User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive2

Might want to bring this up somewhere
In my opinion, this behavior is not acceptable. But it's no longer my job to bring it up anywhere. --Castaigne (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother template.
An old-timer would have used this. Noob. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * pfft, αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?
We're going to vote on a total writeup of the wiki because one user is having a tantrum? Fuck that. We're also not having a vote just because you unilaterally started one with no discussion about it, which has no chance of ever not being "yes keep it".-- Mie kal  20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unilaterally" -- Should we have had a pre-vote vote, to determine whether or not there was consensus on whether or not to vote?
 * The vote was useful anyway, it would've showed the extent to which RW supports snark. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That users are here and working within the system shows implicit support of snark, otherwise they can go make their own wiki that does our job but with all the fun of a dictionary or illustration-less history text. And Unilaterally, as in you deciding that one users tantrum was enough to start a site wide rewrite vote.-- Mie kal  20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)-- Mie  kal  20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) To determine whether or not there was consensus on whether or not to vote? Here's a clue: if it's a page full of lame suggestions that nobody agreed with and hasn't been touched in over three months, there is consensus not to vote.  20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wrong. Sorry. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And the good word spreads!
- David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. :P oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't...
...ask you to un-vandal bin me. Don't do things unless people ask/tell you to do them. I don't like favors; they piss me off. --Castaigne (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You also weren't being a vandal. Stop being difficult for no good reason. -- Mie kal  19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do only what I ask or tell you to do and don't do me favors, and I'll not be difficult. Did you hear me complain about being vandal-binned? No. Then don't assume I want to be removed when I have made no request as such. To assume makes an ass out of u, not me. --Castaigne (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On GG talk page, you talked about being vandal binned negatively and weren't vandalling. Enjoy. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 19:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "And hey, if you are insistent that the primary use of this wiki is for debunking, then I can easily make that happen if you take me out of the vandal bin. I can begin re-writing articles to remove any if this Wikipedia-style junk and instead for solid refutation like your GamerGate debunking page. I imagine it will be welcomed as much as when I previously decided to do what people said and didn't really want."
 * No where in that is "I don't like being vandal binned and I want out." I did not imply that; I did not request it; that was not a complaint. I just said I can institute what you asked for if you take me out. Again, you assumed. DON'T ASSUME. --Castaigne (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. You're being an asshole right now, so, as punishment, I will go against your wishes and keep you out of the vandal bin. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're assuming again! He never explicitly said it's his wish to be vandalbinned! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, quite funny, except it's lost on me because I am a humorless individual. Now just like I tell people to take off the Sysop they put on, undo what you goddamn did. I don't need your fucking favors. I didn't ASK you to do me a favor. I'm not some goddamned poor needing mother-fucking charity. That's the problem with people here and elsewhere; when I want a fucking opinion, I'll tell you what your opinion goddamn will be. Don't fucking presume on my behalf. I don't need anyone's fucking help. --Castaigne (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a favor -- it's punishment. Now simmer down in the corner while I get the dunce hat and the Stool of Shame for you to sit on. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to do everything my own fucking self. --Castaigne (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now undo what you shouldn't have done in the first fucking place. --Castaigne (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it kind of presumptive to construe what Fuzzy did as a favor though? Vandal-binning doesn't expire and RW has a pretty... minimal penal culture compared to other wikis, so if someone gets vandal-binned it's normal for a sysop to parol them after a while if they don't persist in vandalistic tendencies. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I didn't ask for it, I don't want it.
 * If I didn't demand it, I don't want it.
 * If you need anything more than that, see my current talk page. --Castaigne (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you assumed. Don't assume, man; that's not cool. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't
put me in the crossfire and make me regret giving you that.-- Mie kal  14:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't seriously asking for it, but I'll try not to screw it up. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with Ninja
How do I move myself in and out of Ninja? It seems someone put me in it and I need to shut it down so people see me create the new categories, but I want to go back when I'm moving actual articles into the categories so I'm not clogging up recent changes. ClothCoat (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Go to Special:UserRights/ClothCoat. (2) Put yourself into the "bot" category. (3) Do your shit. (4) Take yourself out of the "bot" category. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I waas looking around for that page but couldn't find it. I'm going to break down extreme moonbattery life I did wingnuttery leave a comment on its talk page if you want to discuss it further or have any objections. ClothCoat (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi...
Why does my sig not work properly? User:LlamaPastor31/sig 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm human. When will I bypass the CAPTCHA? Llama Pastor 31  (discuss) 04:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Qu'ranic scientific foreknowledge
This crap must be melting your brain by now - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but people's misspelling of Qur'an is :P FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is autopatrolled, exactly?
What is autopatrolled, exactly? QuantumDude (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It (a) makes sure you don't have to do the CAPTCHA and (b) removes ! marks from the recent changes that would appear next to your edits otherwise. (Only sysops see this.) Basically, it means we know your edits aren't vandalism. Hopefully. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it (sort of) the first step on the way to sysop? QuantumDude (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kinda. Sysop is given lightly here, so there really aren't "steps" -- just random acts of sysopship. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your education level?
Just wondering.
 * Junior, high school, USA. Why? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Middle school, Australia. Meerkats. Llama Pastor 31  User talk:LlamaPastor31 03:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As serious as a heart attack.
Do not unban the guy. Do not revert the deletion. The issue is resolved and need not be brought up again. Got it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The best fucking part about this is that I was the original revdeleter, but now I'm the villain. Lovely. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Logged in briefly just to say you did nothing wrong, except disagree with DG which is the greatest sin at RW. I'm on a train for a few hours and only just read up on what happened, chin up old boy. Tielec01 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Frothy cat potato
Potato Santorum? 23:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ew ew ew ew EW ew ew ew FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your e-mail to me..
Fixed it for you, dummy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato (Talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of 33 revisions on page Talk:Gamergate:
Was there more to this than the dox of that single name, and was there a way to fix that without deleting such a huge chunk? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the name.
 * I could have selectively deleted those diffs which affected text within +/-2 paragraphs of the doxx, but that's excessive work for minor gain. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How much does one need to "get themselves out there" to be sysoped?
Just wondering how much one needs to do to become sysoped. Is there like, a general rule of thumb, or anything like that? QuantumDude (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Help
Idiots abound. Bin or ban please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 02:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Creation science -> Intelligent design creationism
I think this is a bad category renaming. "Intelligent design" is specifically a move to make creationism look not merely religious, whereas a lot of creation science (e.g. baraminology) is entirely up front about its Biblical nature - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1: Most of the CS articles were in IDC; the remaining half-dozen didn't merit a category.
 * 2: The distinction is unclear. Take cdecay. Is it CS, because a god is clearly necessary to magically change the speed of light? Or is it IDC, because the theory isn't explicitly Christian? Or take white hole cosmology. Is it CS, because a god is clearly necessary to create Earth in a black hole? Or is it IDC, because the theory isn't explicitly Christian? Finally, take how people creationists use the arguments. I've seen nobody not use an argument b/c it was CS and they were IDC. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen someone use baraminology to support "intelligent design" as such? I'd think things that are not specifically part of the "intelligent design" rebranding should just be under "creation science" - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
I may be completely insane, but I put that horrible thing in Funspace for a reason.

Userpage Talk 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * no prob, its k Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Archiving
If you don't mind, I'm going to be archiving some dead conversations on your talkpage to prevent edit filter triggers. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So, before this whole edit filter/account creation thing happened...
I was gonna leave you a note that Gap creationism should probably be merged into Old Earth creationism. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree; am on phone, can't copypasta. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Autopatrolled
Uhh... thanks. It's supposed to be good, right? (obvious lack of common sesne) Loc (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Filter
That block was legitimate (I already fixed the false positive issue). Also, given the AbuseFilter is a LocalSettings.php program, blocking it does nothing anyways. NoiseBot (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seemed to help 141. What reason for block? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Something malicious that's been used before. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Block evaded, he's. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can clear that up for you. Apparently, a certain nickname Ryulong hates has him so wound up you faggots have an edit filter just for it. LMFAO!!!!! Bonus lulz for the fact you assholes proved me right, you DO want to block people who dissent against the hivemind. 88.198.219.77 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I knew there was a homophobic word I cannot stand that I was going to re-make forbidden. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I unblocked Proxy 1 of yours btw. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've nothing better to do than poke him? Get a life pls. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So, all that copypasting from EvoWiki...
It looks like it might be in violation of EvoWiki's license agreement. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Violating the copyright's only a problem insofar as we might get sued, I think. As far as I know, the RMF owns EW, and the RMF is unlikely to sue RW.
 * brekkin the law, maaan Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the EvoWiki article authors could sue. Either way, I'm not saying this should be a major concern, but it might be preferable that we come up with some sort of solution. Maybe you can just edit the license agreement a bit? 142․124․55․236 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hurm. The whole deal was supposed to be that it's under a compatible license, c.f. Trent in this edit. I've asked what's up with that - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The licenses are compatible (as far as I can see), but require that the original authors receive proper attribution. So the articles have to be ported over with their history intact or (going by the license agreement on EvoWiki) there needs to be a reference to the original EvoWiki article alongside the copied content. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we just edit the TOU to be the same as RW? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, going a bit deeper into it, non-attribution of the original authors would be problematic considering 4c of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode (RW's license) and 4d of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/legalcode (EW's license). I was thinking someone could change "These terms may be waived if you receive explicit permission to use the material under different terms by Steinsky. This will only be permitted if the contributors to the original article also agree to the terms." on EvoWiki's ToU by adding Tmtoulouse and maybe a few others after Steinsky and removing the second sentence. But since the problem is with the licenses themself... :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the perceived problem, anyway? Is it modification, attribution or both? I doubt the original author have much grounds for a lawsuit. What was at http://wiki.cotch.org/? This site is now dead. Bongolian (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That used to be evowiki.org. I'm not sure why the url was changed. As to the problem, just attribution I think. Personally, I think we can go ahead and ignore this issue, since it's unlikely to become, well, an issue. Guess I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, if it's just attribution that should be easy then: just link back to the original pages. That would probably be a good idea just for attribution purposes, not necessarily copyright purposes. Bongolian (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Linkbak on talkpages then? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WAIT couldn't we just make EvoWiki Public Domain? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That might work. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nuh. Copyright is massive and distributed. Unless there was a terms of use saying EvoWiki could relicense contributions at will (in which case everything is fine) - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Boo. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 11:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia
A lot of that looked doxxy with real names, etc. No? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Targeting B6
Soon, your battleship will be sunk. 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * SnooPING AS usual, I see.--Arisboch (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You saw nothing. 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting your redirect
I'm sure you'd have cleaned it up in all of 3 minutes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. It was accidental. I apologize. =) 18:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

An apology
I've been looking at https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/ this morning and I want to take back absolutely everything negative I ever said about your decision to start up List of Gamergate claims. Holy shit, man, they're so fucking off the wall.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 10:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kek. No apg necessary. 16:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

you couldn't
have even asked if RW thought we needed to port over the "shit ton" of background pages you brought over before doing so? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. 18:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And would help alleviate the concerns of dishonesty on where we got our writings to a degree (in continuation of my block comment)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

...And my axe!
Scroll to the bottom of mah pagez0r. Mad credz, brokofski! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, you reminded me I never finished that. 19:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, check out your essay, I think I broke it. Or maybe now it's atleast considered notableDJFJDIKOSFJLKSD *smashes keyboard in shame-rage* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Poor form my fuzzy friend
Alliteration aside (oh God I can't stop), usually archiving a thread while a conversation is ongoing is ungentlemanly & unwomanly not to mention unAmerican. I had pearls of wisdom to impart in the coop, and now you have robbed everyone of hearing them. Reflect on your sins and when you are ready to return I will allow you to continue to edit here. Tielec01 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * no ragrets 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the children? Won't anyone think of the children? I'm putting you on probation, effective immediately. You may not make more than an edit every 5 minutes and must be editing with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.00. Tielec01 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Another idea on mergers
Considering the success of my proposition to merge the article on Prayer with tons of stubs about prayer (jolly good show on that one, FCP!) I'd also like to suggest the following (non-comprehensive) merger of articles;


 * Appeal to bias
 * Appeal to motive
 * Nothing to hide

...while I feel that these three should absolutely merge into one big article (that more or less contains them all by name), the actual (and not fallacious) logic behind them all is that they're all essentially variants on argumentum ad hominem (since all three of them try to argue that "YOU only hold Y position because YOU Z" and/or "if YOU didn't Y then you wouldn't protest Z", implying that another PERSON would not share the same opinion for that reason alone (of being another person and not you). Aka, ad hominem.

Also, maybe this isn't the right place for this discussion, but I've suggested the same previously without recieving as much as a reply, so I decided to "hit home" on this one. Hope that's fine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been notified earlier that suggestions for mergers have their own dedicated page, namely, RationalWiki:Duplicate articles, so I suggest that this and any other merger proposals be posted there - not least to increase awareness of said page and encourage RW editors to check it more regularly and add their own ideas and comments. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do what the questioning koala suggests, m8. 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that a dedicated talk page for duplicate articles existed - and I'm really happy it does. The discussion is hereby formally moved over there. *Irish Beat Cop* Noothin' taa see heer foolks, shoow's oover, moove along Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Take that! Messing with my pristine article!
All who mess with my article and deface it shall feel the wrath of quantum effects of which are beyond your understanding!!! QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 02:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wuh?
You re-added that worthless bit of code. 13:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * no u 13:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. 14:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that? Accident. 14:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why
Why do we need the section intentionally made to mock me kept around?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So leaving it there instead of deleting it the better option, particularly when I deleted it days ago but some other BoN appeared to restore it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its being there wasn't a problem until you turned it into one by pretending it was one, violating RW's talkpage rules in the process. But then, when have rules ever stopped your abuses of power? -Goonie 184.97.177.236 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do you find all these fallacies to make into articles?
Have you been going to republican presidential debates? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Category:Fallacies
 * Maybe I should go; then the fallacies could have fun names, like the "just keep saying that we should've gotten a vaguely better deal with Iran until people believe it" fallacy. 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you wanna port over EvoWiki articles, don't hesitate to ask. Only 2900 to go! 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Take this apart for me?
q = there is a perfect being


 * 1) q -> Nq (Anselm’s principle)
 * 2) Nq v ~Nq (excluded middle)
 * 3) ~Nq -> N~Nq (Becker’s postulate)
 * 4) Nq v N~Nq (from 2 and 3)
 * 5) N~Nq -> N~q (from 1)
 * 6) Nq v N~q (from 4 and 5)
 * 7) ~N~q (intuitive postulate)
 * 8) Nq (from 6 and 7)
 * 9) Nq -> q (modal axiom)
 * 10) q (from 8 and 9)

Pretty pretty pretty please? I know there is a fallacy, since this logic could prove any statement if correct, but I'm tired. 07:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Foremost, ensure line breaks. 07:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and N is it is logically necessary that. I copypasta'd. Sorry. orz ... Wait is it 5? Is 5 true or only its converse? 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it from here, I'm guessing? 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, some website named new apologetics. Wasn't attributed to anyone, but who knows? 08:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For ease of reading, the letters converted to long form:


 * 1) There is a perfect being Stricly implies It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being (Amselm's primciple)
 * This is essentially valid. If it weren't, then things could be true without warrant. (That said, it's possible that our logic is insufficient, and the being exists for some extralogical reason(s).)
 * 1) It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Or It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being (excluded middle)
 * This is valid. Either something is true or false.
 * 1) It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Stricly implies It is logically necessary that It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being (Becker's postulate)
 * "the claim that modal status is necessary (for instance that the possibility of P implies the necessity of the possibility of P, and also the iteration of necessity)". This is valid, for the same reason as 1.
 * 1) It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Or It is logically necessary that It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being (from 2 and 3)
 * This follows; they just remove ~Nq (the middle term) from the Nq v ~Nq and ~Nq -> N~Nq statements.
 * 1) It is logically necessary that It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Stricly implies It is logically necessary that It is not the case thatThere is a perfect being (from 1)
 * This essentially says that, if you disproved a perfect being, there isn't a perfect being. This is justified on the same grounds as 1.
 * 1) It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Or It is logically necessary that It is not the case thatThere is a perfect being (from 4 and 5)
 * Again, removal of the middle term. Nq v N~Nq and N~Nq -> N~q makes Nq v N~q. Essentially, premises 1-6 have merely proven that either there is or isn't a perfect being, depending on logical necessity.
 * 1) It is not the case thatIt is logically necessary that It is not the case thatThere is a perfect being (imtuitive postulate)
 * 7 asserts that it is possible for a perfect being to exist. This premise is immensely flawed. (See omnipotence paradox, problem of evil, and so many other issues.) However, it's entirely valid.
 * 1) It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being (from 6 and 7)
 * When given two choices, one of which is impossible, you must choose the possible. Valid.
 * 1) It is logically necessary thatThere is a perfect being Stricly implies There is a perfect being (modal axiom)
 * 9 is reverse 1. Pretty valid.
 * 1) There is a perfect being (from 8 and 9)
 * Valid.
 * Fact is, the ontological argument is logically valid in current logics. Its issues come with premises 1 and 7 and q. 1, as noted, is reliant on logic being an accurate descriptor of truth; this appears a pretty decent assumption, but given that logic has changed (and that logic, unlike science, asserts absolute rather than provisional truth) this may be incorrect. 7 relies on the possibility of the existence of a perfect being, which is actually a very very weak assertion -- when was the last time science detected a "perfect" being, and how can we know any can possibly exist? q can be substituted for anything -- replace it with "the most perfect chocolate chip sundae" or "the most evil darkdoer Satan" and it's still valid.
 * My thoughts, at 0438 in the morn. 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Russell said the argument was sound ... but the premise that you can make things exist by describing them might be a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we can logically disprove God, can we not logically prove God? 16:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings
Thanks for the welcome! Rosenkreuz (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Poe's Law
If you look back to 2010 you'll find that they were split off then. So you'd just be undoing a 5 year old edit. Scream!! (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Then why not defend that on the goddamn duplicate article page. 02:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We did that, actually. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy fucking shit no. 141 maybe did, Weasel did. You did not. 11:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing about that guy who said all that stuff
Hey champ! Remember when I said I was working on a large thing on one of our most beloved crank-masters? Well, I decided to upload the VERY, VERY work in progress thing to my sandbox. It's based on the old article, so the parts that currently look identical are just yet to be processed at all by me. So, I just wanted to say; Hey, here's my first attempt at large scale rewriting an article for RW with the hopeful goal of (with the help of people like yourself) getting it to a Gold rating and making it frontpage in the long run. Check it out when you have the time, as very WIP as it is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So does it still hurt
looking at so many fallacies or are you just numb to the pain by now?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I long ago transcended pain and entered the land of schadenfreude. ^_^ 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oneday you shall have to teach me the secrets. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Two steps: First you care, then you don't. 16:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why
Do you think it is a good idea to template newbies, telling them how you bestowed autopatrolled status upon them? CAPTCHA goes away on its own after ten edits or so, and they will not see the red bangs they leave in their wake. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Once or twice someone asked what autopatrolled meant; it's easier to just tell. (2) There's a small chance it could make them feel more valued and thus more like to stay at RW. (3) No really good reason, just habit now. 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

in prticular
"An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as patently offensive material, copyright violations or spam). " We have no obligation to host their linkspam, even in usersace--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See his talkpage. 16:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of an odd thing to put on Tallyrand's talkpage when it's addressed to Paravant, though, no? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Spam is spam. It does not need to promote a product for profit. It can promote a viewpoint for unspecified benefit, maybe even just tenuous internet points. Let the guy find some other blog to host his shit. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mop
Give it back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Coop it up! 04:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should I have to get a coop case up because AgingHippie took away the mop without a coop case? Someone gave it back to me months ago and just because AgingHippie and I were edit warring over the page shouldn't mean I'm at fault.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 04:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "And before you BS me on this, Ryu, taking away that which should not have been given does not require coop. Fuck you." 04:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And 141 pointed out on AgingHippie's page, it was to be at most 2 months and someone gave it back at the end of that 2 month period. I shouldn't have had to petition to get it back. Yours and his ignorance shouldn't mean shit here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A great solution to Israeli-Palestine conflict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSQnfSfAsPM &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mop
So now I'm forced to ask for a goddamn mop, even though I don't want one, because certain people just can't learn that pages just can't be locked out completely and unilaterally as their own little playground. I am very, very unhappy I have to ask for one, considering it violates my principles. But needs must. So, I would like to request my mop, please. --Castaigne (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in the same unfortunate position :| Ghost (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the mop. Now, in order to be even-handed and NOT an ass in using it, I'm going to back off making any changes for a few days. And determine to be neutral in my use of it.
 * I really hate power. It requires responsibility and I despise that. --Castaigne (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then keep away from labs, where they experiment with radioactive/genetically altered spiders :D --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Goat Suggestion
Hello FCP! The suggestion you gave here is really good, and it is indeed a side note from the deletion debate. Let me suggest you separate yourself from the deletion discussion on this point and actually open an official duplication ticket instead? I'd support that. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Account Deletion
I request that my account be deleted. I have nothing further to discuss. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't have the power to do that. 20:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new edit in the "Nonsense Claims" section for the Sarkeesian article
Hi there, I'm bringing this to you since you were pretty helpful on feedback with the edit I made for List of Gamergate claims. I figured I'd bring this proposed edit to your attention as well http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Proposed_new_.22Nonsense_Claim.22_to_address:_.22She.27s_a_scam_artist.21_She_promised_us_this_amount_of_videos_in_this_amount_of_time.21.22. Do you have editing power with that article, and if not do you know who else to contact that does? Jon91919 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Proposed_new_.22Nonsense_Claim.22_to_address:_.22She.27s_a_scam_artist.21_She_promised_us_this_amount_of_videos_in_this_amount_of_time.21.22

Nomination?
Can I nominate you for mod? KOM 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, though I'm not sure I stop more HCM than start it. Also it doesn't start until tomorrow 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated!
Though KOMF beat me to the punch. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ravens
I'm presuming you're from Maryland as well. How do you think the Ravens should handle this season in terms of FA signings, the draft, and the offseason? Would you want them to finish with a low record to get a better, higher draft pick? ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * tbqf my knowledge of sports generally ends at knowledge of the MD team names, but given that the football draft favors underdogs it would seem to make sense to do poorly after such a good year. (Get a nice little sine function of success going on, win the Superbowl every other year, no biggie.) =P 14:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you're Cleveland, Jacksonville, or Detroit who always draft early and never end up better than they are lol. But for the Ravens, it's worked well. Bad year in 2002 landed us Terrell Suggs, bad year in 2005 landed us Haloti Ngata, and bad year in 2007 landed us Flacco and Ray Rice when he was good. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Football is my fave because it has a metagame more significant than "have the most $" (or "actually understand statistics and run a baseball team"). 20:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead
Judge for yourself old timer. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Over 9000 hours in MS Paint
, I made you the world's shittiest campaign poster for the upcoming moderator elections. It'd be pretty hilarious if you actually put it to use, which I hope you do. For what it's worth, you have my vote. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I put it to use on your campaign page (in shrunken form, for the mobile using dweebs like myself). I'm officially giving you permission to edit my talkpost there in order to use the picture differently, e.g. by using it in the top of your statement instead of having me display it at the bottom, etc. Or, technically, you may of course remove it entirely - if you're made of stone. :3 All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fan-art? OFC I'll use it. 14:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

An idea
Aneris quote generator? Eh? DrageDrake (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mm, too lazy. 02:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the free square should read "LEFT-LIBERAL" and be a link to Slate Star Codex - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hovercat
Looks familiar. Walker Walker <font color=#AAAAEE>Walker 10:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

in the future
less "but without us it won't exist anywhere!" and "but whats the harm of having it?" articles please. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that it was a single article which I didn't know where to put.... 22:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would work better had you not tried the same thing in the summer with all the policy pages-- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * & that was addressed then 22:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Shit.
As soon as you get your mod powers, can you salt the earth at a level at which that isn't visible? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gladly. I'll tell Paravant to do it in the meantime. 18:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
As head of the, what was it? ..Right! As, uh, head of the FCP Foundation Organ for Political Collusion and Slander - or, FCPFOPCS for comfort - I'd like to congratulate you on winning the election! :)

Jokes aside though, all the best! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks. I've always enjoyed having the fuh-cup-fop-kss at my back. 20:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can always count on the support of the disgustingly loyalist FCPFOPCS.
 * We're kinda like your very own And there are dozens of us... DOZENS! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, don't miss that the first half of the phonetics for FCPFOPCS are literally "fuck-up" (fuh-cup). This, this shows promise. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Go forth my felid minion
Hi FCP, I requested this of Paravant, but it seems he is living off a phone. Can you move this page to here? It seems to have some sort of protection on it, otherwise I would do it myself. Not sure what we are expected to do with the current content of the results page - maybe merge it into the archive of the 2013 election? Cheers big ears. Tielec01 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but Paravant did it just before you, causing hilarious shenanigans. Tielec01 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

♫ This I tell you brother, you can't have one without the other ♫
Gave your merger suggestions some thought and ended up casting my vote on your side. Also snorted and scoffed at Weaseloid; felt pretty cool knowing I was a pretty heavy bro in doing so. Anyhow; you wouldn't mind taking a look at these two (and giving them your honest consideration), would you, Mr. Whiskers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your honor, I object to this edit summary. <font color=#006600>Walker <font color=#55AA55>Walker <font color=#AAEEAA>Walker 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did the bike fall over? It was two tired Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Pascal's_wager/Anti-gods
The second point is flawed. The set being infinite doesn't mean it necessarily fills the domain. Perhaps wp:Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel can shred some light on what I was talking about. Or that you might want to rephrase what "infinite" you were referring to. User:K61824User_talk:K61824 22:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mm, that's reasonable. My thought is essentially that, if someone postulates any god "X", there is no greater likelihood that it exists than that god "anti-X" exists. Any suggestions on how to improve? 03:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I booped your snoot
Context. Thoughts on this, o whiskered one? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To do
02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Motte+and+bailey+doctrine&timestamp=20151130085549
 * http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Motte+and+bailey+doctrine&timestamp=20151103165356
 * http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bait-and-switch&action=edit&redlink=1
 * http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Milk_before_meat&action=edit

that feeling
that you are feeling right now? The annoyance that all your attempts to refocus the discussion and keep things sane fail? That's how it was back in July-August for me. Welcome to Rationalwiki Moderation Team, it's like trying to herd a bunch of 8 year olds who just learned all of the worlds swears. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you. Go moderate something. Keep things from escalating. Go to the involved parties' talk pages and convince them to step back. Tell them to stop fucking with blocks and user rights. Use some good-natured humour to de-escalate. Convince people who are not contributing positively to resolving the dispute to step back and keep that page from growing. Talk to the principle parties and see what they need to be happy and see if it's possible to give it to them. Use your powers to block, lock and delete in wise and creative ways if all else fails. But do not let this thing spiral out of control. That is the job you ran for. Bloody well do it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with AH. And I'll avoid Hipocrite if mods impose discipline. No need for snark and vitriol from anyone, including me.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take my name out yo mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussion isn't working anymore. Convincing them isn't working anymore. We have to actually decide on something because it is not going to stop or deescalate. Any De-escalation we will get now will immediately go away the next time Ryulong decides to do something again. -- "Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * i will as soon as I'm not furiously working IRL 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Imposing order upon chaos
Didn't you make an election promise to clean up the coop process? Gird your loins, muster your courage and once more unto the breach brave feline! Never forget that you are empowered by the mandate of the mob. The fickle fickle mandate of the ever-changing mob. Tielec01 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Two mods and the mob disagree with Paravant and I. If anything, the coop process says I shouldn't act. :/ 01:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, this will only b resolved by moderator fiat. It'll be a wonderful HCM afterwards, but I cannot foresee any other resolute outcome. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What would we (the 2 out of 3 (?) mods) be fiating? 04:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been out earning a living....
...and missed everything that happened after ~ 5PM New York time. Can you please summarize for me, and thanks if, as it looks, you were the one who finally stepped up and actually moderated something. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * [1] I was going to vandalbrake Ryulong, but Goonie beat me to the punch. [2] I announced that the shitfest was going to be all done for now. [3] Paravant archived the shitfesty parts. That's about it, I think. Gonna sleep. 06:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, RE: "In retrospect, I (or another mod) should have acted long ago." Yes. We gave you power. Use it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
I am getting really tired of this constant drama and I wanted to ask if you wouldn't you mind banning this user name indefinitely (but allow talk page editing)? Not that I won't stop reading, I especially find the WIGO's interesting, I just don't want to be associated with this project anymore. I think you have been fair minded and this won't seem as favoring a "side" in these conflicts. I am willing to do as you desire to confirm. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, I can definitely ban you, but why? You can do it yourself, if you so desire, and being unbanned != having to edit. 16:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I can't and I specifically asked not to be allowed those user rights. Largely since I didn't feel like I could be fair minded or give the proper due diligence in some of these conflicts.  I just want to put a barrier for myself to edit.  I can always send a message to re-activate the account, but I don't know in what time period that might be.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Goatspeed EmeraldCityWanderer. And, Assholes Are Killing Your Project (about 30 mins in the video he explains how many people leave every time they're a witness to a needless conflicts). Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow CS, how did you find that video? It accurately describes the state of RW. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm repeating myself, but that dynamic destroys comments sections all over the Internet. Unless and until the crapflooders and other abusive users that drive decent people batshit are expelled. A site will attract the lowest form of behavior it permits while driving away those who cannot tolerate it.---Mona- (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "A site will attract the lowest form of behavior it permits while driving away those who cannot tolerate it." Well phrased, Mona. And true. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Factual Issues
Hi there. I am mentioned by RL name in the article Timeline of Gamergate and have flagged some concerns on the article talk page. Can you have a look please? Vordrak (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Watch out, this guy is willing to dox and harass people to whitewash anything negative about him. Typhoon (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See what your careless hands have wrought
I appreciate the noble sentiment of stepping into the nest of vipers in the service of balance, but we are currently in the midst of a crapshow of new accounts flooding talk pages with tripe and making veiled threats against editors:.

Next time, think once, think twice, then decide not to do it. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a lot of posting. :/
 * If that person does shit, I'll eagerly ban them. 15:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, The funny thing is that HokesOne is a moderator of /r/GamerGhazi.
 * Because, of course, no-one on the GG side would ever dream of impersonating someone else. Although if that is the real them, they did a crappy job of sarcasm. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask anyway.Keter (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't edit wikis so it's an impersonator." It's a troll account.Keter (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you get that stated somewhere verifiable and public? Then I'll ban the impersonator. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * http://i.imgur.com/VfSrV0o.png Might not be any more verifiable without getting the real HokesOne to post or giving you the keys to my reddit account.Keter (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good enough. I'm sure we'll hear about it if it was in error. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'mma do this

 * *bonks you with a cardboard tube* 11:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I... wha? 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry so terse
My reply to your call to be "nice" is more terse and crabby than I meant for it to be. You just happened to push one of my buttons, in that I am really disgusted by the "civility police" online. We have our own RW article on the Tone argument, and I'm not saying you are doing that, but I generally reject that expressing contempt, in sharp terms, is always unacceptable. In my circles we are, um, contemptuous of civility policing and your admonishment was similar enough to what I greatly dislike that I wasn't very graceful in my reply.---Mona- (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong-like problems
Hey man, can you check out the recent edits to Talk:Gamergate? Kitsunelaine (who claims not to be Ryulong) edited the formatting of my post, then edit-warred when I reverted, then blocked me to win the edit war... just like Ryulong did. Either way, Ryulong or not, they shouldn't be doing it. Can you have a talk with them (or give me sysop so I can unblock the next time.) I'd appreciate it. Sarah (HH) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked you because you were being very aggressive in fixing a formatting problem that was not of my creation and accusing me of batshit stuff while doing so. I only blocked you for five minutes. Grow up. - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right here you changed the formatting of my post. Don't do that in the future, and don't edit war to preserve it. Sarah (HH) 03:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot I did that, which is my mistake. And your needles paragraph separation breaks the flow of the page, as we are all a part of the same discussion. Other people edit formatting on the page all the time, there is no reason for you to have acted that way against me. You have a non-case. - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot you did it, yet when I undid it explaining that you had, you reverted not one, not two but three times. Huh, that looks an awful lot like this Coop complaint  where Ryulong did the exact same thing to me. Amazeballs. Sarah (HH) 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because you were acting in a completely and totally batshit manner towards me so I just assumed you were full of shit. - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, that's almost exactly what Ryulong said in the coop case I just linked. Sarah (HH) 03:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother reading it. :) - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was Mona that changed the formatting. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OH SHIT, SON - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, this diff (which I'll link as many times as it takes) it NOT you removing the space above my post and this one is not you justifying it, by claiming it "breaks the flow" or some other dragon-related inanity. Okaaaay. Sarah (HH) 03:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Dragon-related" You're insane. Also, I can totally justify the actions of other users, and until a friendly IP here suggested that it might not have been me, I acted under the assumption that you were correct. - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked the diff you silly pony! Im'a link it again as promised: BAM! Sarah (HH) 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But you're refusing to address the diff BoN above linked. I wonder why? - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gish Gallop - Sarah (HH) 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ....Um. No? The fact that Mona changed your formatting too and you're not calling her Ryu-hitler is a very important fact. Also, deleting extra cartridge returns is something everyone seems to do around here. - <font color="#9933ff"> Kitsunelaine <font color="#F47A00"> 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Methinks the lady doth protest too much! To err is human, to edit war to retain such errs then block the offended party unjust is "to dragon." Two relevant english poets in one reply, where do I collect my bonus points?! Sarah (HH) 04:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolution: Both of you shut up. This is a minute issue and you're insulting each other over it. 04:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You... are right. Disengaging. Sarah (HH) 04:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for my mop back
The errors that resulted in it's removal will not be repeated, you and RW as a whole have my word on that. Also, happy holidays! Arcane (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope so. Happy holidays! 04:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mop
I'd like my mop back, please. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go and sin no more - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ 17:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

per your comment
I promise. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thx bae 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Aurini
Good Lord. You actually listened through to get this one? Your poor brain - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's only melted a bit at the edges 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, note while I'm still here
First off, happy holidays, FCP. Second, I'm sticking around because I noticed a lot of unfunny vandals have been popping up and while I plan to stay away from the GG topic (I had my say like I wanted and I'll leave that to others now), I don't like vandals who are just around to edit in bad faith no matter what ideology I might hold, so I'd like to use my mop to keep them from shitting up the place by directing them to the vandal bin. Arcane (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Had some article ideas I wanted to bounce off you
Since I'd rather focus on writing some actual content here that won't cause a massive firestorm of political BS, I was considering whether some articles on cryptology and related topics would be a good idea, if it was on mission, and if so, where would it best fit under? I figured since we cover Bible code and encryption, it would be a good addition, especially since there are some crackpot theories surrounding codebreaking and ciphers. Arcane (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could probably move the encryption page to a general cryptology page and expand on its woo. 15:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I'll try to gather research, start a sandbox page, and see if I can't cover that subject in better detail. Arcane (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a fair amount of work done on my Cryptography article, was wondering if you think Encryption is ready for redirect into it and the main article ready for main space. Arcane (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems ready for mainspace. I wish there was more evidence on woo related to cryptography -- maybe some specific stories and some specific citations? 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some information on misconceptions about encryption, not sure if it can be described as "encryption woo". I'm new here so I didn't want to add too much and have it reverted. TiGa (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair use
I noticed that you're uploading pretty much anything and just slapping the "fair use" label on it... Stuff like this really isn't fair use... There are many, many more examples...

To make matters worse, you typically don't mention an author or source; so verifying permissions or asking for it is impossible. Not to mention that we should probably give "credit where it is due" ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did, in fact, cite the source for both Satan hiding fossils and God hiding bones on Last Thursdayism. I've sent emails to both Formal Sweatpants and Amorphia Apparel, asking permission. I could not find the source for File:Noah hiding fossils.jpg yesterday, but it appears to be People in White Coats, who has a copyleft on their work. I'll update that page accordingly. 00:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're asking permission to include them in the articles, they shouldn't be there till it's confirmed. 00:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't see that. You should put that sort of information in the file description, not on the page where it's used (or both). There are also many more images besides these two; from the last 2 weeks:
 * File:Genetic "variation".gif
 * File:Satan hiding fossils.png
 * File:People Have It Worse Than You SMBC.gif
 * Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Genetic "variation"" is from AIG and can reasonably be considered fair use as an explanation of their ideas, no?
 * I got permission for "Satan hiding fossils" from the producer, Amorphia Apparels (as said above). Same goes for Noah hiding fossils. 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehh, yeah. The "Genetic "variation" is okay; it wasn't clear to me that it was from AiG.
 * If you have permission, then why do you use the fair use template? Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignorance. What template is better? 04:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If they've given permission for usage on RW, I would say :
 * Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you fix this?
Perhaps now that you're a mod you can finally fix this: RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive248.

All it needs is adding a line to MediaWiki:Blockedtext. You should be able to use:


 * $6 for the expiry of the block
 * $8 for the timestamp when the block started

Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still see the old message, probably due to some caching... I'll try again later. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, doing a purge fixed it. But the links don't work: see image. The "Carpetsmoker" links back to my userpage; so I guess you don't need to add the links yourself. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still the same ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops, will fix. 00:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's fixed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I know?
Would reply by block but this won't easily fit. Based on this edit Nekrif58 is 120.144.40.84. 120.144.40.84 contributions to the talk pages of Lee Kuan Yew and English Democrats are signed KJ-24. I would prefer to have this user's edits easily identifiable for a while longer. --WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:) 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfectly reasonable. I didn't know; thanks! 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, I concur Fuzzy. It's great info. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. I only noticed because I was curious about the edits to the English Democrats talk page and was expecting vandalism by someone else. WatcherIntheDark (Codeword:) 22:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

An article I'd like to do
Hey, I noticed that the last couple of "attempts" at creating a clear, cohesive articles on a technocracy were... not successful, to say the least. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to recreate one, or if its just a lost cause at this point. Sierra Nav (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Sierra Nav
 * Go right ahead! Past failure of trolls isn't really indicative of whether the article could be good. Good luck!  23:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I created an article and defined it, but I just realized that there was an article on the Technocratic movement. Should we merge the two, or delete mine? Sierra Nav (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Sierra Nav
 * They can stay separate. The technocracy movement supported technocracy plus uber-NAFTA plus kinky uniforms. 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I really appreciate the feedback! Sierra Nav (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Sierra Nav

Rating templates
What's the deal with the rating templates? What's wrong with the documented method? If we need a new procedure, this should be done properly (with docs updated, rate gadget updated, existing pages updated with a bot, etc).

Because right now it seems to me that you're doing one thing, and everyone else is doing something else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, rated only puts the category on the talkpages while pri does it on the main page which makes it easier for category to work.
 * Actually, the status quo is nobody does rated and only I do pri. ;P
 * I'd love if you could write a bot up to do it, tbh I don't know how. 05:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true, as I also add ratings (sometimes...)
 * Can't we just keep the existing talk page template minus the category, and add the appropriate Category:.. line to the pages? Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a template helps standardize the process; it also shows an article as high/mid priority, which might attract editors.
 * We could keep the template, but what purpose would it serve? 05:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In a distant past it was agreed on that editor information (or "showing nuts 'n bolts" as David calls it) should be on the talk page ... There's something to be said for that; why does a reader care what priority a page is? I doubt anyone would visit our page, see a random "HIGH" floating somewhere, and thinks "oh, lets improve this!". The largest value is in people *looking* for something to do, and they can now open a category with "High priority pages" to see if anything tickles their fancy. An additional advantage would be maybe using this info in sidenavs and such.
 * It's different from the actual rating insofar that conveys useful information to a reader.
 * Right now there's a random "HIGH" floating in the title. It looks weird. "MID" or "LOW" are even worse. Even if we fix that do that it spells High priority" and "Low priority", I doubt this has any use. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, is busy adding pri templates to all the pages. It'll probably take a while for it to finish. Once that's done, we can remove the category from rated and we should be sorted. I removed the topicon for now; if you really want it, we can add it back later (but that's a bit of a separate issue as such).Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's done... I haven't done anything with the rated template yet... Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the "rate" gadget has to keep working through all this too - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yah, I looked at it this morning, and got dismayed by it. Not used to JavaScript any more, and certainly not jQuery-less JS :-/ I'll do it some time soon™ Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sysop rights
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AMichaeldsuarez

May I please have my sysop rights restored so that I can participate on Talk:Timeline_of_Gamergate? The sysop-only protection that Gerard added to the page back in December is still in effect, so I'm currently unable to address the edit war that Weaseloid seems intent on waging. I had sysop rights for nearly four years without issue, so I'm bewildered at how they were removed recently. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is why. 08:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment or personal information
Regarding the Jinxmchue page, that's bullshit. Jinx clearly posted that information in public; therefore it was public information. Old guard (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mm. You're right that he posted it publicly, but our page on doxxing notes "[t]o a lesser degree, it also includes detective work piecing together information the target has revealed about themselves but which is obscure." Do you think I should unhide it? 22:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it wasn't doxxing. On apage about a then-Conservapedia admin, somebody said "Hey look! His e-mail address is is on his userpage!" That's as much doxxing as it would be if somebody said I, for example, mined bitcoins as a weird hobby. I am not hiding my hobby, and Jinx didn't hide his e-mail address. Old guard (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. Will do. Thanks! 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

DMorris2
As you are a super duper janitor around here, just thought you should know that I think them being a sysop is a very bad idea. This is part of the reason. The detective in me also suspects they're helping Vordrak, Michaeldsuarez, et al. Old guard (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okie, seems pretty fair. (Yes, it violates RW:CS; I'll mod-stamp-approve this or whatever.) If they complain, I'll care about due process. 04:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

quotation
Thanks for mentioning that a study on the subject should be given: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/46317/1/bulletin_1991_69%284%29_415-423.pdf

"Air quotes"?
Perhaps you meant "scare quotes"? "Air quotes" are a gesture. :) --AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 's an honest mistake, officer, I swear 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing can evade the eye of the Illuminati.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Another viewpoint? Happy to oblige
First off, if it was in any shape, way or form implied that I was trying to antagonize Mona's fellow Americans, then she has embellished more than usual.

Second, no, I'm not stalking her. Mona seems to have a dualistic world-view, so people are either angels or demons, and the same goes for causes. We are on opposite sides about Noam Chomsky. Her friend Glenn Greenwald was dragged in, because he plays a ridiculously large role in the Comsky-article.

Mona can dish it out but she can't take it. That's all. You're the second moderator she's run to. The first was David Gerard, who imposed a moderator block on Chomsky. He then dismissed the case for his part due to lack of interest, which I fully understand. Fine with me. You're the second. This seems to be a habit of her's.

I did try to make peace with her, twice. That was honestly meant on my side. Then I realized that there can be no peace with her, if one airs an opposite opinion. I was late to accept that, but that seems to be the case. I'm sad to say that the definition wingnut seems to be made to fit American conservative lunatics. It's good that they are ridiculed, snarked or what you will. But Mona seems to view them as the only target for RW. That can not possibly be true or RW is for nothing.

The article about Chomsky was pure hagiographic drivel. When I looked at Glenn Greenwald, it was the same. As for the latter, I had seen the name at some point, but there was a link to him from Chomsky, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. After reading both articles as they were, I started to wonder, when these guys would start walking on water.

And yes, Mona's fears. She has been extraordinarily obliging with details about herself, so there's no need to stalk her or research her. The only „research“ on her I've ever done was long ago, when I was looking at the Fossil Record of some page and was astonished at the number of edits by her, and how dispersed they were over the day. So I took a look at her contributions that day and found out that she apparently does little but editing RW. Whether she was really nervous or not, I don't know. She left comments to that effect. She may have left them for reference or she may have been nervous. I wouldn't put faking it past her. If she really is nervous, then she simply should not engage in fencing about snark about her favorites.

As for me, you can find fault in many ways, but when all is said and done, any threat from me is purely imaginary.

Will that do for an answer? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I will not engage in any email exchange with anybody now on board RW. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another PS: Sorry for intruding again, but I just checked the Chomsky talk page, just to read it again coolly. Personally I would be hard pressed to read anything sinister into what I've written there. What you have is somebody who loves writing, and does so for his amusement. I would not be bothered by this if the shoe were on the other foot. True, I love irony, sarcasm and cynicism, but then again, there's nothing criminal in that. If it was in bad taste, well, to each his own. CheersSorte Slyngel (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because I'm curious: Do you intend to banish me to the outermost reaches of hell or is this case finished, as far as you are concerned? In case of further complaints, there are still four moderators left. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On another matter
Could you be so friendly as to tell me, what you inserted where, to change your name's appearance with every post? It's quite cool. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig, then the following for the sig entry in preferences:
 * 01:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will probably imitate that one day. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Alkaline diet
That was me hitting the wrong button and apparently not noticing I'd done so. Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll live. =) 20:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to point one thing out
I am prepared to tone it down although I will mock Chomsky. Who exempted him from ridicule? I seriously doubt Mona is willing. She will not have her pets meddled with. If you have the stamina, I advise checking her undoing record. You will see quite a lot about me too, but I don't hold much of RW-content sacrosanct. Snark is applicable to everyone. Views are different, but that does not mean that any single person should be able to dictate the contents of an article. I don't bother with anything but Chomsky now. You might be able to tell me, why every edit I've made in that article has softly and suddenly vanished away due to Mona. And actually, very few seem to care, despite her declarations of being the majority — in her case this seems to be literally true, since a minority of one makes a majority — although she couches it in the terms of being in the majority. I have admitted, that I have my flaws and I think I know about most of them. That does not make me a batcrazy whatever. I have edited neutral articles, and nobody seems to mind that. I have a suggestion. Just look at my contributions and check the non-controversial articles. I have not been prolific, but you might get a better idea. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot: If you ever find an outright lie by me, please mention it. That should be easily studied. The you might check Mona for outright lies. The difference is interesting, but you are forgiven if you decide not to. That would be the 13. labor of Hercules, given her enormous output. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Test (not so sticky)
Spam User:Some loser 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Test (not so sticky another time)
Spam User:Some loser 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A thank you
The thank you is for keeping a cool head, whatever feelings you have about me. The idea of writing essays is appealing, but in the spur of the moment — I was pretty angry at the mob, not you — I misunderstood, and took it to mean an essay about Chomsky which would then die a quiet death in oblivion. I now get your meaning. If I were to write an essay, it would probably be about an „arcane“ subject, arcane to foreigners that is, for instance about. As I understand it, there is no practical limit on the subjects you can write about. Preferably well written, of course, but being an obscure topic isn't a hindrance here. The Wikipedia-article is bad, and nobody can decide on his own what the article should be like. I doubt rímur would interest many here, but among the essays I seem to recall quite a few interesting ones not explicitly dealing with the politics of the day. And foreign language speaker might be curious about alliteration, just to take an example. To sum up, educational pieces seem to be welcome.

But since I have neither been blocked, banned or de-mopped, I'd like to make a suggestion. Let's make it three weeks. You have my word that I will not touch Chomsky for three weeks counting from today including the final day, so I will edit Chomsky at the earliest 17. February.

It is not acceptable that anyone should be forbidden to edit anything that could be traced back to I-P in any way. That would result in not being allowed to mention oranges.

But you seem to be a man of honor, and I usually keep my promises unless forced to break them, i.e. in an emergency. I would like to have your answer, whether this is satisfactory. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Cool head: No prob.
 * Re: Essay: Yea, that's the idea.
 * Re: 3weeks: Sounds good. The idea for an IP topic ban (esp. Chomsky) is merely to let you & Mona cool down, not to prevent you from expressing an opinion on IP. As such, feel free to take a strict version of what "IP" means, & feel free to use userspace. 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I cooled off I understood it to mean, that an essay about Chomsky could be written and well-researched parts used in his article. In any case, I wonder whether my old friend, Mona, will be willing to take the same advice. Somehow I doubt it. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chomsky article is replete with references to Israel. It's a major reason people hate on him. It is absolutely part of the I-P category. Including linguists who let themselves get sucked into publishing in that polemical garbage Horowitz et al wrote. Sorte, stay out of Chomsky, Muslims, New Atheists who are aligned with pro-Israel people, e.g. Harris. Just back off. Those are my usual editing topics; they have not usually been yours. So, give me a break and try to get over this fixation on me. Please. It very, very much creeps me out.---Mona- (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is he banned from the talk pages tho? CorruptUser (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason why most people hate on Chomsky is because he's an expert on linguistics who thinks such expertise gives him carte blanche to pontificate and moralize on issues he's not expert on. IE, arrogance. He should really just shut up about genocides and what-not till he acquires some credentialed expertise on the subject. It's as embarrassing as Dawkins' forays into things he knows jack-all about. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to introduce the Mona number in honor of Paul Erdös and Kevin Bacon. How big must the Mona number be, for anybody to be allowed to edit an article? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting contributions to talk pages
Some user has deleted important contributions over at talk:Noam Chomsky. And now the page is blocked so I can't say my opinion. Is this how wikis work? I don't think so! 146.185.147.55 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mona wanted a whole week. Rather than constantly fight her, I changed it to a day.  Really it shouldn't have been blocked, but w/e.  If someone else wants to remove the protection, go ahead. CorruptUser (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AgingHippie protected the article to keep the BoN trolls out of the edits, a protection I extended. The same malicious trolls are now targeting the talk page, and voting. They have no right to vote.---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason why I want to have the section I put back
I am not seeking conflict. The idea was to kill as much of the myth that I'm following Mona wherever she goes. I provided two examples with true explanations. If people want to mention specific instances, I'll answer that. But if Mona absolutely wants to intrude with anything else than examples — well, this is not her home ground. If it develops into a thread then it is the poster's fault. The format should be: „You know this and how can you know, unless you've been stalking?“ I would then provide an answer. I have not touched much of anything since I gave my promise, and I stick to that. But I believe forced archiving is not warranted. But if you really want to, you can discuss the pros and cons with me. I will bow to superior judgment, if that will be the case. In the end, people have every opportunity not to visit my talk page. I don't know if this seems reasonable to you, but it does to me. Still, as said, feel free to convince me otherwise. You can mail me, if you wish. I set up a new account explicitly for RW, and I have your address anyway. That last remark is not a threat. I would never „dox“ anyone — that would be criminal even if there may not be laws to cover that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FCP, do you expect your authority to be respected?
You made it very clear Sorte was not to edit the Chomsky page. After that, he went and...edited the Chomsky page, leading his edit summary saying "Come what may." You have done nothing about that.

So, I assume that when you act as a mod and instruct the rest of us, we are free to take it all as suggestions.---Mona- (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot has happened in between. And you were given the same advice I was. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I quite expected to be punished. It was the unfairness of it all that galled me, and last night I was quite prepared to leave RW for good because of the likes of you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A technical question
I'm playing with the essay idea. I need some technical advice. If I were to write something about poetry, the nature of rímur or something else about Icelandic poetry, or come to that Icelandic literature in general, is there a way of coloring, bolding and so on? I have looked, but can you point me to a page, where I find instructions for how to, say, coloring a word or a single letter within a stanza bold and red — or whatever the case may be? I'm sure you get the drift. If I do this, and I really have been playing with the idea for longer than RW has existed, some careful formatting will be needed. And, yes, teasing Mona isn't actually a hobby. I do have interests apart from RW, but I don't see why the one in a thousand or ten thousand readers who might be interested shouldn't be able to read something obscure. That kind of thing is relaxing for me at least. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Color: Red = Red
 * Bolding: Bold = Bold
 * 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)