# User talk:Weaseloid/Archive4

##  =

Are you doing something fun? -- =w= 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd just gone to bed when you posted this. What with it being half past two in the morning & all. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is not the right time to go to bed. You must have been doing something fun before that. -- =w= 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Only vaguely. Watched a movie on DVD, but that only took me up to about midnight. Then I was mostly hanging around on RW, sipping whiskey & waiting for stuff to happen. Which it didn't, so I eventually went to bed. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is fun in a way. I often wait for things. Do you like my Cunning Log? It all sort of works. -- =w= 19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. What is Darbishire? Do you mean Derbyshire? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Darbishire is a person. The rest is a secret. -- =w= 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it a guilty secret? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Only a little bit. -- =w= 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Yaarrrr

I like what you did there matey. Clever to add the copyright side as a kind of footnote. Very well written article. --Ask me about your mother 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, me hearty. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Mei is useful

Sure, why not. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Mei is useful

##  Sorry--

Missed that one. We should pibot that page, anyway. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Redirects

Why are you deleting useful redirects? Is there something I'm missing here?--talk 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One was a misspelling - not very useful - & the other was "objectivist movement" which was only used once in an article, only two lines down from a direct link to the same article it redirected to. We don't need a "#####ist movement" redirect to "#####ism" anyway - if we did that consistently, we'd have thousands of pointless redirects. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I was ambivalent about 'objectvism' to start with & I support its deletion. -- =w= 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. Now that we have autocomplete (or whatever it's called) in the search box, we probably don't need as many redundant redirects as we used to. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it was a misspelling. Okay, that makes sense! Sorry to bug you.--talk 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's really no problem at all. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
NO I am a hideous bugbear who drives people away.--talk 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Now you come to mention it, actually yeah. It's unbearable! Like, I'm outa here. See ya later, assholes . . . WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

##  w

Good weaseling today. I enjoyed it. -- Mei (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't think I was particularly active today. Just a quick bit of weaseling in between other things. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Creep

How the hell did you dig that exact link up? What a fucking creep you are. Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume it involved a keyboard-like device, something resembling a mouse, and some approximation of a monitor. An Internet connection may have been involved as well. I Eat Glue (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

##  Saloon Bar rollback

I thought MC was still on revert-and-bin?--talk 11:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it was MC, & there was no comment to indicate this. In any case, the revert thing was never really agreed policy, as far as I am aware, & I don't find it very useful in cases where he's not actually trolling. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we ever agreed on any policy for him. Ah well, not important and not worth a disagreement. Cheers!--talk 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it was supposed to be the Loya Jirga's job. As you say, not worth a disagreement. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Lazy LJ bastards - get to work! I only noticed he was active again recently when he started commenting on my blog. Maybe I can keep him there where it will entertain me and not annoy anyone else.--talk 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, do it. He seems to be enjoying himself there. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Haha I think he's going to cry.--talk 10:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

##  Rob Smith

He posted this after your warning, which I take as a threat and continued harassment. That's what the 30 min block was about. --Kels (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that he'd posted again after the warning. I should have checked more carefully. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
S'okay. He did it a second time on Human's page and you would have caught that even if I didn't. It's all good. --Kels (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

##  huh? for fuck's sake, Human, "dodging ECs by copying" means you're still ECing everyone else)

I made new section, that can't EC anyone. You EC'd each other methinks, ladies. ħuman 10:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Might I interject here and say that I always copy my comments in the case of EC'ing? He says as he copies the comment... SJ Debaser 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but I had changed previous comments from * to # so I was committed. Otherwise, Superfarts, I agree and do the same thing on high-traffic pages. ħuman 10:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I was posting in "Why do I miss those days?", which nobody else had posted in yet. If you're editing the last section of the page, while somebody adds a new section, does that EC it? Anyway, I don't much like the logic of forking a discussion into two sections of the same page just to avoid ECs. If you get edit conflicted, it's because other people are discussing the same issue you are at the same time - you just have to ride it out, because splitting that discussion arbitrarily into two is not a productive solution. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I know it wasn't the most brilliang solution, but it saved my edit the way I intended it. Someone then merged them and I had to do the # thing again, but didn't get EC'd. Doesn't it suck trying to type and hit "save" fast in order to avoid anticipated ECs? Isn't it fun to be on such a lively site? ħuman 10:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately, yeah. ECs are frustrating, but they're part of the whole RationalWiki experience. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're editing the last section of the page, while somebody adds a new section, does that EC it? Yes. Don't know why. -- Nx / talk 10:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the page text has changed since that person has started editing. - π 10:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think you can't ec yourself -- Nx / talk 10:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC!) Yes, "add new section" does edit conflict whoever posts in the section above (I just tested it). You can EC yourself (at least in Chrome) if you post then click back, because the version of the page you're then editing has four tildes instead of your signature & timestamp. But that's not what happened here. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I EC'd anyone by pasting my edit into "add new section". But I really don't think that is my fault. ħuman 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can EC yourself. I do it a lot if the connection is a little iffy. It sends the data but the "return signal", as it were, gets stuck, so if you hit "save" again, you get the EC with yourself. Also, I think you might EC with the last section if you add a new one. I'm sure I've seen ECs happen and then when I press F5, I get no new comments, but a new section has been added (that's assuming those people used the new section link, of course, which can't be guaranteed, but you'd think it'd be so obvious as to be second nature to anyone who's made more than two-three edits to a talk page). theist 23:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

##  Thanks

Just got back from the UK and saw the crat thing. Thanks for that. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

##  Move

You're supposed to undelete the deleted revisions of a page after you merge them. -- Nx / talk 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a policy and cannot find it in the page move guide or other relevant Help pages. If this is a real RW policy or practice, please cite where. If you just want a sysop to do something you're unable to do yourself, asking politely is more likely to get a positive response. I've restored the deleted revisions, since this is obviously a big deal to you, but I don't appreciate these patronising little instructions. You desysoped yourself and should accept the consequences of that. You don't get to dictate policy and tell other users to do your bidding. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. -- Nx / talk 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that doesn't say what you think it does. Nothing about every revision of a page being preserved intact. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Which part of "They must not be deleted" is unclear to you? If you delete a talk page, you remove users' comments from their publicly viewable list of contributions, even if you do copy over the text somewhere else. -- Nx / talk 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

##  Damn Frenchie.

That's what I said. Go back there. Quaru (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghuhuh? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I already commented on the England page [1] .. I was just going to continue my joke here, but I've gotten bored of it. Quaru (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Meh. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

##  Them hyphens

They can be tricky to spot, even when they're red, and the rest of the text is black.  :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

##  Smoking

You always see these signs "Smoking damages your lungs." Well so does a shotgun, but you don't see a warning on them. Me, I always look for the "Pregnant? Breastfeeding?" warnings. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

##  Be Fair

Hey man! I thought long and Hard about that!--Tolerance (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So who are you? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

##  BoN?

Hello.

You greeted me with "Hello BoN" on my Anon IP talk page before I registered this account. What (or who) is BoN?

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"BoN" is an abbreviation of "bunch of numbers," which is how we refer to IP addresses in polite conversation. 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This may help. i9 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

##  Spam

Should have done that myself. 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was going to unpick all the =s & whitespaces to turn the headings into regular comments, which would have been the polite thing to do, but thought why the hell should I waste time cleaning up somebody else's mess? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

##  Anti-sex stance

Sex is not necesary for this world since we can make test tube babies. Also, it's yucky, like some food from Mcdonald's.

And because you like my signature so much, I'll keep it, although I'll put it on prefrences like you said.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 18:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Very few things are necessary but some are fun - sex is one of the latter. 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's best to continue discussions on the talk page they start at. Anyhoo . . . Assisted reproductive technology is a very expensive industry, & is used only for couples or individuals who can't conceive naturally. It's not a cost-effective or desirable alternative to sexual reproduction. Sex is a natural instinct that many, probably most, adults find very pleasurable, as well as serving a biological function, for those who want to reproduce. If you find it icky, that's unfortunate, but it's a silly value judgement. Childbirth is also icky, as are test tube babies, & babies in general. In fact, most of the human body's functions could be described as icky. It isn't a sound basis for opposing something. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually my real reason is so the human race can die out. I just use the artificial technology part to provide an alternative to rich people.

Sex is an icky function that isn't necesary for the survival of an individual. And there are a lot of fun things that aren't icky, like chess. And since there are porn and sex toys, you can get your sex pleasure from them.

Also, which article?

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 20:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Human race doesn't particularly want to die out. Chess is an icky function that isn't necessary for the survival of an individual. And since there are chess puzzles and chess computers, you can get your chess pleasure from them. Also what article? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well we can't please everyone, lol. And Chess isn't icky unless you make it icky. Plus, there aren't much other ways of getting chess pleasure than the ones you listed.

It's best to continue discussions on the talk page they start at. you, Weaseloid.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't please everyone so let's kill 'em all, lol. Hmmm?
Again, if you find sex icky, that's just your opinion & is not a sound basis for opposing it. You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make you right. For one thing, you are in an extreme minority view; for another, there's nothing objective or meaningful about saying "sex is icky"; it's just a reaction, not a statement of fact. Why do you consider porn & sex toys preferable to sex with other people? Are they less icky in some way?
I made a comment on your talk page & you responded to it here on mine instead. It's best to continue discussions on the talk page they start at & respond to comments on the page they appear on. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

## CP homework rollback

Real minor thing I know, but by Swedes I meant the people who settled in Delaware, led by Peter Minuit, in the 1640s, not the Norse who settled in Newfoundland. Jsonitsac (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah OK, but since "Norse" means Scandinavian, the wording was a bit odd, like saying "settled by the English, and also the British". Anyway, put it back in if you want. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 06:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

##  trustworthy article

should have put it here but my bad i won't correct those

##  trustworthy article

should have put it here but my bad i won't correct those Nailo1 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

##  I saw this...

[[File:CRO Coa Slavonia.svg|thumb|left|...and thought of you.]] Totnesmartin (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)]]

Wow, that's an awesome coat of arms. Or should I say: stoat of arms. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
File deleted, I guess. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Nomination

You have been nominated for the board of the RWF. Please go here to accept or not!--BobSpring is sprung! 10:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a bump to remind you of your nomination for the RationalWiki Foundation board of trustees. You can accept or reject your nomination here. On January 10th, nominations close if you have not signaled acceptance by that point it will be treated as a rejection. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm in two minds, hence my non-response up to now. I am kindof tempted, but I haven't been onsite so much recently & can't really be certain about how much time & energy I can regularly commit to RW. So I'm gonna have to decline. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

##  UncleHo

could you at least, you know, weigh in on the discussion before arbitrarily reverting something a number of people agreed on? P-Foster (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did. So why did you bother informing UncleHo he was nominated for a ban if he wasn't going to be given any opportunity of responding? WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
He can still spew on his talk page if he has anything to say. P-Foster (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

##  Dude

Haven't seen you in ages. Semi-ironic brofist? Pink(I won't touch full-fat irony) 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Brofist returned. Do you mean at Wikipedia? I don't really do much there; just correct the odd error or amble into the odd argument if I'm wandering by, but don't have time to really get involved. I'm here quite a lot, on & off. I must have missed when you were back here in December. Hope to see you around more often. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just appeared on Blue's page and said "Quick! Let's be festive!" And she said "OK, then". It was pretty short, so you didn't miss that much. Pink(No, don't throw it, because it's also a radio) 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's always interesting when long-lost RWians show up, even if only for a moment. Are you still a Black Rabbit at WP, or did you morph into something else? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Pink is/was a rabbit? That's quite a far cry from jellyfish. 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
But they both taste great in stir-fries. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Pink(The answer is "Yes", according to the rabbit.) 23:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

the encyclopedia dramatica article for [shockofgod/shockofgod] was deleted link at the bottom of the [shockofgod/shockofgod] article. i put something on the talk page but thought i should ask first if the link should be deleted from the article or something put up saying it was deleted. — Unsigned, by: Nailo1 / talk / contribs

I've taken it out. No point in linking to a deleted article. If you find any more broken links like that, delete them; just make it clear in your edit summary why you're deleting them. ωεαşεζόίďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

##  Laughing Lauren

See here and here. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Duck jokes & gossips; harmless stuff. Also, see here. Why make a big deal of taking the vandal brake off when you were just going to put it back on an hour later for no particular reason? €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
See the ensuing discussion. Bluntly, they seem to have actually linked to some stupid trolling page on Uncyclopedia (I wouldn't know, as I refuse to look at that stupid site) and then, after I un-braked them, admitted they were only here to vandalize. But, meh. Little prat is probably gone anyways, and I respect you too much to fly off into an HCM over this. So, do as you see fit. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 00:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually they admitted they were only here to vandalize before you unbraked them; you just didn't notice it what with refusing to read the link & all.  :-) Either way, it's better to brake/block based on what people actually do rather than what they boast about (common sense exceptions apply) - in this case it was pretty harmless & didn't last long. They may well be gone as you say, but I'm gonna unbin them anyway. Obviously if they do come back & cause trouble, they can be binned again. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

##  A lumbering, impassive, thoughtless monster.

Absolutely brilliant. Corry (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Corry. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

## Sorry

Sorry about writing on those pages earlier. I see they clearly have some function beyond normal article pages. I was just trying to get them to stop showing up under WantedPages. Won't be doing it again. --Danfly (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I don't even know what the deal is, but clearly the wikicode can't handle those page titles as it gave a 400 error (bad request) every time. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

##  Coucou !

And thanks for the little welcoming message. :)
Am13 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being useful. Are you a native Francophone, or just a cunning linguist? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

##  Still waiting for your source

I'm still waiting for you to cite a source indicating that the patterns for legalization of other drugs would be any different from the patterns after prohibition. Alternatively, would you like to simply state that there's no evidence either way, but that you nonetheless demand that we all pray to your legalizingdrugsincreasesdistribution god, whose existance you have no evidence for?--Mustex (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What's to be confused about? You claim that references to prohibition are "irrelevant." Now, if we had good studies on the effects of legalizing these drugs, I'd agree with you. However, in the absence of such evidence, we have to rely on what data we do have. Thus, until you can cite a source showing that, for example, making heroin illegal reduces consumption, the fact that you believe that it "makes sense" is trumped by the alcohol data. Lots of things "make sense." The watchmaker argument "makes sense," but is still wrong.--Mustex (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
...so, then, I can safely assume you have no evidence for anything you're saying, and your entire argument is based on the Balance fallacy, and Argument from incredulity?--Mustex (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in what you assume about me, nor in your ridiculous demands for one single proof. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 14:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What rule, exactly, am I going against? Could you be more specific?--Mustex (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

##  Except...

Genesis isn't in the Qur'an. The story is similar but distinctly different. - π 01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And the term "Judeo-Christian" isn't applicable to Muslims either... you need the broader term "Abrahamic religions". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Genesis isn't in the Qur'an, but then it isn't in the Gospels either. The Qur'an is the revelation of prophet Mohammed, & is the most sacred scripture in Islam, but not the only one. Genesis is in the Torah, which is a holy text for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I was avoiding the phrase Abrahamic, since Abraham had nothing to do with the creation. & Why are you talking about this here? Last I checked, article content/wording disputes are supposed to be settled on the article's talk page. ωεαşεζόίďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent word! Especially as I am eating salad with mushroom, bacon & leek quiche as I write. Pippa (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. We have an article on word salad. Usually two words, but I felt like compounding it in my edit summary. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 15:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

##  I would like a source for that

What do you mean by there is no such thing as Indian Pale Ale? - π 03:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. I must admit I always thought it was Indian too, I guess it is a matter of preconceptions reading what you thought is says rather than what it does say. - π 03:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
IPA is India Pale Ale, not Indian. In old times it was made in England for export to India & other colonies, not made in India. So Indian Pale Ale is a misnomer, although it appears to be a pretty common one, especially among American drinkers. If a brewery is actually selling something as Indian Pale Ale, it's probably not a very reputable one. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

##  While I don't entirely disagree...

With deleting the {{poetop}}, on Racism:talk. I just thought we needed that particular template, so I stole the code for it and cobbled it together. C®ackeЯ

Fair enough I guess, but I don't think that BoN was a parodist & anyway I don't think collapsing discussions with these kind of templates is particularly helpful anyway. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

##  You need more goat weasel

I'm learning to play with images. YOu are my ginny weasel.

silly Weasel, trix are for kids
--En attendant Godot 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

##  HEY YOU! YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO YOU!

About references on talkpages, why are they not allowed? I'm not saying they should be, I'd just like to know why. Ta fanx, MtDPinko Scum 08:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because they're not a talk page thing. They're for adding footnotes & citations in articles, then putting a footnotes section at the bottom of the page. Talk page comments shouldn't need footnotes (brackets can be used instead for side-notes) & putting them there makes a real mess of the page. If you add refs without a references section, the ref isn't visible, and there's an ugly red warning telling you so. If you add a reference section at the bottom of the page, it interrupts normal talk page conventions as everyone would have to post above it, or else below it which then leaves references pointlessly in the middle of the page. Plus the talk page comments are signed by users who post them, while references sit unsigned elsewhere on the page. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. MtDPinko Scum 20:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

##  An herb

Careful, you'll upset the Merkins. Pippa (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

##  W. Mitt Romney

iPlease reconsider the way you moved W. Mitt Romney, we're on the first page of Google for W. Mitt Romney but not for Mitt Romney, sad. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So what? He's universally referred to as Mitt Romney. There's no point adopting an obscure title just to be on top of a search engine ranking for a search term nobody's ever going to use. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

##  Page protections

If you want those page protections to be effective, you will have to dial them up another notch. ListenerXTalkerX 20:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Like what? WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops; I guess there is no "moderator" option. I suppose we shall have to coop JimJast and wind him down a notch instead if he keeps it up. ListenerXTalkerX 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've given him a warning. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a moderator option, but there are no moderators. -- Nx / talk 20:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I figured there probably would be. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I see only "Allow all users," "Block new and unregistered users," and "Administrators only." Is the moderator option only available to moderators? ListenerXTalkerX 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
And techs. -- Nx / talk 20:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Weaseloid, Do you really believe that when something like a brick drops its kinetic energy gets created from nothing like gravity physicists believe? (and remember that in Einsteinian physics there is nothing beyond $E=mc^2$ that can be legitimately called potential energy, partly utilised in A-bomb). So are you ready to prove that part of it gets changed into kinetic energy every time when something drops? Because if not then from where the kinetic energy comes from? Serious question which you might call "crap" but you should rather explain why. JimJast (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question about badgers. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
But I didn't call it "crap" did I? I just don't know what Badger is. But you know what brick is and know that when it falls it has more energy (which is call "kinetic" if you missed it in your school). I wanted to explain you everything what you don't know. For certain things you have to use your brain to respond so I won't call you a crypto creationist. So far you still are one since you believe as some physicists do, other creationists, that energy can be created. JimJast (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Have I ever made such a statement of belief? I strongly suspect I have not. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
And ain't you curious where the energy is coming from? JimJast (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No. I have my own life to lead. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think that knowing why things fall would interfere with your ability to lead your life? Knowing too much is bad in RW? That's why you are against my explaining the people why they don't fly off the Earth despite the Earth does not attract them as discovered by Eunsteins almost a century ago? You don't like questions that you can't answer? Do you prefer the faith in creation of energy from nothing and that God did it? But yet a simpler way is to learn a bit of physics that is already discovered by Einsteins though not believed in by creationists. Even if they still prefer the "gravitational attraction", with its handy in such system of beliefs, "Big Bang", but impossible in the real world, since in the real world the energy can't be made from nothing. That it can is PRATT. JimJast (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

## Congratulations on your election to moderator

You were one of the seven elected moderators, the results can be found at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results. I will be changing your user rights shortly to reflect your new position. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great news & much appreciated. I'm gonna be lying low for the next week or two, as I've just moved house, have a ton of things to sort out, & haven't yet set up home internet access, but I'll be active again pretty soon. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
More like a couple of months. Normal service will be resumed in early Sept. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

##  You are a moderator

Do something -- Nx / talk 07:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind weighing in or signing off on the proposed plan for procedure for the voting standards votes? 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

##  Removing content

Why did you take this out? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear what bits of it are things Ray C says & what bits are what the article author is saying about him, plus some bits of it are unreadable sentence fragments with missing or broken words. It don't make it clear what point Comfort makes with the Anne Frank stuff, & it looks like it's just there as an excuse to make silly Hitler analogies. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my proposal for the procedure for the voting standards votes. Please go here to sign off and/or comment. Thanks. Blue2 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are all mods obliged to sign off on it, or just a majority? (I.e we need to know how voting on the vote about the voting method for the vote about voting methods is going to work.) But seriously, I've given my opinions & the proposal doesn't really match any of them, so I'm reluctant put my name to it. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand. While your opinions certainly have merit, right now I'm more concerned with whether or not you think my proposal would be a legitimate voting procedure rather than the illusive "best" voting procedure. 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really sure what answer you're looking for here. If most of the mods support it & there aren't serious objections from the rest of mob, I would regard it as legitimate. €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, just wanting to know whether or not you had any serious objections. 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

##  Pirates?

So what squad are you with that is the Pirates? Are you the one that posted to vandalize this site on the cheerleading forum? — Unsigned, by: 64.215.243.60 / talk / contribs

No. ωεαşεζόίďMethinks it is a Weasel 15:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

##  eve

I'm about to get into my first edit war, but I don't know how to roll back an artcile. The eve artcile really needs to go back to where I had it last, in bulk. But I don't know how to step back that far.--GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I put it back to the relevant edit, plus made a few further fixes. Not that it will keep. The way to do it is to click on the relevant edit in the Fossil record (i.e. the one you want to revert it to) & click the edit tab from that. You'll see a small warning at the top of the page to let you know that you'red editing an old revision. Make any changes you want or just save it as is. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

##  How DARE you add options. Can't you real the rules

I mean, it's as if you think your ideas matter, or that some other option not yet thought of could simply not be as good as any we already have. Don't buck the rules buddy! (rolls eyes).--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Setting the above incompetence aside, Weaseloid, I feel bad about removing your vote. If the "Goat" option offsets a majority, we'd have two choices: the entire vote will have to be redone, which would mean more of the tedious shit that a few extremely vocal editors think drains the lifeblood of the wiki (moreso than aeons of HCM, in their case); or we just leave the result canceled and continue without duration standards. I think both alternatives are bad. However, it doesn't seem like one vote (yours) has the potential to lead us there, so I'm not terribly worried (as it seems DickTurpis has reinstated it). 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You're both very silly. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)