Difference between revisions of "User talk:David Gerard"
(→Asshole: new section) |
(→Cryptic reaction to proposed policies: I am out of here, this asshole has ruined this website. FUCK OFF) |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
::::::When I realised that ''every'' contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ::::::When I realised that ''every'' contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::::Oh, I forgot, you are now the ultimate arbiter on RW of who is and who isn't a troll. My apologies. NOW FUCK OFF. | ||
== Counterexamples to you-know-what == | == Counterexamples to you-know-what == |
Revision as of 08:34, 10 August 2010
|
A thanks.
I think you do a damn fine job around here and make some valuable contributions. Never mind anyone else, RW is lucky to have you around. AceX-102 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I disagree with you on an administrative level, you do deserve a pat on the back as a contributor from the RationalWiki Pat-On-The-Back Society. So here you go: The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll see how long my personal attention span lasts ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ben Best
Since you, obviously, seem to be knowledgeable about cryonics and (obviously) managed to attract Ben Best to roam about RationalWiki, I was just curious if you have seen any of his video on youtube? The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm knowledgeable about it because I researched it for Cryonics! Haven't seen any of his videos ... does he call his detractors Hitler much? - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Mostly, he just talks in a monotone about how much he can'[t wait to start reanimating life once science helps his pocketbook a little more. After that, it's usually too boring to continue to watch, but I can give you links if you want to try to watch them yourself. Punky Your mental puke relief 00:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"use your unblocked account"
David, please show me where in our rules that is says that a sysop has the right to tell any user what account he or she should use. I know you're relatively new, but socking up is actually something of a tradition here at RW. maybe you could review the relevant section in the sysop's guide and in the community standards before continuing your little feud with one user. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Douchebag
God you are insufferable... I'm not MC. Please to unblock and fuck off. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Please to unblock and fuck off" is definitely the most convincing request I've had this week. I'll just hop to it right away - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Considering one of the only things you've ever said to me was "fuck off, MC", how did you expect me to react? Are you going to undo your block or what? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure someone will care to shortly, demonstrating your convincing case - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, because your case is so convincing. MC has a habbit of hanging out at TWIGO:CP? What a prick...you're twice the TK Huw will ever be. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ask nicely and someone might seriously consider it. narchist 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do I have to be nice to this prick? He blocked me because of his suspicion of me being MC (which I'm not) since I got snarky with Susan (who hasn't done that?) on TWIGO:CP (a page MC never edits) as user Occasionaluse (references User:Neveruse. What the fuck happened to this place? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://193.200.150.82 is of course Anonymouse.org. Thanks and don't come back again! - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- So fucking what if I was using Anonymouse? What I have done to get banned? Susan perceived I was being rude as opposed to snarky? Or maybe I'm being a dick? So ban me? Is that the way things work around here now? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- David, why are you treating a new user is such a prickish fashion? You blocked them for nine hours for engaging in a "fuck off" fest with another user who did not complain? I don't think you really get how this place works. ħuman 02:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- So fucking what if I was using Anonymouse? What I have done to get banned? Susan perceived I was being rude as opposed to snarky? Or maybe I'm being a dick? So ban me? Is that the way things work around here now? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- http://193.200.150.82 is of course Anonymouse.org. Thanks and don't come back again! - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do I have to be nice to this prick? He blocked me because of his suspicion of me being MC (which I'm not) since I got snarky with Susan (who hasn't done that?) on TWIGO:CP (a page MC never edits) as user Occasionaluse (references User:Neveruse. What the fuck happened to this place? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ask nicely and someone might seriously consider it. narchist 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, because your case is so convincing. MC has a habbit of hanging out at TWIGO:CP? What a prick...you're twice the TK Huw will ever be. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure someone will care to shortly, demonstrating your convincing case - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Considering one of the only things you've ever said to me was "fuck off, MC", how did you expect me to react? Are you going to undo your block or what? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Admin abuse
I will re-sysop you tomorrow. We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here. ħuman 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems unilateral to me, is there discussion that I missed where other were recommending rights removal? tmtoulouse 06:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that too - I have renewed his sysop status. AceX-102 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will repeat, just for the record: "We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here". I don't know what DG does not understand about that, but he apparently doesn't. He seems to think it's ok if the person he blocks is someone less useful than himself (see the chicken coop/DG2 thing, which spun out of control because everyone turned it into being about MC, when it wasn't). Oh well. ħuman 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't understand it either because I'll block anyone who comes along simply to abuse and cause grief. AceX-102 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Toss me in with the reading-challenged. Personally, I think "is solely here to get in the way" is not the same as "saying stuff we don't like". --Kels (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not losing sleep over DG's choice of blocks. As I've said elsewhere, Trent isn't paying a metric fuck ton of money to host that sort of shit. narchist 02:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then it's time we rewrote the Community Standards (and sysop guide?), since they seem to have changed. Which is fine with me, as long as we all, or most of us, agree. Change the rules so he isn't breaking them. ħuman 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- What rule has he actually broken? AceX-102 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ace, Mr. Gerard did this after this conversation between Occasionaluse and Susan. There, I did your due diligence for you. Lyra § talk 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- He blocked an editor for saying something he didn't like, an editor who could not unblock themself. As I said, if we want to change the "rules" (we don't really have any), let's just change them and be done with it. Maybe what worked for 3 years prior to DG being our most prolific editor doesn't work any more. So let's fix it. ħuman 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can't understand why we allow nasty fuckers to progate this site with pointed abuse towards editors under the auspice of "we don't block people". Its fucking crazy. AceX-102 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Gerard accused the editor of being MarcusCicero, who is a troll, and used that as an excuse to block him. The user had actually made some positive contributions before using poorly chosen words to aggravate Susan (and subsequently Mr. Gerard). A warning would have sufficed, not a block. User:Occasionaluse is not a "nasty fucker," nor is he a troll. Lyra § talk 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lyra is correct. Ace, if we want to change the guidelines we can. But to change them, we must change them. As I read them right now, DG absolutely abused his sysop power and blocked a new editor who made a decent contribution, accusing them of being a known troll. He was wrong in several different ways, and is an unrepentant fuckwad at the date of this writing. However, he has the support, apparently, of many users in his abuse of the now-dead guidelines. So my request of you, and those who support DG's use of blocking to stifle dissent, is to bring up changes to the guidelines in a formal manner. User talk pages are not where we write policy. ħuman 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Gerard accused the editor of being MarcusCicero, who is a troll, and used that as an excuse to block him. The user had actually made some positive contributions before using poorly chosen words to aggravate Susan (and subsequently Mr. Gerard). A warning would have sufficed, not a block. User:Occasionaluse is not a "nasty fucker," nor is he a troll. Lyra § talk 03:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can't understand why we allow nasty fuckers to progate this site with pointed abuse towards editors under the auspice of "we don't block people". Its fucking crazy. AceX-102 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- He blocked an editor for saying something he didn't like, an editor who could not unblock themself. As I said, if we want to change the "rules" (we don't really have any), let's just change them and be done with it. Maybe what worked for 3 years prior to DG being our most prolific editor doesn't work any more. So let's fix it. ħuman 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ace, Mr. Gerard did this after this conversation between Occasionaluse and Susan. There, I did your due diligence for you. Lyra § talk 02:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- What rule has he actually broken? AceX-102 02:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then it's time we rewrote the Community Standards (and sysop guide?), since they seem to have changed. Which is fine with me, as long as we all, or most of us, agree. Change the rules so he isn't breaking them. ħuman 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not losing sleep over DG's choice of blocks. As I've said elsewhere, Trent isn't paying a metric fuck ton of money to host that sort of shit. narchist 02:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Toss me in with the reading-challenged. Personally, I think "is solely here to get in the way" is not the same as "saying stuff we don't like". --Kels (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't understand it either because I'll block anyone who comes along simply to abuse and cause grief. AceX-102 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will repeat, just for the record: "We don't block people because we don't like what they say, here". I don't know what DG does not understand about that, but he apparently doesn't. He seems to think it's ok if the person he blocks is someone less useful than himself (see the chicken coop/DG2 thing, which spun out of control because everyone turned it into being about MC, when it wasn't). Oh well. ħuman 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that too - I have renewed his sysop status. AceX-102 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you think that was a "decent contribution", you're outside the reasonable range of humanity and are actually incapable of such estimations. It was pointless abuse and worse than utterly useless. I did actually think it was MC, and the style of the unblock requests didn't convince me otherwise. By the time I realised it was Neveruse being stupid, someone else had finally unblocked Occasionaluse (after several others who had seen the exchange felt no inclination unblock either). I actually went to sysop Neveruse to quit his whining in future ... but, reading the log, saw that the consensus was strongly against doing so.
- I do think I can say (based on discussion here, your talk page and the chicken coop) that the community is bloody sick of your continued defence of blatant griefers over anyone who isn't going out of their way to act like a fucking waste of space.
- You, on the other hand, desysopped and decratted completely outside rules, consensus or pressing need. If you consider otherwise, do please provide a citation justifying your own action, since you've fallen back to bureaucracy as an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems the issue here was not space consumption, but an insult, in fact a reference to the more disgusting human anatomies, and worse still, the decomposing parts of the supposedly middle/elderly-aged; a below the belt shot aimed at something far more sacred and sensitive than imaginary testicles could ever be. Was it somewhat urtful? This should not be answered in the affirmative or the goat will be got. We must guess. If urtful, was it deserved/defensive? Oh the complexity of it all. It would be much easier just to categorically forbid insults that might be readily distinguished by the use of the dirty words. I think that is more fundamental to your claim that the community is turning against Human's protecting of the supposed transgressors of reason/goodness. You may become excited to know that I am working on a poll/proposal for dealing with such insults, to be posted over there in Community Standards (as well as policies for bureaucrats, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that your attempts to work out human interaction from first principles with no comprehension are like watching a monkey try to fuck a football. I admire your perserverance but don't think you'll get very far with this approach. Have you considered http://www.lesswrong.com/ ? You would be on a level with many of their participants in social interaction skills - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems the issue here was not space consumption, but an insult, in fact a reference to the more disgusting human anatomies, and worse still, the decomposing parts of the supposedly middle/elderly-aged; a below the belt shot aimed at something far more sacred and sensitive than imaginary testicles could ever be. Was it somewhat urtful? This should not be answered in the affirmative or the goat will be got. We must guess. If urtful, was it deserved/defensive? Oh the complexity of it all. It would be much easier just to categorically forbid insults that might be readily distinguished by the use of the dirty words. I think that is more fundamental to your claim that the community is turning against Human's protecting of the supposed transgressors of reason/goodness. You may become excited to know that I am working on a poll/proposal for dealing with such insults, to be posted over there in Community Standards (as well as policies for bureaucrats, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Losing bits of SVGs
I've noticed similar effects on SVGs, try ungrouping it all and reuploading. If that doesn't work try grouping it as one group. It's worked for nme before. 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or I could just say "buggrit" and leave the PNG as the live version, as Armondikov is presently fiddling with ;-) The real answer is that RationalWiki is running a not so fresh version of rsvg, presumably the one that came with the Linux it's running on, and that a fresh enough one might require putting it in by hand. Bah. *waves* - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Cryptic reaction to proposed policies
Your edit comment here reads, "It is a direct comment on your bilge, and you and Human are quite aware of this". Well, non-chronological archiving does detach it from the other sections and its meaning becomes even less clear. I "agree" there. It seemed to be a reaction, perhaps a parody, but I wasn't sure how much context would be required to make sense of it. Are you commenting only on my policy proposals or is this a larger issue?
My proposed policies seemed fairly simple. Do you have an objection you could express in a simple and straight-forward way? (The most appropriate place for these objections would seem to be the sections I created on the Community Standards talk page.) ~ Lumenos 21:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well? ħuman 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Human, if you suddenly think Lumenos has anything useful to say on the subject just because you've decided you're arguing with me ... By the way, you still haven't answered just which community standard you were invoking above - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- David, you haven't responded to Lumenos' concern that you consider his contributions "bilge". ħuman 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Human, if you suddenly think Lumenos has anything useful to say on the subject just because you've decided you're arguing with me ... By the way, you still haven't answered just which community standard you were invoking above - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe I have. Human, when did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Eir are strange, but eir cares. When did you start considering eir contributions "bilge"? ħuman 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe I have. Human, when did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- When I realised that every contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot, you are now the ultimate arbiter on RW of who is and who isn't a troll. My apologies. NOW FUCK OFF.
- When I realised that every contribution matched the pattern "concern troll", but without trolling intent. Sincerity does not imply non-bilge. When did you start considering Lumenos' contributions - any RW contributions - not bilge? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Counterexamples to you-know-what
I like the "dusting" that you did to that section of "conservapedian relativity". It looks more "professional" and, how to put it, "brusque" now. And just in time. We didn't know that uhhhh, company was coming. Well, I didn't; maybe you did. Gauss (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm appalled how crappy the featured articles have been allowed to become, and how hard and shrubbery-demand-filled trying to get clearly better articles into the pool appears to be - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- We call them "cover stories" 'round these parts, in case you hadn't got up to speed with our lingo. ħuman 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Asshole
You have completely ruined this site with your egotistical ravings. When are you going to listen to all the people who chided you for deleting talk page comments, and pay attention to the rules about blocking? You're a complete fucking twat, and embarrassingly self-important and unfunny. Get a fucking clue. And get over yourself, meanwhile. 24.128.227.73 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)