekal 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel that your rather out-of-date mod hat gives you the authority to short-circuit discussion then so be it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Even if i wasn't a mod I'd short circuit it anyways on the same grounds. A doxxer, (let alone, again, going off site to harass users) doesn't deserve the time of day, especially one who's doing it in revenge for edits on a wiki of all things--Miekal 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. Life is short.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Even if i wasn't a mod I'd short circuit it anyways on the same grounds. A doxxer, (let alone, again, going off site to harass users) doesn't deserve the time of day, especially one who's doing it in revenge for edits on a wiki of all things--Miekal 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel that your rather out-of-date mod hat gives you the authority to short-circuit discussion then so be it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say 11 and counting votes on "ban", with everybody jumping ship from earlier votes in the same discussion (even nutty, who'd so far been defending EE's right to be here), was enough moral authority to go ahead. That and, using my mod hat, he was doxxing david while making threats about using Anonymous and other threats against users. To me, atleast, that is enough to preclude a discussion on banning a user, at that point they are a threat to the wiki/editors and shouldn't be given the time of day or the courtesy of a discussion.--Miekal 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I said on the appropriate page I've not been closely following the drama either here or anywhere else and I'm not going to vote either way. It just seems odd that you would act before a decision has clearly been confirmed on the appropriate page. But I'm not going to reverse your block as I have no intention of getting very involved.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Sorry, I'm sort of out of the loop on all of this but it seems that the aptly named User:ExiledEncyclopedist is in some serious trouble. He made some really interesting contributions to Caligula so when I saw that User:Ryulong had reverted and blocked him, I unblocked ExiledEncyclopedist as I wasn't aware that he'd broken any rules. I know Ryulong from Wikipedia as a sadistic bully who blocks users on a whim and assumed that he was just picking on EE for sport. What exactly is going on? You seem to be doing the bulk of managing EE's affairs so I thought you'd be the right user to bring me up to speed on the case. Maybe I can be of assistance. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- There was a ongoing Coop case on banning/binning him that had switched, after he decided to try to Doxx David and seek out external help in harassing users here, towards banning, so i decided to just cut it all short and let us move on with our lives. --Miekal 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it would seem that he lived up to his name, by getting exiled. Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well, obviously that's not acceptable. What does doxxing mean though? And who's David? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is nothing to do with the fact that he created a category called slaveholders and (accurately) added Muhammad. Is it? Nothing to do with being too afraid too offend people by telling the truth? Oui? Non? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- EE's contributions have been fairly uninteresting from what I've seen (mainly of the trivia/pub quiz variety: not entirely irrelevant, but hardly crucial either), and they were often sloppily written and sourced, leading to complaints from others who had to clean up the mess. EE also seemed to have a weird obsession with categories. I nominated the slave holder category for deletion, because I thought it rather silly - especially after having read EE's argument for its relevance which reeked of conspiracy logic and seemed to me to actually be an excellent argument against having such a category. Things quickly escalated after that as well as a scraps EE got into with several other RW editors. This led to a vote on the chicken coop on sanctions against EE, who responded by first continuing to attack other RW editors with increasingly paranoid and incoherent rants, culminating in EE going on a vendetta on other sites and doxxing[wp] David Gerard which in turn led to a landslide of votes in favour of kicking EE off RW. According to what other users have written, as well as what seems to be EE's Wikipedia account, EE apparently pulled a somewhat similar stunt (and was blocked) at Wikipedia, which leads me to suspect that EE is a right nasty piece of work. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Muhammad being categorized as slaveholder has nothing to do with EE's ban. If you think we were trying to hide that fact about him, don't you think the section of content addressing it would've been removed? If you want to know what doxing is, here's a link. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- As for the slave holder category, it wasn't created by EE, and he actually argued that having Muhammed and not U.S. Presidents in it was a sign that David Gerard is an Islamophobe(?!?) and that Wikipedia and RW were all just conspiring to hide the slave holding history of various POTUSes... ScepticWombat (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Man, that guy has some serious issues. Let's hope his time away from editing RW and Wikipedia will lead him to get a better perspective on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- As for the slave holder category, it wasn't created by EE, and he actually argued that having Muhammed and not U.S. Presidents in it was a sign that David Gerard is an Islamophobe(?!?) and that Wikipedia and RW were all just conspiring to hide the slave holding history of various POTUSes... ScepticWombat (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Sounds perfectly fair to me. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Nomination for Board
I thought it was worth a try--TiaC (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reminder: You only have until 26 January to accept your nomination. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] The sphere is all black!
The problem I have with trying to present a totally polarized view of a situation is that it leads to this sort of scenario in which people are deliberately looking away from the facts. It's like how people don't want to even consider that Hitler might have had some good qualities and valid points. The result is that you have to go to unsavory places to find any arguments that oppose the orthodoxy, because those arguments have been banned from everywhere else. The censors just end up looking like assholes, before it's all over, and the censored end up looking like more reasonable people than they otherwise would.
I don't that it's effective in the end at suppressing the opposing arguments. Conservapedia tried that too, and it led to RationalWiki. They would have been better off giving their opponents a fair hearing. But they couldn't do that, because they viewed their opponents as basically the unredeemed spawn of Satan, and their opponents' doctrine as blasphemous. Secular dogma can be the same way, when people decide that there are topics off-limits from free and open debate. Landmartian (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- most people interested in free and open Debate on the "possible positive benefits of csa " are people who aren't deserving of the debate space, & what possible positive effects are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the negatives. As well, There -are- benefits of mass genocide, such as less resource strain, but that doesn't mean we need to hold debates on the pros and cons of conducting mass genocide. Refusing to debate on whether "CSA is all that bad" isn't us being censoring assholes, it's us being decent people, and the people pushing for "Legitimate free and open debate" on the topic aren't going to be coming out looking all roses as you seem to fear. --Miekal 04:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] ?
How is that vandalism and why did you protect the page (until the 17th ?!). That was an obvious hasty generalization which I had to remove for more objectivity.--FedTruther (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- It implies that hey, the Fed is a conspiracy to sell us all as slaves to the Jewish black atheist liberal fascist statist Illuminati communist Marxist whoeverthehells. The POINT of the article being to point out the problem with that notion, that is very much counter-productive. Also go dig up our not an encyclopedia policy and our POV policy. PacWalker 05:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. This site might as well be renamed to irrationalwiki or censorshipwiki
- "we arent objective or unbiased. we think fed truthers are bullshit" — Unsigned, by: FedTruther / talk / contribs
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)