User talk:TheroadtoWiganPier/Archive1

Greetings, Comrade. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
14:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You foolish old thing.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks? 03:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome
Glad to be of service! Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sysop
KOMF 11:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Living persons
There are 1200 articles. Don't do it all yourself. :P We could probably get someone to write a bot to do it... maybe. Ask Narky. 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of my sanity .I will put an appeal for a suitable bot writer in the Saloon thread.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Falun Gong
You literally did the reversion while I was double-checking my own reversion. You work quickly. :P ArcticVixen (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like a ferret after a rabbit :) More seriously, if you want to make a case for the culty snark at Falun Gong being removed, please take it to the talk page --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, it was a BoN, not me. I was putting the snark back in. ArcticVixen (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, see that very clearly... err.. now. No impingement on your fine intentions was meant :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kopi luwak
Hey...thanks for the touch up and source. I'm never so good turning out a crisp article. Cheers! -- Shabi DOO  19:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. The article is actually very good. Well done. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

George
Orwell. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * .. is watching. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * *tips trilby* . &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite odd!---Mona- (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, I was referring to George Orwell a socialist and author of The Road to Wigan Pier, a great book. Trilbies and fedoras are often associated with (commonly leftist/pretentious) internet culture. In short, I thought I'd make a joke. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I toss you a Flying Aspidistra, good sir.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks from Mmoore29, and new ideas for topics
Thanks for everything concerning the John Lydon article. I definitely had fun adding to it. That said, I have ideas for future article subjects. First is not my idea, but one of the To Do List ideas I've supported, the rest are wholly my own. -I feel it's definitely time for articles on Chris Kyle, American Sniper, and the vast differences in Clint Eastwood's film from the truth, as well as the pitiful conservative reaction to it losing Best Picture to Birdman, and the xenophobic reaction to that win.

-The work of Canadian comedian (he's not a YouTuber, he just uses YouTube to distribute his work) Adam Buckley, best known as A Dose of Buckley. He's very intriguing, and his slogan is "Angry Humour From An Angry Man." He has many interesting opinions. Not all of them are fully based in fact, of course, but he's hilarious nonetheless. That said, there are areas where he can give The Amazing Atheist and Thunderf00t a run for their money in terms of being an asshole, though this time it's meant to be that way. His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9kMnSZQd53hE-1sb1f9sdA/videos?feature=hovercard

-There should be a full article about the disaster that was A Rape on Campus, what Rolling Stone got right and wrong in its reactions to the investigations, as well as the hypocrisy of the fact that many of the publications that excoriated Rolling Stone have committed many of the same sins in reporting alleged rapes, as well as the fact that trolls that keep harassing Rolling Stone and demanding its closure and talking about accountability aren't demanding that Jackie explain herself. This last part has to be done in a way that can't be misconstrued as blaming the victim.

-There should be additional information about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, particularly to combat people's growing opinions that Bill Clinton was given a pass on the matter (clearly not remembering the state of the press in 1998) and Lewinsky's latest public appearances and interviews.

-There should also be discussion about the arrogance of Oliver Stone, Randall Wallace (writer for Braveheart, Pearl Harbor, We Were Soldiers, and wrote and directed We Were Soldiers and Heaven Is For Real) and Spike Lee for their claims to be great historians as well as filmmakers. Stone's case should start with the fact that Born on the Fourth of July had 2 major deviations from the story of Ron Kovic that the real Kovic agreed with (he co-wrote the script), that even then were controversial, then a major look at his absolute lack of accuracy with The Doors, JFK (especially turning Jim Garrison into a hero), Nixon and Alexander.

Respond on my talk page for your thoughts. Thanks again for everything.Mmoore29 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * John Lydon was fun. Mostly shit and giggles but the article stands up I think. And not one use of the word enigma :) . On your other suggestions, errr, I will get back you! --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not an MRA
I am not an MRA, but a feminist (I assume) like you should know that gender equality means talking about double standards from all sides. How many comedies are there where a woman gets away with slapping a man, or throwing a drink in his face in a humorous context. Also, it is a basic fact that domestic violence against men is taken less seriously, and in some cases the man is blamed for the incident. This is because of the role of the "big, strong man that can handle a woman's aggressions" when there clearly are many men who do get abused by women. Also women do often get lighter sentences because society views women as frail and emotional beings, even if it is the exact same crime. EuroBurro (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's sexism, not privilege. Learn to tell the difference. Withoutaname (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment to you in the coop
If you already understand the situation, I would find your vote odd, but I think you likely do not. I, ChrisAmiss, 142BoN and others who frequently edit articles pertaining to Israel are driven batshit by Avenger, who edit wars constantly, even wehen he knows he's in the minority (he always is). Paravant has taken away both sysop and autopatrol, and gave the latter back only a week ago -- pointedly NOT returning sysop. This is for good reason. Then Avenger edit warred again today. How can it makes sense to respond by reinstating sysop?!---Mona- (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mona, I have been away for a while with no internet access as you might or might not have noticed. But I am of course aware of the issues pertaining to Avenger and Israel-related articles which pre-date that absence. I do not quite get the current coop case though, at least some of which seems to relate to site policy on vandal-binning. I believe the correct place to discuss that would be on the relevant policy page and not in a coop case relating to a specific editor.
 * As for user sysop rights. Well, this so rarely makes any difference to an editor's abilities to work on the wiki, I don't see the big deal. The only time I really feel strongly about de-sysoping an editor is when those rights have been abused to ban other editors - for example I voted against Ryulong receiving his sysop rights back for that very reason. So, Avenger with sysop, is it really such a big deal?  I think the only time that might make a difference to what he can do on the site is when an article is locked at the level where only sysops can edit.  Or am I missing something here? If so, please do explain.
 * Worth saying also that I have tried to keep my own personal views out of this. On the Israel/Palestine related articles, I am almost always agree with you. And I have had irritating run-ins with Avenger on other subjects also.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think she meant the other comment. Also, when Avenger was given a mop before, he abused that privilege to edit war relentlessly (the means of stopping a fellow sysop from edit warring are rather limited), so there's that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Other comment? I think I am lost. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Paravant and others of us have, over the last several months, made recourse to sysop-locking pages to shut Avenger out. He'll edit war til the cows come home when he decides it's time to. But that raises the real issue now presented: I've been given totally contradictory directions about what to do when an editor edit wars. Some lock pages, but a few weeks ago Aging Hippie had told me not to after he unlocked a page I'd protected, only to find out he sysop-locked the Zionism page last July to keep Avenger out. But me, AH told me to bin an edit-warring editor and never to lock a page (even as Paravant has done so all the while I was not supposed to).


 * Imagine my confusion when then AH decided this past Sunday that binning is wrong too, when I did it. Indeed, then AgingHippie took it to the coop in opposition of binning Avenger. Really, TheroadtoWiganPier, I feel sort of gaslighted, especially by AgingHipie. I can't function in a milieu in which the rules change according to who is using the administrative tools and against whom. It's crazy-making. (I accept that I'm a polarizing editor; I'm aggressive and have opinions on highly controversial matters. But the rules shouldn't be different and ever-changing, even for me.)---Mona- (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully caught up with all this last night, even though it is borderline TL:DR. I think there is indeed some confusion as to how a fellow sysop editor should handle blanket reversions from another sysoped editor. I cannot find any guidance in the RW policy pages on that. This might be a subject best addressed in the Bar or on the Sysop guide talk page.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Swell, but as to me in particular, AgingHippie told me very emphatically not to lock a page, to vandal bin; he and others invoked his status as founder who knew the true rules. But Paravant locks pages with some frequency and AH never, ever unlocks Paravant. I'm telling you, AH is making different rules depending on whether I made recourse to them. Just today, he deleted a comment of mine on his talk page and announced it's ok because I'm a troll. !!!!! One of the first things I was told when I arrived here was that under no circumstances are we to delete comments on a talk page, including our own talk page and comments -- short of some newbie vandal spamming bullshit. And of course, last week he de-mopped me (it lasted less than an hour cuz 142 gave it right back) for disagreeing with him about de-mopping Ryo. (I couldn't see anything in his edit war with Ryo that merited it.) So: AgingHippie can change the rules on me, he can delete my talk page comments, and he can abusively de-mop me -- and because he is the éminence grise around here, it's apparently all good.---Mona- (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris
_____UMMM hey guys, why were so many of his quotes removed, why was this page shortened? Also, Sam made some MORE troublesome quotes recently, and i tried to add them to the wiki, but seems that was removed too. Why are we cutting out old quotes and not adding new ones?
 * I have assumed you are referring to Sam Harris and made that clear in the post heading here. I think you need to take those points up on the article talk page. As for the reversion I did, it was because there was no corresponding Malkin quote, so it did not make sense in that section.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are all Sam Harris quotes; that's the shtick. I just addressed the issues with that list on the Sam Harris talk page, and my comments address edits of the section in general. My comments address Wan Abi Sufi's inquiry but I did not write it with him specifically (or at least not only) in mind.---Mona- (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Bold text

Has Avenger hacked your User account?
That thing you posted in WIGO about Kuwaiti airlines was bizarre. The story says the airline is trying to comply with a Kuwaiti law, a law that is reflective of some policies popular in Europe and related to BDS. I don't support what the airline did, but the story you linked to does not describe antisemitism.---Mona- (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could argue that a bizzare piece of anti-Israel legislation is not anti-semitism as it applies equally to non-Jewish Israelis? But the intention is very clear to me.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not anti-semitic. Kuwait has had a law since 1964 banning citizens from providing services to Israelis. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why an Arab country would oppose doing business with Israelis. It has to do with certain events in 1948 and up through the present.---Mona- (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh the motivations are very clear. History lesson not required :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC).
 * So. This User account emailed me a few months ago as if I was talking to a supporter. But, you are actually Avenger, is that right? What, did you think I was going to reveal horrible things about myself? pffft.---Mona- (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Geez, that was a joke you humourless person! Of course I am not bloody Avenger. Have a look at my contribution and see if there is Anything that indicates that. And unbin me now please.  I can't believe you did that and via previous mistakes thought you had learned your lesson on misuse of tools here. If anyone else reads this before Mona please bloody unbin me. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Humour/sarcasm can be kind of hard to spot sometimes in text-only media. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Your email
Hey, you had said you currently lack access to the email you use with me. When will that be back? I'd like a bit of private communication.---Mona- (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can email to that address anytime. I ought to be able to access and answer emails by tomorrow morning.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks.---Mona- (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)