User talk:Spud

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Spud!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome Spud, to RationalWiki. The bar is here. There are sadly no potato dishes available. Тайговорить 16:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Some one was nice to you? How dare they!!! Spuds are little more than tubors, waiting to be mashed up. sheesh. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Where's the gravy?--Dumpling (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Congragulations[edit]

You're an Admin. Тyrannosaurs 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

One and the same?[edit]

El TajDon't make me do stuff 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My parents were calling me Spud long before that film was made or the book that it was based on was written.--Spud (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Just checking. In the book that actually happens to Davie, not Spud. I'm glad you've not had to go through it. El TajDon't make me do stuff 13:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I'm sick and tired of you clogging up recent changes with minor edits. So I've made you a ninja, this means that you can 'bot' yourself when doing minor housekeeping. Please remember to un-bot yourself when you want to make substantive edits. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please respond on the original page rather than starting a new thread as it avoids ping-pong conversations. Also, I wasn't totally serious in my choice of words. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your work[edit]

Velkopopovický Kozel.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Tyrannis
has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!
Тytalk 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a compliment. Thanks. A nice cold bottle of beer sure would be nice right about now.--Spud (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd drop you the "cookie" one, but I've completely forgotten where that template is. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's a compliment if ever there was one. Thanks!--Spud (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

[[Douglas Weller]][edit]

Just wrote this on Tyrannis's page: Sorry, tried to create an account but failed. Not exactly happy to see all that nonsense about me. In fact, I'd rather have the article deleted, I don't seek publicity. I've edited it to remove some flat out lies and straighten out some confusion, but as I said, I'd refer it to be deleted. I'm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller on Wikipedia and you can email me from my talk page if you want to verify who I am. Thanks. I'll copy this to Spud's page as he's also edited that article. Doug Weller

Set up an account now, my email probably works. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post[edit]

No problem, I didn't assume you were approving the article on me. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're Welcome[edit]

Hi, thank you for your kind words and I am glad Tokyo Classified was useful for you! Funnily enough I just got unblocked from Wikipedia yesterday, after a five year shut out (very long story). I left Japan five years ago and live in the U.S. now and have been working on a few projects, including my wiki which I just launched last week. I just found RationalWiki yesterday and it looks interesting so I'll lurk around for a bit and see how it goes. Sparkzilla (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cult[edit]

On Raëlism you described it as a cult. I think this is disparaging and deorotary. Alternative religions have enough condemnation from the mainstream religions as it is, but now an encyclopedia also has to use this term? Can you self-revert please? 89.243.169.171 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you are under the mistaken impression that this is Wikipedia - it is not, it's RationalWiki. And RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. (Also note: I'm not Spud.)--ZooGuard (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
And I'm not Spud and neither is my wife. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm Spartacus Spud and ZooGuard is right. We are not in the encyclopedia business here nor are we in the fair and balanced business. Some BoNs have got to learn what they're talking about. Spud (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is all the rum gone???[edit]

Seriously, the rum is all gone. Why is it gone??? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to get a message, even if I haven't got a clue what it means.--Spud (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No good! Why is the rum gone??? Also, mashed potatoes are awesome. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they are! It's just struck me that there could be a reference to the vintage New Year postcard I put on my user page. I hope so.--Spud (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There could be. There could be. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

You asked wheher Kutub al-Sittah provides fodder for Islamophobes. Well, yes it does, for instance allegations of peodphilia by Muhammad come not from the Quran but from Sahih Bukhari which is in Kutub al-Sittah. Futhermore, the majority of sharia law is based on these books. Pass a Method (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't put that on my talk page. Put it in the article! And I second the "knock off the stubs."--Spud (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hy, i updated the Kutub al-Sittah per your wish. Pass a Method (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing content[edit]

Spud wrote [1]: "I'm not Forests but I'm undoing that. It is not the done thing to remove content from wiki talk pages, EVER!"

Sorry, didn't know that. Max (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You do now, Princey! Spud (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup. :) Max (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Sorry rolled back one of your edits, an error on my part , I clicked on rollback not aware of its true function, I am new to this wiki so forgive me for my blunder. Namby (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Alien vs ET[edit]

I notice you've changed alien to extraterrestrial in many cases. This is generally the right perception, but it is worth pointing out that not all UFOlogists consider them to be extraterrestrial. (Other than imaginary) Extradimensional and Ultraterrestrial are the other alternatives.--Albannach (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I've changed the link, not the wording, I've left it as [[Extraterrestrial|aliens]], is because the Alien page isn't about creatures from other planets or other dimensions, it's about foreigners. I'm not trying to be pedantic about what the little green men should be called, I just don't want the link to go to the wrong page. Spud (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Less Wrong[edit]

With respect to Julia Galef. Why do you think it appropriate to call Less Wronger's crackpots?

I don't know a goddamn thing about LessWrong but you seem to be mistaking this wiki for one with a neutral point of view and trying to remove bias. That's not the way it works here. Spud (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it fundamental part of rationality to remove bias? Funny name for a wiki that doesn't.LaochCailiuil (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be Rational Wiki." Drink! Spud (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, LessWrong isn't the be-all and end-all of rationality (neither is RW, since you're asking) and the fact is that many of the more... esoteric ideas don't stack up to much. Yudkowsky's core ideas on rationality and using Bayes-like updating of your beliefs are fine (the philosophy of language stuff is also fine, but is mostly a rehash of Wittgenstein and/or Quine anyway), but the nano-tech, cryonics and singularitarian AI stuff don't stack up to fact, and the quantum mechanics stuff - speaking as someone who actually deals with that quite frequently in a professional capacity - isn't up to much and is very, very badly explained. There are very few people here who actually refer to LW (as a whole) "as crackpots" (two, in fact) and most treat it with the same level of "good, but..." that you should do for any source. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Blaming the victim[edit]

Why are you reverting my edits? Alliumnsk (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

They suck. Take your persecution complex somewhere else--"Shut up, Brx." 14:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Brx is right for once. Spud (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my latest edit to the Pandeism page?[edit]

I was trying to eliminate potential bias in the article by removing the last part detailing the second theory (that God destroyed itself).

Kuu (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Because RationalWiki pages are not supposed to be unbiased. Spud (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"William Lane Craig" article - logical fallacy[edit]

I saw you reverted my change to the Craig article. The argument that "looks like a logical fallacy" to you is in fact a valid application of modus tollens or "denying the consequent", not an application of the (fallacious) inference pattern affirming the consequent.

I'm not going to revert it or reply again about this. Leave the article in whatever state you like. (Sorry if it's bad form to bring this up here, I'm not familiar with wiki etiquette.)— Unsigned, by: 175.144.7.24 / talk / contribs


Why I want to archive the old discussion[edit]

There’s a lot of pointless and incorrect speculation (some of which is my incorrect speculation) on this talk page. That’s why I wanted to archive it: I don’t think it’s fair to other editors to read reams of my stream of thought as I come up with a good refutation to Lisle’s notions.

The Anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) is a perfectly acceptable, albeit obscure, sub-branch of special relativity, so questions like “What about the Maxwell’s equations that use the speed of light?” miss the point.

In addition, there has been a misconception that Lisle has proposed a geocentric Anisotropic synchrony convention (light travels infinitely fast towards Earth, at other speeds elsewhere). This is not what Lisle proposed; he proposes that, for anyone anywhere in the universe, light travels infinitely fast towards them and at the speed of c/2 away from them. It seems bizarre, but special relativity allows it.

The problem with Lisle’s paper is not the ASC. The ASC is, if you will, the distraction while Lisle pulls his slight of hand elsewhere. The slight of hand is this: Lisle is proposing that the entire universe was created about 6,000 years ago (“everything in the universe was made in the span of six days [...] this creation happened a few thousand (roughly 6,000) years ago [...] God tells us that the stars were created on the fourth day to give light upon the earth” Lisle 2010) with the artificial appearance of age (“Just as Adam was created mature, needing no time or process to reach adulthood, so was the universe” Lisle, 2010).

The only artifact of an universe created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of artificial age that Lisle objects to in his paper is light in transit (“I suggest that it is reasonable (and in fact necessary) to suppose that distant starlight did in fact originate from the star, and was not created in transit.”, again from Lisle 2010).

Hence, this bizarre ASC which Lisle uses to try and make a young universe look like an old universe has its own set of problems. One being this: In our Isotropic (Yeah, yeah, I know. It might be any of the infinite possible Anisotropic universes, since they all appear identical) universe, if there were a giant mirror 5,000 light years from Earth, and we looked in that mirror, we would see the Earth as it looked 10,000 years ago. Lisle’s ASC universe is observably different: In Lisle’s ASC universe, that mirror will not show us anything (or, should I say, it will show us whatever Lisle interprets as being “formless and empty”) for the next 4,000 years.

Another issue with Lisle’s ASC universe is that it is geocentric: Observers elsewhere in the universe will see a circle of darkness (or whatever passes as “formless and empty”) where the Milky Way and The Earth should be; this circle of darkness will contract and the final visible star for them will be our sun. The reason for this Geocentric POV is not because of Lisle’s alternate way of looking at special relativity, but because the miracle of all of the stars appearing at once (as per Lisle’s paper) is one that Lisle alleges God has done for the benefit of Earthlings and in Earth’s frame of reference.

Samiam (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone disagrees with me, and has science backing them up, I want to hear it. My goal is to have good science and a good refutation to this creationist claptrap. Not nonsense like "what about Maxwell's equations?" (there are equivalent ASC forms of those equations) and "A geocentric ASC creates an observably different universe" (true, but that is not what Lisle proposed). Some of my initial ideas were wrong. I was corrected and have subsequently updated my refutation to Lisle’s ASC paper. Right now, the issues I see with Lisle’s paper is that it creates an observably different universe which has a geocentric point of view. Samiam (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Free energy suppression[edit]

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, must have been super tired then. Must be super tired now too, to be thanking someone for a not-quite-typo, let alone a 3 month old edit. Oh well. In my defense, I think both are grammatically correct? Whatever. 98.27.34.197 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ryan1234[edit]

Vandal binning after 3 edits? Don't be an ass. Acei9 09:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama Cameron[edit]

I believe it was in the Snowden stuff. Quoted on HIGNFY anyhow. Scream!! (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me google that for you :-) Scream!! (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Google it for the new user who put it there in the first place. Spud (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well done good Sir,[edit]

I think there are a couple of other people outside the Phelps con artists klan that are just as crazy but I enjoyed your jest just the same. --Turnerted (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

KEVINS PAGE[edit]

Nice to see you live in the United States you cock sucker. Time to shut your piece of shit site down. You have no right lying about people and posting BS shit about them what so ever. The law of the United States governs this website and you'll feel its wrath soon, bitch. and before you guess who I am, you'll be wrong to assume so shut the fuck up, slut --EnoughIsEnough (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fun fact: I don't live in the United States, as the merest glimpse at my user page should reveal. Spud (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't go inserting obvious facts into his carefully crafted delusion that he can sue you for pointing out reality. Just like he's going to sue me for pointing out that insulting someone while threatening them with libel after very publicly admitting to attempting to slander a group is a very dumb thing to do.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 07:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


A editor of yours doxxing people[edit]

An editor of yours under the nickname fastzander is using the name "Marjan Siklic" as my real name. There are a few issues with this

1. I never used that name in any of my writings 2. The only source for this name is Encylopedia Dramatica, aka this picture https://encyclopediadramatica.es/File:MarjanSiklicFB.JPG

He used the following name here

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_kooks#Economic_doomers

I think this is highly against your rules, as it is not only doxxing an innocent person whose name I used but I never used this real name in any of my online writings.

Thatincelblogger (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-science"[edit]

I removed Anti-science from the Rated articles category because it was the only article that was in that category and not in one of the three sub-categories. Is there a reason that it, and it alone, remains there? Thanos6 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is. Now, that you've explained it, that seems to be the sensible thing to do. Spud (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Thanos6 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Birth Date[edit]

When did Just the year of his birth, not the full date become the thing? Scream!! (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was the thing here since long before I came along. Don't ask me why. Spud (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been here on and off since 2007 & I don't recall it before you just started editing months & days out. Scream!! (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A BoN added loads of them in yesterday. And I wasn't the first editor to remove them yesterday either. I'm not going to edit war over it. If you want to put them back, go ahead. But someone else will take them away. If you think it's wrong, why don't you bring it up at the Salolon Bar? Spud (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't particularly care about it - it's just that I'd never come across it before & wondered where it came from. Scream!! (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It's unnecessary trivia that makes us look like a Wikipedia knock-off. Same goes for irrelevantly listing people's middle names, city of birth, etc. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision[edit]

You recently reverted my edits to the Circumcision article. Please review the talk page; you will find that I tried multiple times to engage the community to work out our disagreements, but no one will communicate--several people reverted my edits without using the talk page at all, and user:Weaseloid explicitly stated he was reverting my edits for errors that I had explicitly identified as changed in a previous Talk page post. I'm not closed-minded and I'm willing to change my opinions, but I'm not willing to be bullied by people reverting my edits without engaging in discussion. Reyemile (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion archive[edit]

When you remove old deletion discussions, please move them to RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive. You have a few that need to be added there - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up Theo van Gogh. English is not my first language, as you might have noticed. So, was the article 'on mission' as you guys call that over here? Any tips or suggestions if I want to contribute more to Rationalwiki? (InsertOpinion) (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate it. I had guessed (I don't think any native speaker would have written "murder on van Gogh" instead of "murder of van Gogh") but then, I've seen much, much worse writing from native speakers in the past. Your article seems completely "on mission" and worthwhile to me. Others might disagree but I don't think they will. If I see any problems with articles you create in the future, I promise to let you know. Spud (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism[edit]

Please, see [2]

Thanks.

That is why I think...[edit]

...letting one guy run his own private wiki in a language that no other editors read and giving it the RW seal of approval is a shitty idea. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's kindof how I've always felt about the Russian wiki. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
How could RW fix this problem? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you, AgingHippie. That's what happens when sysops just assume that someone creating articles in another language is translating articles out of English without checking what's really being written. All I can say is, don't let it happen again! We have to try to make sure that we don't allow any articles in other languages to stay here that we wouldn't allow in English. I'll keep on checking any new Portuguese articles and, if it's all right with the rest of you, kill on sight any that don't belong on RW. (I don't speak Portuguese but I do speak French, Spanish and Catalan, so I can usually get the gist of what they're about). If the Brazilian guy keeps creating articles about stuff he likes (or doesn't like) that has nothing to do with our mission, I'll try to have another word with him. I don't know if any of you are thinking about making this an "English only" wiki. It might be worth discussing. Spud (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

LTR[edit]

What did he say in the FB post where he announced he's LANCB? Did he blame Jews? Please tell me he blamed Jews. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg But does planting trees help bring people to Christ? 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't blame us the bankers Jews. Basically just said he was leaving at RW and the other wiki... which is funny because he and the other were y'know not separated of his own volition. PacWalker 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That's right. You can see it yourself if you go to his user page and follow the Facebook link there. In the original language, he said this, "Eu vou abandonar a Wikipédia o Rationalwiki e outros enciclopédias que eu tentei participar. Valeu pela expériencia." Still, no doubt by now he feels that we are just as authoritarian and unreasonable as the admins on the Portuguese Wikipedia. And if he finds a corner of the internet where he can moan about RationalWiki being controlled by Evil Jews, I won't be the least bit surprised. Spud (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll just park this here[edit]

 pablo 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting the Anthony Charles Lynton bit, just the Bliar. If you'd added that Economist article as a reference, I wouldn't have undone it. Spud (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a pretty common nickname, I didn't think it needed a reference. See Rush Limbaugh f'rinstance - I have no idea whether the nickname there is genuine or originated here. pablo 13:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No R[edit]

When you were fixing the capitalization you removed R it is now ceation Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Togo Article[edit]

I plan on adding a lot to it, over the next few days. I just had to get the little box right first, and now i need to go to bed, but it won't be a stub for long! (And for those who say it's off mission, well, it's not the only country with it's own page for no good reason.) Researcher (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Whelp[edit]

Thanks for waiting till I finished editing. Now the side with sketchy non-reasons for deletions like "I'm not saying this doesn't deserve mention on SOME level, I'm just saying that this article from top to bottom is an atrocity" (cognitive dissonance much?), "Many feminism related things are on mission for RW, an article about games that are feminist are not" (because feminism suddenly becomes non-missionable when games are involved? >.>), "I think the new title is about as bad as the old one (it's swapped inaccuracy of description for verbosity)" (titles with 6 words are too verbose to exist? wut?) and "Cruft magnet" (this just synonymous with "I don't want us to treat this subject") has won. I find it remarkable how quickly RW's fervent interest in/support of feminism wanes as soon as video games get involved somehow. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Come on buddy, walk it off, walk it off. You'll be fine. I don't think "our" reasons were sketchy for deletion at all. They weren't even really met with anything other than "Hang on while I expend more time and energy on this article literally as it's on the chopping block". I think the article was sketchy, and the article had nothing to do with furthering the cause of feminism or even documenting it in a meaningful way. The only cognitive dissonance that might be present in that quote from me would be the fact that I give you any benefit of the doubt regarding any conceivable use for that article, while also pointing out the obviously derpy nature of that whole attempt at writing. If you suggest that only one of those convictions can stay, it's obviously the latter, although I maintain you're just swinging for the fences right now. I would admit extending a positive message even to an article so blatantly broken would appear a little contradictory, but I stand by that. I'd rather be too generous than too unforgiving. And besides, egalitarian and feminist principles are not poorly represented here. But armchair third wave feminism placed in contribed contexts and practiced by people who make things up as they go along (in contrast to academia) is an irrepresentation of anything you could call feminism, as even its opponents would agree. And besides, I'm still not leaving anything out of the question for all time. I didn't start the vote, I suggested it. I didn't delete the page, that was also done by another contributor. I didn't sockpuppet votes to the end result of 13 to 2 (in under 24 hrs). I'm just saying that that list was cringeworthy and admittedly trollbait. Nothing personal to anyone. Make an essay out of it, grow it with your henchmen and then one day it might in fact be different enough from that other one in important ways enough that it'd be fit for an article. Nothing to it but to do it, so let's get to it, buddy boy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is 42/6 days too soon, but...[edit]

Congrats! ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:24, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Coffee poo[edit]

Should definitely be kopi luwak. Bahasa Indonesia: kopi = coffee, luwak = civet. No proper nouns involved.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Although on the English Wikipedia, the mob seem to have decided that it should be capitalized and "Kopi luwak" redirects to "Kopi Luwak". Even though the equivalent Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia article isn't capitalized like that. Oh, well, I'll leave that alone. At least we're doing it right here. Spud (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated![edit]

Over here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:25, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why you reverted evryting?[edit]

I just insert good informations in you're wiki. Why you revert? I want help!— Unsigned, by: 84.181.249.26 / talk / contribs

I gave an explanation when I reverted your edit. If you're going to edit a wiki, you're going to have to get used to your edits being undone from time to time. And if your English is really as bad as it appears to be in your message to me, it's going to happen to you a lot. Spud (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The great spud![edit]

That's pretty great! Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake[edit]

I didn't know we had any contributors in Taiwan but I'm pleased you survived the earthquake. Were you caught up in it? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess everyone in Taiwan was caught up in it to a small extent because it was so strong. Apart from a very few people who were able to sleep through it (it happened at four o'clock in the morning) everybody would have felt it. But, no, I wasn't hurt. All the buildings where I am at the moment are still standing. I just got a bit of a scare while it was happening and then I was able to go back to sleep for another five hours. Spud (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan article[edit]

I'm writing a RW article on Taiwan, which until now has just been covered by a section within the China article, and I would appreciate your input or feedback. I'm by no means an expert & may well have got some of the details wrong. & My focus has been on the Two Chinas situation & One China policy, so it could do with some more content about Taiwan itself, as well as citations, snark, etc. My unfinished draft is here: User:Weaseloid/Taiwan. Feel free to edit it. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Working out how to talk.[edit]

Thanks for your message when I first came onto Rationalwiki. I didn't respond before because I wasn't show how discussions worked on this site. I'm hoping this is right...

PinkBastard (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm way behind on my friendly chatting quota[edit]

Sorry for taking forever to reply — dat feel when ADHD. Anyways, in response to this — my stepbrother actually turned me on to the existence of Kevin MacLeodWikipedia's W.svg.

How, you ask? I present thusly...

Two other top picks. All the best bud, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finally replying. I thought you'd chosen to treat my question as rhetorical. I might use some of Kev's music in some of my lessons one day. A lot of my students would enjoy those tunes (although probably not for the full 3 minutes). It still sounds to me like "Scheming Weasel" is his best work. Spud (talk)
Great stuff — I believe the melody is originally from an old Winnie the Pooh film featuring Woozles, though I could be mistaken. Regardless, Kevin McLeod has very clear licensing info on his page. In many cases, you can use all of his compositions royalty-free (in exchange for music credit). Happy listening! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah! You're referring to this. That certainly would seem to be part of the inspiration behind "Scheming Weasel". Spud (talk)
That's the one! Thanks for finding it for me Th hug.gif Born in '91, that (kinda scary) segment is one of my childhood memories. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sal'[edit]

Saluton, vi parolas Esperanton ĉu ne? Kiel vi?'Legionwhat do you want from me 21:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bone, dankon. Feliĉan Ĥanukan, Kristnaskon, Kvanzaon, Julon kaj Saturnalion kaj bonan Novjaron! Spud (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Kaj same al vi'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mansplaining AFD[edit]

I proposed it for deletion again -- hence the (second nomination). The other discussion was about half a year ago and I don't think the page has improved. :) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 07:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Nixon v Trump[edit]

There is an article (possibly funspace or discussion) in the idea - but requires sufficient snark/acid drops etc. I was looking for someone to 'take the ball and run with it.' 86.146.99.68 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There potentially is but the article was so small that it didn't look worth keeping. Christopher (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a cookie![edit]

Cookie half.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Christopher
has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie.
Ewwwwwww.
Cockroaches ate half of it.
Christopher (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Laos dictatorship[edit]

Why do you keep reverting it? — Unsigned, by: 101.181.17.175 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.ClickerClock (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Every single one-party state that's ever existed has been a dictatorship (to a greater or a lesser degree). It's hardly worth pointing that out. But it is worth pointing out that Laos is essentially an oligarchy. Spud (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Spanish sources[edit]

So you can speak Spanish right? I am working on an article about a psychic healer that was popular in Mexico, if its possible could you contact some Spanish speaking skeptics to see if they know anything? thanks Tatsuslava (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Tatsuslava the world destroyer