User talk:Tielec01/Archive1
[edit] Janitor
Sam demoted you to sysop, but couldn't be bothered telling you. Here's your guide. Enjoy. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] ROFLCOPTER
Beyond "rolls of the floor laughing" what means this? Just curious. I'm crappy with acronyms.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
- If I may interject...it's not an acronym, just all-caps. It's "ROFL" and "helicopter" put together. This seems like a lucid summary (albeit with tons of arbitrary pictures). 99.50.98.145 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- See above. In terms of my understanding of usage it is like ROFL except with a sarcastic twist. ROFL implies shared laughter, ROFLCOPTER implies that you are laughing AT the person. In the context of making fun of someone for not "getting" the internet I thought it was appropriate to utilise an internet meme. Harsh but fair. Tielec01 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] You're fun
Even if you aren't my sockpuppet. I liked this, among other things--"Shut up, Brx." 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] "Your lack of self-awareness here is staggering Brx; remember how viciously some of us fought to keep you from being banned for very similar accusations."
Are you equating me with Dirk Steele in some way? Actually, the motivations for blocking me have been very different, from misinterpreting certain words of mine (that's my spin and I'm sticking to it. I don't need the usual idiots stopping by to give their opinion) to irritation at my desire to change or act upon RationalWiki policy. I've never been blocked for unceasingly spamming the same crank BS all across the wiki --"Shut up, Brx." 23:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm equating you with Dirk Steele only inasmuch as you often confront people, your confrontations are often percieved as being inappropriate and you are both unpopular editors. I actually think you are often right in your exchanges, whereas Dirk Steele is almost exclusively wrong but that is irrelevant. I don't think that cranks/trolls/annoying editors (all of which you have been accused of) should be banned. You have relied on this indulgence from myself and other editors in the past, it seems incumbent upon you to extend it to others.Tielec01 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Fascinating
Nobodydon't bother 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- ? is this on the wrong user page?Tielec01 (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No. Nobodydon't bother 06:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
My feelings are really hurt. I'm a sensitive soul. What was so bad about my article? ProudTory (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Completely trivial query
What orthographical convention should be applied if I want to pronounce your name? I can think of at least six reasonable ways. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd never really thought of it, it was never meant to be read aloud I guess. In my head I say it: "teal-eck-oh-wun". Obviously I don't know how to write phonetically so just use whatever makes the most sense in your head.Tielec01 (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Seems like you are just an asshole...
...Or am I misreading you? Prove me wrong. ħuman
07:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Context for anyone stopping by.
Radioactive Misanthrope 08:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Objectivism#Ethics
Why are my changes being reverted?
I'm using first-hand material straight from the source which this article discusses. Whether or not the reader thinks Objectivism is valid or not is up to them.
The previous section on ethics is both misinformed, and heavily opinionated without any proof.
It's even obvious in the diff: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Objectivism&diff=1197810&oldid=1197809
- Take it to the talk page of the article big dog. I'm sure someone will be in the mood for a boring argument about semantics and long discredited ideologies! When you emerge victorious I will say "I totally knew that guy was right" and it will be sweet. Tielec01 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] LOLWUT
Son, those are the words of a fascist.
–Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Moderator Elections
Some users have raised the issue of whether or not I'm eligible to run. So far it appears that no one actually knows the eligibility criteria, so we'll have to wait and see what will happen with the Markman campaign. With regards to your question, you can look at my resume and see for yourself that I try to refrain from needless conflict when contributing to this wiki. The best example of what kind of contributions are to be expected from me can seen in my Israel related edits. Those consist of uncontroversial information presented in a way which cannot be deemed objectionable by any person on RW.
Granted, I did engage in some off-color banter with other users on Talk:WIGOCP, but I felt it was the place in which it was appropriate, and as far as I can see it still remained within the confines of what is considered acceptable on RW. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I like a man that stoops to talking to his electorate; you've got my vote. Tielec01 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like somebody just made it to my mailing list...--"Shut up, Brx." 05:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You and everybody else are invited to ask me questions regarding the campaign so long as it continues. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Eligible to run after all. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Would you lend me your vote?
You seem to be concerned about the concentration of political power in ever fewer hands. Would you consider voting for me? I will not rest until the moderati are destroyed and Rationalwiki restored to her ancestral liberty. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- When Lenin returned from his decade-long exile they say the crowd was bitterly disappointed to see him dressed in a bowler hat and velvet overcoat, as these were the symbols of the powerful elite. To their eternal delight, however, his first words upon his return were not conciliatory, polite or restrained. He ignored the Mensheviks who greeted him and addressed the crowd, telling them that the revolution was coming and it could NOT be stopped.
- There was a time when the fire in your heart burned for revolution Marcus - but, based on your comments in the moderator elections, it seems that only the naked flame of ambition is left. Has your exile softened you? Have dreams of glorious revolution faded away? These are the question we, who would be your people, need to know the answers to. Tielec01 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is true, and I understand your concerns. Such is the authoritarian default setting in this myopia I have been forced to enter mainstream politics. But this is merely a front for my more subversive activities, co-ordinating the revolutionary struggle and the creation of a 'vanguard' party that can lead the revolution. Vote for me, and liberty will be my first and only priority. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Have Patience
My first priority is to wait out the counter-revolutionary manoeuvres. We may all have a little work to do, yet. Marcus Cicero SPQR
21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Justice delayed is justice denied - you should know that more than anyone... Tielec01 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I share your concerns but if I move too quickly the junta will crush me and my movement. There will be a big announcement on saturday, just wait for it. Marcus Cicero SPQR
17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I share your concerns but if I move too quickly the junta will crush me and my movement. There will be a big announcement on saturday, just wait for it. Marcus Cicero SPQR
[edit] RE:Consolation
Considering my reputation as a dick parodist, I would say that if anything the fact that 22 people were willing to cast their votes for me is by itself a surprise, and I know I would have received 2 more votes had me and Patmac were eligible to vote. This is just a warm up for the next time. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Goodbye to you my trusted friend
Well, I'm going away for a while, I might come back and I might not. For the full story see here, here and here. I'd just like to say that I'll miss you buddy and I'll always appreciate your participation in the Markman campaign. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have read through the links; needless to say I am outraged. However, I see you have made up your mind to bow out honourably. You have always been a gentleman on this wiki and I await your return, in the meantime I will taunt and goad your persecutors. Tielec01 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 conspiracy theories
Alright, first of all my home wiki is Wikipedia so I don't know what a snark is. And secondly, this is completely insulting to the families and friends of 9/11 victims. I like conspiracy theories and believe in many, but this is just plain wrong to put on the Internet for the families who's relatives rescued people from those burning towers and died to save others' lives. They must feel sick reading this. Leoesb1032 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Read this and this. As a non-American I am as concerned about 9/11 victims exactly as much as the victims of your countries drone 'signature' strike policy; that is to say a whole hell of a lot. However, making fun of a nutty and only peripherally associated group such as truthers is entirely fair game. In fact, I would say that making fun of victims of these attacks is also fair game (albeit in poor taste). Your culturally bound sacred cows don't mean much to me; or, I dare say, most of the other editors here. Welcome to the wiki, I look forward to reading your contributions to our numerous conspiracy related articles. Tielec01 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- How would you feel if you lost your father your mother in those attacks? Regardless of your nationality? I understand what your saying (I even believe in the controlled demolition theory)and I won't revert the edits back without a larger consensus, but I believe that this was wrong and you defiantly should not make fun of people who died that day. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Talk page
No problem, I did not want to break any rules, it is that in my opinion the post looked untidy and achieved nothing, however I have no reason to hide it.--Mercian (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Shermer
I think that has been discussed in a couple of places and the general consensus has been to leave it out of mainspace. Especially since Shermer appears to be getting ready to sue, it might be a good idea to hold back. I guess you one could say that your edit is just reporting an event, but at the end of the day, reporting the allegation in mainspace will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on Shermer's reputation compared with the probative effect of discussing an aspect of PZ Myers career. [1] --DamoHi 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain your last sentence in English please ;) Tielec01 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I am basically saying that the stuff about PZ accusing Shermer of rape is gossip that reflects badly on Shermer's reputation. We shouldn't be reporting on it in mainspace because to do so will give it the air of truth that without collaboration it doesn't deserve. Although it's interesting and relevant to an article on PZ, imho, this usefulness is outweighed by its negative impacts. This is even more relevant where threats of lawsuits are getting bandied about. There may come a time when it should be in an article on PZ but not yet. IMO anyway and unless I've missed something, that was the prevailing view when it was raised elsewhere. --DamoHi 03:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I had worded it carefully enough that it was clear that the allegation were insubstantiated. Happy to accede to group consensus on this one, but it seems strange to avoid mentioning an incident that actually happened because 1) allegations leveled during the incident may not be true and 2) there may be a resulting law-suit. Perhaps if the accuser was a notable crank or liar, or if the incident was not notable then I could see not making mention of it. PZ is not obviously a liar or crank (albeit I think he has strayed so far out of his bounds of competence as to become pitiable) and the incident is definitely notable, as evidenced by the brouhaha it has created. Anyway, I will join the discussion on the talk-page to discuss further. Tielec01 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I am basically saying that the stuff about PZ accusing Shermer of rape is gossip that reflects badly on Shermer's reputation. We shouldn't be reporting on it in mainspace because to do so will give it the air of truth that without collaboration it doesn't deserve. Although it's interesting and relevant to an article on PZ, imho, this usefulness is outweighed by its negative impacts. This is even more relevant where threats of lawsuits are getting bandied about. There may come a time when it should be in an article on PZ but not yet. IMO anyway and unless I've missed something, that was the prevailing view when it was raised elsewhere. --DamoHi 03:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Your rewrite
Just wondering whether you were still planning on that two-three sentence rewrite. Nothing I write seems to stick, and nobody with power seems to want to do something about the majority votes for deletion. Cheers. --Laird (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I am, but I need to get some time to do it. Thanks for the reminder. Tielec01 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Cathy Brennan
A little education on the topic might not hurt you. She's one of the world's worst sorts of people. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)