User talk:Weaseloid/Archive2

Stubbot

Regarding http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Derek_Ogilvie&diff=0&oldid=256269, I agree. The stubbot seems to have become self aware and is running amok, adding stubs where they already exist. Can anyone fix it? Crundy 14:57, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Well, I kinda like having stub six times on that page. But yeah, I think it's fixable. If you look at the history, it had {{Stub}} & the bot didn't recognise this & added another, & did the same again when the second one was deleted. Presumably it only recognises {{stub}} & not the capitalised "Stub". weaseLOId~ 15:00, 9 November 2008 (EST)

 Remove my username

Why are you mentioning my user name on your userpage is there a resion for that if not please remove it it before i do . --Dolphin674 14:06, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Hahahaha... go on, edit the source code and find out why! ArmondikoVpostate 14:14, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Ok i am really pissed off this website is 1,000 times worst than conservapedia i am going to leave for good f*** you Weaseloid --Dolphin674 12:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

!!!! WTF !!!! and marmite 12:11, 6 December 2008 (EST)

use proper english toast--Dolphin674 13:22, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Use correct English grammar yourself, Dolphin. (Here's "WTF" and marmite 13:29, 6 December 2008 (EST) Fuck you don't say anything bad about my spelling --Dolphin674 14:05, 9 December 2008 (EST) Get mine off too. Or else. I will. Have you. Blocked (and stop using rude terms (all of you)) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 16:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Don't envy your chances CUR. (BTW - you know that no-one but you can see that font you're using in your sig?) Toast 16:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Weasel, my old rabbit hunting chum, I think it was your user page that was the final straw for CUR - he took a leaf out of Dolphin's book! Toast 16:39, 16 December 2008 (EST)
HEY! He's using my name too! Ban him forever! Oh, if only there were some other explanation for this... ;-) --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:42, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Freemasonry

Just FYI, The content that you removed was, in itself, not fiction. The ridiculous spin was, and was for humor. To have an article in this wiki without humor or somekind of ridiculous spin about how CP, its cronies, or other ultra-right-wing nutjobs are at fault defeats the purpose. Cheers!--MAstEr oF pUPetStalk! 18:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Not quite sure what you mean. When I fact-tagged those bits, your comment on the talk page said "I made them all up", hence defining them as fiction. Yes, there's no reason why the Freemasonry article can't contain humour, but that doesn't mean making stuff up. Our mainspace articles are primarily factual with some snark & humour, but shouldn't contain false information. weaseLOId~ 07:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The specifics of the sentences preceding the fact tags were made up. But you did alot of surgery on the article and removed alot of stuff. That's what I was referring to (e.g., operative masons and speculative masons are real; the statement about the speculatives killing off the operatives is (ahem) a "bit" of an exagerration, they didn't literally kill them off, but they did assume the whole group; the creation of the group was a self-recognizing endeavour (..."make them feel better about themselves"); the creation in the 18th century in England is fact; and as far as the Schlafly implication, well that's just the RW coming out. As far as fact-tagging, some of the information that you inserted had an obvious unreferenced negative bias, that I didn't change (what's good for the goose and all) but nstead I added balancing information. I think it should have been left the way it was (i.e., with both of our information in it), but I'm not into edit wars on what's supposed to be a light-hearted, spoofy wiki. --MAstEr oF pUPetStalk! 16:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

OK, so put the factual stuff back in. The origins in C18 England are still mentioned. I only had problems with the stuff that was obviously untrue (e.g. peasants bitching about the King etc.). As for the Schlafly implication, we don't have to mention Conservapedia in every article. If there's no connection, implying that there is can be confusing & a little bit pointless. weaseLOId~ 16:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm gonna leave it alone because it's not really all that important to me, but two quickie points:

• Having a CP twist is (as has been implied to me earlier by one of the 'crats) is a definate plus for keeping an article in the mainspace (as opposed to being banished to the "fun" category).
• I don't think that the bitching about the King thing would be out of character for our site... (entering good information, in an encyclopedic manner, with a funny and/or CP twist).

Cheers ---MAstEr oF pUPetStalk! 16:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Well, I disagree with you on both of those points, but if you don't want to pursue it further then I won't either. weaseLOId~ 16:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Mention CP cause they really suck. (Uninformed hillbillies) — Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs

BALLSACK — Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs

Thanks for your constructive comments. weaseLOId~ 07:17, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Well, Pi can use the obnoxious and offensive name User:Women are superior to Fall down, but when I do the same, it's a personal attack? I guess that figures, since you haven't treated me fairly since I got here. Fall down

OK, I've blocked that name too as it's also a personal attack. weaseLOId~ 22:34, 15 December 2008 (EST)
In my defense that was a sock of Fall down's I renamed, not that I need a defense against Fall down. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 23:28, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Fall down has been treated "fairly", by sane, rational standards. Just not by his misogynist, paranoid standards. By the way, that user name above is not obnoxious or offensive. It's a simple fact. ħuman 23:34, 16 December 2008 (EST)

 Shit!

Ceiling Cat is watching you maturbate! So is your mother!

How can you see that? Is that you, Ceiling Cat? CorryWell, sounds like Hermano is about to get his ass kicked. 16:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Would Ceiling Cat take the form of a lowly weasel? The theocatlogical implications are staggering! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:54, 16 December 2008 (EST)
It's theoscatological, AK. Toast 16:56, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Get those captions out from under my picture. Yes, I uploaded it, but still. Don't mess with my photos and I won't mess with yours. And its hunting, not spying on people. Use a different picture (and you CAN find them). --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 17:27, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Erm, no. If the picture is your own, then you have released it into the public domain by uploading it here, or at least made it available to other RationalWikians. If you want to have exclusive control of how it is used, then you could delete it from the site. weaseLOId~ 17:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)
I found it in an really old book. By now it is in the public domain, but the photographer wouldn't want it being used like this. And it's only humorous to people with warped senses of humor. And maybe you could at least remove the captions and add them later (in a month) to make me more likely to load considerable numbers of photos here. Finally, you can keep the talk page caption, but keep it off the Felidae article. I'm asking quite more politely than the humor is. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 17:41, 17 December 2008 (EST)
You've done nothing politely and I'm under no obligation to give in to your demands. It's no skin off my nose whether you load a considerable number of photos or none at all. I've tried to be civil to you, but frankly you've been particularly arrogant and uncooperative with other editors, and you are not in a position to dictate the tone of the humour on this site or how public domain photos are used. weaseLOId~ 17:46, 17 December 2008 (EST)
You've tried to be civil? Now really, you might being civil, but you're not being polite. I am ending this argument by leaving. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 18:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Well, that's your prerogative. Fare thee well then. weaseLOId~ 18:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

As in leaving you alone and hoping you leave be alone. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 18:16, 17 December 2008 (EST)

OK, so leave me alone already. weaseLOId~ 18:17, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Yeah. That had to be funniest exchange I've read in a while. Someone doesn't know what "edited mercilessly" means... ħuman 18:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Weaseloid I too must complain about your cat picture it does not have "LOL" written in large white letters in a poorly chosen font on it anywhere. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 18:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)

LOL. That would involve uploading a modified version of the photo. I should probably leave it a month or so before I try anything like that. weaseLOId~ 18:30, 17 December 2008 (EST)
I suppose I owe you an apology. Sorry. Peace treaty? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 10:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Hello there? Why is barely anyone arguing with me or editing pages I'm watching? Are people taking a break? I'm getting bored. I can't debate myself. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 11:04, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Hey. Thanks for the apology. Debate is good; you just need to try not to take it so personally. If people disagree about an article you're writing or use a photo you've uploaded in a way you don't like, it's not a personal attack, just the wiki at work. You can certainly debate it, but the more you try to force the issue, the more people will make fun out of it. Again that's not vindictive, just the way things fly around here. Mobocracy.  :-) weaseLOId~ 11:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 Thanks for the help

Thanks for assisting me in fixing up the pages I made. --Irrational Atheist 15:42, 18 December 2008 (EST)

No problem. weaseLOId~ 15:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Bickle

You provided the inspiration, fella. ;) --Robledo 18:24, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Cheers. Glad my work on it wasn't in vain. Sorry for getting your name wrong on the edit summary. weaseLOId~ 18:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Nee bother. Tyops are part n' parcel of the innertubes. --Robledo 18:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)

 Horribly offended by your userpage

The image of the weasel killed my boner I am horribly offended by you watching me masturbate. I am never talking to you again, and you won't be getting any Chanukah presents this year, either.  : P Radioactive Misanthrope 05:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Weasels Ripped My Flesh Please accept this Goat Dentistry medal as a token of . . . errr . . . something. . . . weaseLOId~ 07:28, 19 December 2008 (EST)
I accept this token of Goat Dentistry. I'm afraid I've already had my wisdom teeth removed so I'll, uh... bestow it upon someone who needs it. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)
I'm still not talking to you, however. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)

 TOR blocks.

The fact it's a proxy is problematic--but let's be clear; this guy is a hate-monger who is repeatedly issuing personal attacks of a threatening nature against members of our little community. The "1 year" option is in the pull-down. If it's there for any reason, surely that is it. PFoster 10:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)

If there was a way of blocking Fall Down for a year, I'd have no problem with it. But blocking every proxy he uses for a year doesn't serve any purpose. It only takes him a few clicks to use a different one. weaseLOId~ 10:48, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Fine. If it slows him down, good. If he runs out, all the better. Let's be clear--he threatened to "assrape" one of our users. If that's the kind of person we're dealing with, we need to talk about ways to prevent that PFoster 10:53, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Foster, I'm on your side about keeping Fall Down out. However, since he's using TOR, as I said, it only takes him a moment to get a new IP route. So blocking those IPs for a year doesn't slow him down any more than blocking them for a few hours or days. He will only "run out" if we block every IP used for TOR, which is what Conservapedia is attempting to do and really really not a road I think we want to go down. weaseLOId~ 10:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Alright. Give me a better plan. PFoster 11:05, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Carry on as we are. Block him when we see him vandalising anything, but not for more than a few days. There's no magic solution, but lengthening the blocks won't make any difference for somebody we know is using proxies. weaseLOId~ 11:07, 21 December 2008 (EST)
"Carry on as we are" isn't working. Look at the edits to Kels' user page. And Proxima's. This is, I think, serious stuff and we need to be dealing with it in a more proactive way...11:10, 21 December 2008 (EST)
We've got plenty of sysops. We can deal with him. There's a case for protecting some articles. How about protecting Fred Phelps and User talk:SusanG. That should make things difficult for the Fred vandal so we can concentrate on Fall down. Proxima Centauri 11:13, 21 December 2008 (EST)
I agree we've got enough 'sops to deal. It's a pain in the ass but it's not unmanageable. Don't really agree about protecting stuff, except maybe very temporarily while it's the subject of a repeat assault. weaseLOId~ 11:20, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Put him in the vandal bin. From what I've heard, he deserves it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundCapacitorcat! 13:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
All of his known aliuses are already vandal-binned. Problem is that there is no way to stop him creating other accounts or blocking him long term, since he uses a different IP address every time. weaseLOId~ 13:16, 22 December 2008 (EST)
There seems little point in blocking proxies for a year or protecting pages. New proxies can be found and new targets can be selected. How many sysops do we have? I've lost count. Our legion of sysops needs periodically revert stuff? That's what happens on a wiki.--Bobbing up 13:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with you Bob. I'm gonna unblock the IP that was banned yesterday. 'Twas only used in passing. weaseLOId~
Maybe someone should delete the article on using proxies. I'd hate to find out that that gave him the idea. --"ConservapediaUndergroundCapacitorcat! 13:23, 22 December 2008 (EST)
I doubt it. I think he's an old hand at this game. He's told us that he's created accounts on other sites in the past to harass the people who got him banned from Wikipedia, so I expect he was already using TOR then. weaseLOId~ 13:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. "Our legion of sysops needs periodically revert stuff? That's what happens on a wiki." Agreed. Our wiki gets used as a platform for hate speech, editors repeatedly get called whores and are threatened with "assrape"? That's not what happens--or should happen--on a wiki...PFoster 13:34, 22 December 2008 (EST)

But it is what can happen on a wiki with open sign up. So we delete the hate speech and revert the namecalling. Neither blocking or protecting are useful tools against a persistent vandal. Boring them to death is the best solution. ħuman 13:41, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Not what should happen on a wiki, but what does happen on a wiki (cf. Wikipedia, Conservapedia). As long as we revert & block (sensibly) then we're not giving in to it. weaseLOId~ 13:45, 22 December 2008 (EST)
If we have a wiki which literally anyone can edit then, from time to time, we will get weirdos we need to revert. It's part of what being open means. We can either restrict editing or patiently revert until they go away. With so many sysops what's wrong with reverting?--Bobbing up 14:03, 22 December 2008 (EST)
My sig in no way relates to electrical components --"ConservapediaUndergroundTransistorcat! 14:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Yes it does :) ħuman 16:08, 22 December 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. I dunno--maybe it's my hang-up, centred on my recurring obsession about the lines we have between our on-line personas and real life. If someone threatened to "assrape" someone on main street, they could be locked up for it--maybe only until the cops have figured out whether or not the threat is credible, but it's something you can't do without opening yourself up to some sort of consequence. If I call one of my colleagues a whore in writing--in a departmental memo or in some written feedback on a student's paper, I would face some sort of consequences. Someone calls--repeatedly calls--one of our editors the same, in writing, and all we do is revert. That's not right, to me. If I call someone a "nigger" to their face, I deserve the punch in the mouth that's coming to me. Someone gets on here and uses "faggot" and "cunt" as insults, and is free to do so. This IS a community of sorts, and my--obviously minority--opinion is that as a community we should watch out for the real people at the other end of the tubes. I respect the consensus that's been expressed here, but part of me is REALLY angry that we can't/won't do more to take a stand for what we all would agree is right--that we should all be treated as human beings. --Paul. PFoster 16:31, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I agree that we shouldn't allow "assrape" names. If I remember correctly I personally changed at least one of the "assrape" names to something else. And by admin magic it's gone. I still don't understand the logic of futile year-long blocks of IP's, and page protection. What these people want is recognition and outraged reactions. Don't give it to them.--Bobbing up 16:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)
While I agree with PFosters perspective and feelings, the trouble with the 'net is the anonymity. It's also a blessing for many. Anyway, IRL, an offense has an identifiable perpetrator, who only exists in one corpus, and so they can be habeused and restricted (as long as caught, etc.) fairly easily. On the net, some jerk behind proxies has an almost infinite number of possible "bodies". I must say, however, that they do us a minor favor by using phrases like "assrape", etc., in that it takes no thought or effort to decide whether to revert or not. I know it is frustrating, but it's how an open website works, we're stuck with it. To avoid it, small wikis restrict membership one way or another. As far as big blocking and the like, you only have to look across the fence at CP to see how futile it is at preventing unwanted intrusions. ħuman 16:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)
(Edit conflict. Reply to PFoster:) You keep repeating the terrible things FD has said, but you're missing the point that nobody is disagreeing with you about that. Nobody here is defending him, just discussing what we can and should do. Instead of ranting, why not suggest a solution. Giving long blocks to known proxy IPs is completely ineffective as it has no effect on his ability to use others unless we block a huge number of them. If you think we should block the use of proxy servers altogether (like Wikipedia does), you'll need to talk to Trent about it. I don't even know whether it's technically possible for us. In terms of consequences, there are certainly laws covering harassment, threats and abuse on the internet, but raising this case to the authorities would be a pretty big deal, and I don't feel that we're yet at the point where it becomes a necessity. wassaiLOId~ 16:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)
My problem with the "defense-by-deletion" strategy is that there is no such thing as a history eraser button. Those words--words which are weapons and have the power to hurt--do not become unsaid with the judicious application of the rollback button. PFoster 18:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)
There's no way to make words unsaid any more than there is in real life. In extreme cases we can delete & restore articles so that the full history can only be viewed by sysops. wassaiLOId~ 18:18, 22 December 2008 (EST)
And stopping it being said or reverting it when it's said isn't going to stop people thinking it or believing it. Even if you did put in a system, you have to remember that people will curcumvent it easily enough. Block an IP, they get a proxy, block all the proxy networks, they find a new proxy network you've never heard of etc. etc. Given those facts, you may as well leave it out in the open (practically, this means in the edit history as you don't want it in a current revision) and just plain, outright refute it and PROVE that they're wrong, which isn't difficult. Blocking a vandal isn't going to remove their peurility, reverting a troll isn't going to make them sane and rational. Trying to merely delete or cover things up permanently is basically just burrying your head in the sand of an issue when you can easily tackle it directly. People will see the harsh and hurtful words, but they'll also see the words of support and the words that counter the bullshit. ArmondikoVpostate 19:19, 22 December 2008 (EST)

 Kels block

Were you just trying to incapacitate her or just send her ohm for a while? (over the Wheatstone Bridge) --  Lily Ta, wack! 15:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Erg! Talk about harmonic distortion! --Kels 15:07, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Just trying to restrict the current flow of shocking behaviour. wassaiLOId~ 15:10, 22 December 2008 (EST)
(Sorry, it's the best I could come up with). wassaiLOId~ 15:10, 22 December 2008 (EST)
You shouldn't try to transformer.  Lily Ta, wack! 16:24, 22 December 2008 (EST)
But I can't resistor. wassaiLOId~ 08:49, 23 December 2008 (EST)
I haven't the capacitance to take all this cleverness in. 08:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)
In fact I find myself impeded by it. 08:57, 23 December 2008 (EST)
I think we need to short circuit this thread or someone's going to blow a fuse. (That's enough electrical jokes. Ed. (see p. 94)) ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Don't be revolting. 09:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)
So who's camping it up now? Henry? We all know watts going on here and I don't think I need to amplify that. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)
As farads [ouch! (sorry)] I can see there's only you. 09:45, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Watts the point of this discussion?--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistorcat! 10:48, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Just trying to recharge our batteries... ħuman 14:04, 23 December 2008 (EST)

. . . This seems to have ground to a halt. Why on earth would that be? wassaiLOId~ 18:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)

By inductive reasoning, I suspect because we ran out of appropriate inverters to play with. ħuman 23:47, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Copy cat

You've probably noticed this but User:WeaseIoid is taking your name in vain.--Bobbing up 04:48, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I copied and pasted that name into the vandal - but I'm not sure how the system reacted. I take it you can get yourself out if the system identified you by mistake.--Bobbing up 04:51, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Looks like you've renamed it now anyway. wassaiLOId~ 08:36, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Actually none of the renames were my doing. But, yes, his name has changed.--Bobbing up 09:18, 24 December 2008 (EST)
I was confused by this, weren't the names EXACTLY the same? But I have to agree with name changes if people are trying to immitate others. ArmondikoVpostate 09:52, 24 December 2008 (EST)
They looked the same but the "I" in the middle was capitalised in the fake name. However it looked the same under some circumstances.--Bobbing up 10:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)
(A similar - though not identical - trick to that used by the two Rose Pedals accounts.)--Bobbing up 10:05, 24 December 2008 (EST)
I've been burning with indignation for several hours over that. I'm sure I wasn't paranoid over Rose Pedals. I didn't deserve all that criticism and punishment from Human, Phantom Hoover etc. If I complain they'll be down on me again. If I don't complain they'll keep on thinking I was paranoid. Proxima Centauri 10:33, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Ah, I see the trick now. It's a difficult one to spot when you're looking for it (wood and trees and all that). Sneaky tricks yes, but hard to spot and causing permanent damage? I think not. ArmondikoVpostate 10:39, 24 December 2008 (EST)
It's the old "I" & "l" trick ("i" & "L").
Centaur, you always seem to be burning with indignation. You should chill out more. I missed the Rose Pedals incident, so I'm not sure what the punishment involved, but it doesn't look like any lasting damage was done. Let it go maybe. wassaiLOId~ 10:57, 24 December 2008 (EST)
The punishment, 2 blocks. That's no big deal, I can unblock myself. 2 entries in my block log suggesting that I block unfairly. That matters. The entries will be there when this is over. Dealing with that is in no way urgent. Proxima Centauri 18:09, 24 December 2008 (EST)
I fixed your block log so as not to sully your reputation at other less silly wikis where they might care. ħuman 19:21, 24 December 2008 (EST)

One thing to keep in mind when renaming trolls, doppelgangers, etc. and it's very important: After the rename - immediately after - you have to register the old name yourself, because it becomes available again. If you don't do this, the editor can simply re-register the name if they want to. ħuman 17:17, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Done. wassaiLOId~ 22:13, 24 December 2008 (EST)

• (User creation log); 03:02 . . Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) (created account for User:WeaseIoid)
• (Block log); 03:07 . . Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked User:WeaseIoid with an expiry time of 20 years (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled): Friendly Block: to prevent identity theft)

Nice work. I appreciate the clear block comment, since as you probably know, I routinely pardon all the zillions of blocked nobodies for "time served". ħuman 22:18, 24 December 2008 (EST)