User talk:Weaseloid/Archive

Hi. Nice of you to join us. If you'd like to know a bit more about the site please have a look at our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide. --Bobbing up 15:48, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Hi. Marginally Less Chaos!Audacity! 15:51, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow. It seems I've given you two of these, now. You are much favoured by the gods, young Weaseloid. Marginally Less Chaos!Audacity! 15:53, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I seem to have missed welcoming you while away. Greetings, Weaseloid, and welcome to the ! 20:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Article in preparation
You can create a sub page thus: Search [clicking "GO") for "User:Weaseloid/articlename" and clicking on the resulting "You can create the article". This means that when the article is finished to your satisfaction it can be relocated to the appropriate place. Just sayin' is all. 07:41, 1 August 2008 (EDT)


 * OK, thanks. Weaseloid 08:13, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
 * And you might like a link on your user page User:Weaseloid/Neutral‎ so that in two weeks, when you've forgotten what you called it, you can find it again. (That piccy might have to go, on copyright grounds or not.) 08:27, 1 August 2008 (EDT)


 * If fair use policies are comparable to Wikipedia's, then screenshots from TV & film shld be permitted. Weaseloid 11:23, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Fair use means that it's being used in an article about it (the film or prog) as criticism or explanation etc. not as illustration of some point about something else. I'll leave it for others to look at but we're wary about things like cartoons. 11:50, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
 * This is true, but I can cite precedent that this is not always the case. This picture appears in the article on Conservapedia. Anyhoo, I have now released the NPOV article out into the wild.  Let it fare how it may.  If consensus is to remove the picture, so be it.  I hope that the Zapp Brannigan quote isn't removed though, as I think it's cute.  Also it's a good Futurama episode, with some funny lines from Zapp about the evils of neutrality.Weaseloid 18:53, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Pig, cake, antibiotics...
Welcome to the Brotherhood of Pointless Radiohead References ^_^ Our members are few and far between... 06:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Pleased ta meet ya. I think it's actually 'cage', but come to think of it I like 'cake' better.  :-)  Weaseloid 06:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Yep. No idea why I wrote cake. Presumbly, I'm hungry... 07:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Question on Redirects
Hi there! Do you know how to do a "redirect" when there is no content/existing page? I know how to move an existing page to a new name, but if I'd like to just create a re-direct for "Ameircan Indian" to "native American" how do I do that. THANKS!--Waiting for Godot 14:43, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I've just done it for you, but they're real easy to do. It looks like this.  Just "#REDIRECT page you're redirecting to" .   w easeLOId bite me 14:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, I looked at it right after you did one. Easy as "pi".--Waiting for Godot 15:05, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice find
Well spotted on Jizz's edit on Wikipedia! Genghis   19:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Thanks, but it wasn't me who found it. It's been around a while - think it was on WIGO CP a week or so back, & it's linked on the Hi Jinx article.  But it kinda fits well on his RW User Page, doesn't it.   w easeLOId bite me 19:08, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

I was bored
So ... 00:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Tough break. Your can have my old mop. CЯacke ® 00:46, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh wow! So - much - POWER!  Mwahahaha!  Thank you Susan.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 06:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I was bored once, too. But just once. 06:05, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I should warn you
Chick has been known to get litigious over the use of his work by other people. I think we're OK under fair use, though, in this case. 11:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmmm. It is on the Jack Chick page so I think it should be OK (although there are one or two elsewhere around RW).  I thought there might be fair use issues over it, but I reckon it is justified.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

You blocked me?
For making you lose? Lose what? Oh, that's right THE GAME -ame -ame!
 * If there isn't a rule against writing "I lost the game" in an edit summary, there should be one. Everybody who looks at recent changes for next hour or two afterwards is gonna lose.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
 * But there is a rule that says that says once you have lost the game, you must inform everyone around you at the time. The rules of supercede the rules of RW.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 04:29, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Tits & Freds
Not much point blocking them, they're in Vandal group. Генгис   15:32, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * MmmmmYeah, but if they're using multiple accounts to dodge the vandal brake, giving them a couple of hours block may help send them away for a bit.  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~
 * Narr! They just increment their suffix if one's blocked. 15:41, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I blocked one or two in advance, just after account creation. It didn't do much, they usually come in two or three at a time and a wait a bit to do any blanking.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 15:57, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Then obviously, the only solution is... to ban all one-syllable usernames!  16:54, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm afraid I must oppose this scheme. 17:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well since the name you originally signed up as was far from one one-syllable long, obviously you would be excepted.  17:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You mean "Radioactive afikomen"? I never used that account much... 17:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yah, I always liked my old name "85 25 151 22" more.  17:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe we should just turn account creation off sporadically. It works for some other wikis.  (Well, it doesn't really, but they do it anyway).   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:10, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Or use a script that randomly rejects new accounts? -- 17:14, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Or have a bot that blocks people at random. Sysops could unblock themselves but the vandals would go down.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:30, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Or go back to invitation-only, just like the RW 1.0! : )   17:37, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

"Hence all the time spent on RationalWiki, when I should be doing more productive real world things"
Snap. I win. Would you like some Christmas cheer? 01:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * You've skipped two holidays there, Pink. Whatever happened to Thanksgiving cheer and Halloween cheer?   01:04, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Cheer is always welcome, but Christmas is best confined to December (imo). What kinda Christmas cheer are you offering this early? Also, snap where?  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~
 * Snap in that your (gloomy) statements seem (gloomily) familiar to me.
 * As far as cheer goes, I thought maybe we could sing a carol together ^_^ 01:14, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * They are gloomy sentiments indeed. I might take them down again & leave them to rewrite at some less gloomy time.  But I was fed up of the crap I had there before.  I'm not really much of a one for carol singing (esp in early October) but I warmly appreciate the thought.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 01:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * We could make up an October-themed carol! It could be all secular and silly! 01:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * It sounds interesting. Can it involve an owl in some way?  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 01:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, certainly! What manner of owl do you envision? 01:41, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Tawny owl. There's one lives somewhere near me & I've heard it hooting sometimes at night, & saw it once or twice.  Also I had a dream a few days ago about having a pet owl.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 01:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd prefer a wp:burrowing owl. They're ridiculously cute. 01:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I have just sent you a very important email
Or rather, I tried to. I can haz your email enabled? 04:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, it's active now. What's important that you can't say here?  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 06:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

"dup"
Nice work, and nice efforts, on the "merge" project! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:12, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks. :-)  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 06:53, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

anal sex.
The sexuality articles should stay in the mainspace, not fun, as far as i know. PFoster 10:22, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
 * OK. I didn't put it in Fun.  I just redirected from mainspace to there, because there were one or two red links to a non-existent mainspace article on anal sex.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

I have left you VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGES in User talk:Weaseloid/Redirects‎;
I have left you VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGES in User talk:Weaseloid/Redirects‎  12:52, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Barney the Dinosaur
How did you get blocked along with Barney the Dinosaur for having the same IP address? - User   06:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't know where you're getting that info from, but I can assure you I am not connected with Barney the Dinosaur, Drew Pickles, etc. I blocked Barney the Dino last night, & as far as I know I have not been blocked at all.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:11, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Must have been reading the log wrong, I can't see it. I just thought it might have been an ironic coincidence that you blocked someone in the same library or internet cafe as yourself. - User   07:18, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No, I'm using my own laptop at home. I blocked DrewBot right after Barney so maybe you were just reading it backwards.
 * I see you've demoted Master of Puppets. Interesting decision. . . .  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Why has he been particularly problematic? - User   07:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Not exactly. A few mildly racist edits & some silly ones (see for example, the first draft of American American Vernacular English).  There is a very slight possibility he might be Jinxmchue.  He appeared on the scene around the time Jinx stopped showing up here.  So i did have strong suspicion, but I'm not so sure anymore.  I'm probably a long way wrong about this.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well he hasn't contributed anything about penises yet, but I will keep an eye on him as I always do. Besides if we knew Jinx wouldn't delete pages and block users he could be a sysop here if he wanted. We already have 3 sysops that are prominent members of CP. - User   07:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah. I wasn't saying it was necessarily a mistake.  Just interesting.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 08:32, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I assume everyone can make a good sysop with a bit of work, even annoying pricks like Wazza. - User   08:40, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I retract the above suspicions. MoP seems like a mostly OK guy.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Experiment
Yes, the ability of those people to accept superficially-plausible gobbledygook was amazing. I've stopped doing it a while ago, since I didn't want checkuser to be any use to them in finding all the accounts. CraigBell 19:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I checked CraigP's edits & I wouldn't've known any of them were wrong, but then I'm no scientist. It looks likes a lot of those science pages aren't looked at much, which is quite a telling indictment for what's supposed to be an encyclopedia.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 19:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Not all of them are wrong. That would be far too obvious. CraigBell 19:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

You fucking lion tamer
You tried to block me, didn't you. Ha ha ha.
 * Er, Yes? Yes I did.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm still here, ain't I? Now give me back my essay.
 * Whatchoo talkin' bout? It's been restored already! <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Hitler and Evolution
Great work on the Hitler and evolution article. I think that it was pretty indefensible as it stood.--Bobbing up 04:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks. I agree.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 06:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I need a mount
I need a mount, and I've heard weasels make very good mounts, do you happen to know a place where I can find a battle-trained weasel? InaVegt 05:07, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Weaseloid is himself a mighty and battle-hardened weasel. I'm sure you will find him a quite satisfactory mount (though he is a bit bumpy).   05:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Ina, be careful with your English idioms. Sometimes they can have a double meaning. ;)  Lily Ta, wack! 05:32, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * What do you mean? InaVegt 05:49, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Mounting can refer to the act of sexual congress.  Lily Ta, wack! 06:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * This is a highly unusual request. If you're anything more than four or five inches tall, then you won't be able to mount a weasel, either in battle or in sexual congress.  Them's the brakes.  I'm not battle-trained, although I am house-trained, and I am indeed "a bit bumpy".  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:28, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * I see, perhaps I'd need to look around for the Dire kind, my kobold brethren often use such as steeds when out to kill them vile gnomes. InaVegt 16:31, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Curiouser & curiouser. I am not familiar with the "Dire kind".  As to the gnomes, whence their vileness?  Perhaps they are only misunderstood.  Live & let live.  Give Peace a Chance.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:56, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * The gnomes steal our tools, mock our craft, kill our brethren, and encroach upon our territory, they WILL pay. To make it worse, they ride dire badgers. InaVegt 07:35, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Dire weasels are mighty beasts, about the size of a small wolf. I believe my brethren are the only ones who have the guts to use them as steeds, however. InaVegt 07:35, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * I knew you were only house-trained, Weaseloid, but I had difficulty making "mighty and house-trained" sound dramatic. : )   16:58, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Sexual Congress? You mean like Ted Kennedy getting drunk and frisky with waitresses in the 80's? Or that guy emailing the pages late at night? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 * Weasels do not engage in that kind of shenanigans (although possibly Dire Weasels might). <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Stubbot
Regarding http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Derek_Ogilvie&diff=0&oldid=256269, I agree. The stubbot seems to have become self aware and is running amok, adding stubs where they already exist. Can anyone fix it? Crundy 14:57, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * Well, I kinda like having stub six times on that page. But yeah, I think it's fixable.  If you look at the history, it had  & the bot didn't recognise this & added another, & did the same again when the second one was deleted.  Presumably it only recognises  & not the capitalised "Stub".  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:00, 9 November 2008 (EST)

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


 * Hahahaha... go on, edit the source code and find out why! <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 14:14, 30 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

Use correct English grammar yourself, Dolphin. (Here's "WTF" 13:29, 6 December 2008 (EST) Fuck you don't say anything bad about my spelling --Dolphin674 14:05, 9 December 2008 (EST) Get mine off too. Or else. I will. Have you. Blocked (and stop using rude terms (all of you)) --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 16:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Don't envy your chances CUR. (BTW - you know that no-one but you can see that font you're using in your sig?) Toast 16:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Weasel, my old rabbit hunting chum, I think it was your user page that was the final straw for CUR - he took a leaf out of Dolphin's book! Toast 16:39, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * HEY! He's using my name too!  Ban him forever!  Oh, if only there were some other explanation for this... ;-)  --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  16:42, 16 December 2008 (EST)

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


 * Not quite sure what you mean. When I fact-tagged those bits, your comment on the talk page said "I made them all up", hence defining them as fiction.  Yes, there's no reason why the Freemasonry article can't contain humour, but that doesn't mean making stuff up.  Our mainspace articles are primarily factual with some snark & humour, but shouldn't contain false information.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

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


 * OK, so put the factual stuff back in. The origins in C18 England are still mentioned.  I only had problems with the stuff that was obviously untrue (e.g. peasants bitching about the King etc.).  As for the Schlafly implication, we don't have to mention Conservapedia in every article.  If there's no connection, implying that there is can be confusing & a little bit pointless.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm gonna leave it alone because it's not really all that important to me, but two quickie points: Cheers ---MAstEr oF pUPetStalk! 16:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Having a CP twist is (as has been implied to me earlier by one of the 'crats) is a definate plus for keeping an article in the mainspace (as opposed to being banished to the "fun" category).
 * I don't think that the bitching about the King thing would be out of character for our site... (entering good information, in an encyclopedic manner, with a funny and/or CP twist).


 * Well, I disagree with you on both of those points, but if you don't want to pursue it further then I won't either.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * Mention CP cause they really suck. (Uninformed hillbillies) &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs

BALLSACK &mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs


 * Thanks for your constructive comments. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:17, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Your nonsense
Well, Pi can use the obnoxious and offensive name User:Women are superior to Fall down, but when I do the same, it's a personal attack? I guess that figures, since you haven't treated me fairly since I got here. Fall down
 * OK, I've blocked that name too as it's also a personal attack. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 22:34, 15 December 2008 (EST)
 * In my defense that was a sock of Fall down's I renamed, not that I need a defense against Fall down. - User   23:28, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Fall down has been treated "fairly", by sane, rational standards. Just not by his misogynist, paranoid standards.  By the way, that user name above is not obnoxious or offensive.  It's a simple fact. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:34, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Shit!
How can you see that? Is that you, Ceiling Cat? Corryundefined 16:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Would Ceiling Cat take the form of a lowly weasel? The theocatlogical implications are staggering! -- 16:54, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * It's theoscatological, AK. Toast 16:56, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * Get those captions out from under my picture. Yes, I uploaded it, but still. Don't mess with my photos and I won't mess with yours. And its hunting, not spying on people. Use a different picture (and you CAN find them). --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 17:27, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Erm, no. If the picture is your own, then you have released it into the public domain by uploading it here, or at least made it available to other RationalWikians.  If you want to have exclusive control of how it is used, then you could delete it from the site.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * I found it in an really old book. By now it is in the public domain, but the photographer wouldn't want it being used like this. And it's only humorous to people with warped senses of humor. And maybe you could at least remove the captions and add them later (in a month) to make me more likely to load considerable numbers of photos here. Finally, you can keep the talk page caption, but keep it off the Felidae article. I'm asking quite more politely than the humor is. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 17:41, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * You've done nothing politely and I'm under no obligation to give in to your demands. It's no skin off my nose whether you load a considerable number of photos or none at all.  I've tried to be civil to you, but frankly you've been particularly arrogant and uncooperative with other editors, and you are not in a position to dictate the tone of the humour on this site or how public domain photos are used.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:46, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * You've tried to be civil? Now really, you might being civil, but you're not being polite. I am ending this argument by leaving. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 18:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Well, that's your prerogative. Fare thee well then.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

As in leaving you alone and hoping you leave be alone. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 18:16, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * OK, so leave me alone already. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:17, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah. That had to be funniest exchange I've read in a while. Someone doesn't know what "edited mercilessly" means... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Weaseloid I too must complain about your cat picture it does not have "LOL" written in large white letters in a poorly chosen font on it anywhere. - User   18:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * LOL. That would involve uploading a modified version of the photo.  I should probably leave it a month or so before I try anything like that.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:30, 17 December 2008 (EST)
 * I suppose I owe you an apology. Sorry. Peace treaty? --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 10:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hello there? Why is barely anyone arguing with me or editing pages I'm watching? Are people taking a break? I'm getting bored. I can't debate myself. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="australian sunrise" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 11:04, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Hey. Thanks for the apology.  Debate is good; you just need to try not to take it so personally.  If people disagree about an article you're writing or use a photo you've uploaded in a way you don't like, it's not a personal attack, just the wiki at work.  You can certainly debate it, but the more you try to force the issue, the more people will make fun out of it.  Again that's not vindictive, just the way things fly around here.   Mobocracy.  :-)  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for assisting me in fixing up the pages I made. --Irrational Atheist 15:42, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * No problem. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Bickle
You provided the inspiration, fella. ;) --Robledo 18:24, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Cheers. Glad my work on it wasn't in vain.  Sorry for getting your name wrong on the edit summary.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 * Nee bother. Tyops are part n' parcel of the innertubes. --Robledo 18:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Horribly offended by your userpage
The image of the weasel killed my boner I am horribly offended by you watching me masturbate. I am never talking to you again, and you won't be getting any Chanukah presents this year, either. : P  05:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * Weasels Ripped My Flesh Please accept this Goat Dentistry medal as a token of . . . errr . . . something. . . . <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 07:28, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * I accept this token of Goat Dentistry. I'm afraid I've already had my wisdom teeth removed so I'll, uh... bestow it upon someone who needs it.   19:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)
 * I'm still not talking to you, however.  19:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)

TOR blocks.
The fact it's a proxy is problematic--but let's be clear; this guy is a hate-monger who is repeatedly issuing personal attacks of a threatening nature against members of our little community. The "1 year" option is in the pull-down. If it's there for any reason, surely that is it. PFoster 10:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * If there was a way of blocking Fall Down for a year, I'd have no problem with it. But blocking every proxy he uses for a year doesn't serve any purpose.  It only takes him a few clicks to use a different one.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 10:48, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * Fine. If it slows him down, good. If he runs out, all the better. Let's be clear--he threatened to "assrape" one of our users. If that's the kind of person we're dealing with, we need to talk about ways to prevent that PFoster 10:53, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * Foster, I'm on your side about keeping Fall Down out. However, since he's using TOR, as I said, it only takes him a moment to get a new IP route.  So blocking those IPs for a year doesn't slow him down any more than blocking them for a few hours or days.  He will only "run out" if we block every IP used for TOR, which is what Conservapedia is attempting to do and really really not a road I think we want to go down.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 10:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * Alright. Give me a better plan. PFoster 11:05, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * Carry on as we are. Block him when we see him vandalising anything, but not for more than a few days.  There's no magic solution, but lengthening the blocks won't make any difference for somebody we know is using proxies.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:07, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * "Carry on as we are" isn't working. Look at the edits to Kels' user page. And Proxima's. This is, I think, serious stuff and we need to be dealing with it in a more proactive way...11:10, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * We've got plenty of sysops. We can deal with him.  There's a case for protecting some articles.  How about protecting Fred Phelps and User talk:SusanG.  That should make things difficult for the Fred vandal so we can concentrate on Fall down. Proxima Centauri 11:13, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * I agree we've got enough 'sops to deal. It's a pain in the ass but it's not unmanageable.  Don't really agree about protecting stuff, except maybe very temporarily while it's the subject of a repeat assault.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:20, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * Put him in the vandal bin. From what I've heard, he deserves it. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundCapacitor cat! 13:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * All of his known aliuses are already vandal-binned. Problem is that there is no way to stop him creating other accounts or blocking him long term, since he uses a different IP address every time. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 13:16, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * There seems little point in blocking proxies for a year or protecting pages. New proxies can be found and new targets can be selected. How many sysops do we have? I've lost count. Our legion of sysops needs periodically revert stuff?  That's what happens on a wiki.--Bobbing up 13:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * I agree with you Bob. I'm gonna unblock the IP that was banned yesterday.  'Twas only used in passing.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~
 * Maybe someone should delete the article on using proxies. I'd hate to find out that that gave him the idea. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundCapacitor cat! 13:23, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * I doubt it. I think he's an old hand at this game. He's told us that he's created accounts on other sites in the past to harass the people who got him banned from Wikipedia, so I expect he was already using TOR then. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 13:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. "Our legion of sysops needs periodically revert stuff? That's what happens on a wiki." Agreed. Our wiki gets used as a platform for hate speech, editors repeatedly get called whores and are threatened with "assrape"? That's not what happens--or should happen--on a wiki...PFoster 13:34, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * But it is what can happen on a wiki with open sign up. So we delete the hate speech and revert the namecalling.  Neither blocking or protecting are useful tools against a persistent vandal.  Boring them to death is the best solution. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  13:41, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * Not what should happen on a wiki, but what does happen on a wiki (cf. Wikipedia, Conservapedia). As long as we revert & block (sensibly) then we're not giving in to it.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 13:45, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * If we have a wiki which literally anyone can edit then, from time to time, we will get weirdos we need to revert. It's part of what being open means. We can either restrict editing or patiently revert until they go away. With so many sysops what's wrong with reverting?--Bobbing up 14:03, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * My sig in no way relates to electrical components --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundTransistor cat! 14:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * Yes it does :) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:08, 22 December 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. I dunno--maybe it's my hang-up, centred on my recurring obsession about the lines we have between our on-line personas and real life. If someone threatened to "assrape" someone on main street, they could be locked up for it--maybe only until the cops have figured out whether or not the threat is credible, but it's something you can't do without opening yourself up to some sort of consequence. If I call one of my colleagues a whore in writing--in a departmental memo or in some written feedback on a student's paper, I would face some sort of consequences. Someone calls--repeatedly calls--one of our editors the same, in writing, and all we do is revert. That's not right, to me. If I call someone a "nigger" to their face, I deserve the punch in the mouth that's coming to me. Someone gets on here and uses "faggot" and "cunt" as insults, and is free to do so. This IS a community of sorts, and my--obviously minority--opinion is that as a community we should watch out for the real people at the other end of the tubes. I respect the consensus that's been expressed here, but part of me is REALLY angry that we can't/won't do more to take a stand for what we all would agree is right--that we should all be treated as human beings. --Paul. PFoster 16:31, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * I agree that we shouldn't allow "assrape" names. If I remember correctly I personally changed at least one of the "assrape" names to something else. And by admin magic it's gone.  I still don't understand the logic of futile year-long blocks of IP's, and page protection.  What these people want is recognition and outraged reactions.  Don't give it to them.--Bobbing up 16:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * While I agree with PFosters perspective and feelings, the trouble with the 'net is the anonymity. It's also a blessing for many.  Anyway, IRL, an offense has an identifiable perpetrator, who only exists in one corpus, and so they can be habeused and restricted (as long as caught, etc.) fairly easily.  On the net, some jerk behind proxies has an almost infinite number of possible "bodies".  I must say, however, that they do us a minor favor by using phrases like "assrape", etc., in that it takes no thought or effort to decide whether to revert or not.  I know it is frustrating, but it's how an open website works, we're stuck with it.  To avoid it, small wikis restrict membership one way or another.  As far as big blocking and the like, you only have to look across the fence at CP to see how futile it is at preventing unwanted intrusions. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * (Edit conflict. Reply to PFoster:) You keep repeating the terrible things FD has said, but you're missing the point that nobody is disagreeing with you about that. Nobody here is defending him, just discussing what we can and should do. Instead of ranting, why not suggest a solution. Giving long blocks to known proxy IPs is completely ineffective as it has no effect on his ability to use others unless we block a huge number of them. If you think we should block the use of proxy servers altogether (like Wikipedia does), you'll need to talk to Trent about it. I don't even know whether it's technically possible for us. In terms of consequences, there are certainly laws covering harassment, threats and abuse on the internet, but raising this case to the authorities would be a pretty big deal, and I don't feel that we're yet at the point where it becomes a necessity. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 16:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)


 * My problem with the "defense-by-deletion" strategy is that there is no such thing as a history eraser button. Those words--words which are weapons and have the power to hurt--do not become unsaid with the judicious application of the rollback button. PFoster 18:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * There's no way to make words unsaid any more than there is in real life. In extreme cases we can delete & restore articles so that the full history can only be viewed by sysops.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 18:18, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * And stopping it being said or reverting it when it's said isn't going to stop people thinking it or believing it. Even if you did put in a system, you have to remember that people will curcumvent it easily enough. Block an IP, they get a proxy, block all the proxy networks, they find a new proxy network you've never heard of etc. etc. Given those facts, you may as well leave it out in the open (practically, this means in the edit history as you don't want it in a current revision) and just plain, outright refute it and PROVE that they're wrong, which isn't difficult. Blocking a vandal isn't going to remove their peurility, reverting a troll isn't going to make them sane and rational. Trying to merely delete or cover things up permanently is basically just burrying your head in the sand of an issue when you can easily tackle it directly. People will see the harsh and hurtful words, but they'll also see the words of support and the words that counter the bullshit. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 19:19, 22 December 2008 (EST)

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


 * Erg! Talk about harmonic distortion! --Kels 15:07, 22 December 2008 (EST)


 * Just trying to restrict the current flow of shocking behaviour. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:10, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * (Sorry, it's the best I could come up with). <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:10, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * You shouldn't try to transformer.  Lily Ta, wack! 16:24, 22 December 2008 (EST)
 * But I can't resistor. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 08:49, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * I haven't the capacitance to take all this cleverness in. Marmite    on Toast   08:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * In fact I find myself impeded by it. Marmite    on Toast   08:57, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * I think we need to short circuit this thread or someone's going to blow a fuse. (That's enough electrical jokes. Ed. (see p. 94))  <font color=Blue>Генгис    09:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Don't be revolting. Marmite    on Toast   09:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * So who's camping it up now? Henry? We all know watts going on here and I don't think I need to amplify that. <font color=Blue>Генгис    09:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * As farads [ouch! (sorry)] I can see there's only you. Marmite    on Toast   09:45, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Watts the point of this discussion?--"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor cat! 10:48, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Just trying to recharge our batteries... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  14:04, 23 December 2008 (EST)

. . . This seems to have ground to a halt. Why on earth would that be? <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId ~ 18:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * By inductive reasoning, I suspect because we ran out of appropriate inverters to play with. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:47, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Copy cat
You've probably noticed this but User:WeaseIoid is taking your name in vain.--Bobbing up 04:48, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * I copied and pasted that name into the vandal - but I'm not sure how the system reacted. I take it you can get yourself out if the system identified you by mistake.--Bobbing up 04:51, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * Looks like you've renamed it now anyway. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 08:36, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * Actually none of the renames were my doing. But, yes, his name has changed.--Bobbing up 09:18, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * I was confused by this, weren't the names EXACTLY the same? But I have to agree with name changes if people are trying to immitate others. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 09:52, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * They looked the same but the "I" in the middle was capitalised in the fake name. However it looked the same under some circumstances.--Bobbing up 10:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * (A similar - though not identical - trick to that used by the two Rose Pedals accounts.)--Bobbing up 10:05, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * I've been burning with indignation for several hours over that. I'm sure I wasn't paranoid over Rose Pedals.  I didn't deserve all that criticism and punishment from Human, Phantom Hoover etc.  If I complain they'll be down on me again. If I don't complain they'll keep on thinking I was paranoid. Proxima Centauri 10:33, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * Ah, I see the trick now. It's a difficult one to spot when you're looking for it (wood and trees and all that). Sneaky tricks yes, but hard to spot and causing permanent damage? I think not. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 10:39, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * It's the old "I" & "l" trick ("i" & "L").
 * Centaur, you always seem to be burning with indignation. You should chill out more.  I missed the Rose Pedals incident, so I'm not sure what the punishment involved, but it doesn't look like any lasting damage was done.  Let it go maybe.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 10:57, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * The punishment, 2 blocks. That's no big deal, I can unblock myself. 2 entries in my block log suggesting that I block unfairly. That matters.  The entries will be there when this is over. Dealing with that is in no way urgent. Proxima Centauri 18:09, 24 December 2008 (EST)
 * I fixed your block log so as not to sully your reputation at other less silly wikis where they might care. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:21, 24 December 2008 (EST)

One thing to keep in mind when renaming trolls, doppelgangers, etc. and it's very important: After the rename - immediately after - you have to register the old name yourself, because it becomes available again. If you don't do this, the editor can simply re-register the name if they want to. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:17, 24 December 2008 (EST)


 * Done. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 22:13, 24 December 2008 (EST)

<font face=Times>
 * (User creation log); 03:02 . . Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) (created account for User:WeaseIoid)
 * (Block log); 03:07 . . Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked User:WeaseIoid with an expiry time of 20 years (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled): Friendly Block: to prevent identity theft)
 * Nice work. I appreciate the clear block comment, since as you probably know, I routinely pardon all the zillions of blocked nobodies for "time served". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:18, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Some probably unwanted information
If you stick @ the top of the page it'll auto link & enable easier creation of Rkives. Toast 22:22, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * Thanks, but I prefer doing it manually. At least until it gets unmanageable.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 10:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 * I kinda like organising my archives into a trapezium of irritating yellow smileys. At least today I do.  I shall probably get sick of it before long.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 11:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 * Now what did you do to break this pretty page? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:47, 25 December 2008 (EST)
 * Oh, I see. Someone wrecked "image:slap.gif". That was mean. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Because
I have no idea how to unblock my self. I only can do a certain amount of operations on myself at a time and this (unblocking) was not one of them. So thank you for doing it for me. Unblocking that is. Carptrash 15:02, 26 December 2008 (EST)


 * Go to the block log, find where you were last blocked, and click the "unblock" link at the end of the entry. --Kels 15:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)


 * Or just go as if to block somebody else & then change it to your name in the block field; then choose "unblock" (bottom right on the screen).
 * So what was with blocking CPAdmin1? <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 * Probably some joke blocking on Xmas eve, I know I did whoever was active because I was bored. Might have been someone else though, I didn't check. --Kels 15:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 * the blocking of the admin was me because it appeared to be the only edit that I could make. So I did it, as Edmund Hillary once said, "Because it is there." Carptrash 15:24, 26 December 2008 (EST)

This does not mean I'll remember it next time (hopefully there will be no next time) but thanks for getting me there this time. No, not THERE,. .  .  .  .  .  .  . . . . . . .   . . ...............   to the unblocking place. Carptrash 15:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)
 * Err, you're welcome. Lol.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 15:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

TK
Why did you take this out? Proxima Centauri 02:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
 * It may be because it wasn't really necessary, or that there were better ways of supplying the information.  03:31, 29 December 2008 (EST)
 * I note that you referenced a static version of the page, one with your section on it. If you had linked to the diff link, it would be patently obvious why he removed it—he said why he removed it right in the edit summary.  You should check the relevant edit history before whinging.   03:34, 29 December 2008 (EST)
 * It seems a bit messy & unnecessary to link to a person's contributions & block log just so that users can see their latest edits, since everyone who is interested would already know how to find that. If you must do it, a smart way would be in some kind of template to go on each sysop's article (like the "stalkbox" at RWW).  Anyway, I'd already linked to TK's block log in the IP range blocks section, to make a point about him blocking user's IPs.  The contributions just didn't really seem necessary.  <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 08:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)
 * Here's what I've done for you instead. <font color="maroon" face="Hurry Up"> w assaiLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 09:56, 29 December 2008 (EST)

"Also known as..."
So you're me now? TheoryOfPractice 20:45, 1 January 2009 (EST)
 * That's the rumour. Deny it all you like, but I think history will be the judge.   21:02, 1 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, but I am teh mustelid! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:46, 1 January 2009 (EST)
 * I thought you were the Walrus. ("I was the Walrus. Paul wasn't the Walrus. I was just saying that to be nice but I was actually the Walrus...") TheoryOfPractice 22:56, 1 January 2009 (EST)

In memory of the Weasel incident
check my sig --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor <font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">  overworked and overbearing  chief bickerer  feline fanatic  mesa likesa Starsa Warssa  the mortal enemy of Weaseloid's former user page    21:23, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * I already did. Have you noticed mine?  :-D
 * Actually I was going to say about the signature: you need to move the option stuff to a subpage (or even all of the signature). 'Cause at the moment, eight or nine lines of code get copied whenever you sign.  (See above, when you go to add a comment, & you'll see what I mean).  It makes it awkward for people editing after you.  But if you move some or all of it to a separate template, & put that template into your signature page, it will make what appears on the editing screen a lot shorter while the actual signature still looks the same.  See Help:wikisig for help, or ask me if you're still not sure how to do it.   21:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, CUR, your current version is clumsy. It also invites random editing to "improve" it, don't tempt us.  PS, the giant font bugs me, but probably no-one else cares. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:48, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * It actually looks OK to me, but I'm guessing this is another case where you need Vista or similar to see the correct font. If you're just seeing it in arial, I guess it's pretty big.   21:58, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's bradly hand ITC. Human, you must be using a really old computer. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor [[User Talk:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor| <font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">

overworked and overbearing chief bickerer feline fanatic mesa likesa Starsa Warssa the mortal enemy of Weaseloid's former user page ]] 22:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Do you want me to fix your signature code on a subpage for you? I was about to write instructions how you can do it, but it would be quicker & simpler if I just went ahead, & then you can see what I've done. But it feels a bit wrong tinkering with somebody else's signature & pagemoving it without permission first. 22:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks, but I managed to figure it out. I think. --"<font color="#170CEB" face="bradley hand itc" font size= "4">ConservapediaUndergroundResistor " 22:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, looks like you've got it. Cool.   22:26, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * Nah, it's the "font size=4" part that sucks, not my OS or browser. PS, when writing for the web, you always need to be sure the "default" version works.  Yours doesn't. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:42, 3 January 2009 (EST)
 * Look at it now! --" 11:02, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Community Standards
In an effort to update our sometimes too-vague and too-often ignored current Community Standards, I drafted a possible update of them. The draft can be found here. I invite you, and the rest of the site, to discuss this important issue. 04:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)

By the way
You're a bureaucrat now. Now go crazy and make some sysops! 19:48, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 * Woohoo! Thanks RA. I will try to remain gosh-darned reasonable.  :-D   19:51, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Support or oppose the Science namespace
Weaseloid. After hearing the previous debates on the matter, I decided to call the matter to question. Since you responded to my original exhortation in the community standards talk page. I would appreciate it if you'd mosey on over to the debate page and cast a vote. No, this isn't a form letter. :-) Omniwombat 19:21, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm a bit hesitant to vote because, firstly, I'm not much of a science guy anyway so I would barely be involved in any of it, and secondly, I don't really mind if science is dealt with as a separate namespace or if we just ammend the mission statements slightly to include science/math articles in mainspace. I just think we need to work something out, because at the moment there are sciencey or mathematical articles in mainspace which are nothing to do with the missions, but I don't know whether I should be flagging them as non-mission or just ignoring them.  However, I don't want to be the casting vote as to whether the science namespace goes ahead or not when I have no strong feeling either way.   19:37, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Babble
Vou vare veing vinvited vo ve vy veputy vof ve vabal. Things this will allow vou to vo: 1. Valk vith va Vansylvanian vaccent. 2. Vinsert vequest vere. Vif vou vell vanyone vabout ve vabal, vou vare in vig vouble. --" 20:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * [[image:tongue.gif]] but the answer is [[image:non.gif]]  20:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * So you decided to keep your cabal secret by posting it where everyone can see? - User   20:24, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. . . Vo ve vave vother vontenders? And the cabal is secret. It's existance is not. I won't tell anyone vhat Vi van voing. --" 20:25, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * You know in order for your "vabal" to exist you are going to have to get someone other than yourself to join? - User   20:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * What about you? --" 20:31, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Pi-->[[image:slap.gif]]<--CUR - User   20:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Cabal-->[[image:slap.gif]]<-Pi

'Nuff said. Take it or leave it. --" 20:38, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Have you ever had an original joke? - User   20:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Vhat's the difference between a duck? Now that's original. (Note: saying it was original was original) Also, you should here me make snarky remarks about politics. --" 20:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Go on then - make a snarky remark about politics.  20:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * I need an odd news story first. Perferably one involving Sarah Palin or her ilk. --" 20:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * It sounds like you are planning to wheel out a done to death joke. - User   20:46, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * How about this: The reason Palin is going to run in 2012 is because the world will have ended, and only the '[Andrew Schlafly|real, God-fearing Americans]' will be left, and they will vote for her. Despite sexism. Because it's a liberal word and doesn't exist. --" 20:48, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Congratulations! For that you have earned yourself one of my big question marks.  ?   -  User   20:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Va vabal vas a vense of vumor. Vou von't --" 20:52, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * After reading this exchange, I must say I feel a bit insulted by the comparison you made a few days ago, Π. The electrocutioner 20:53, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * I apologise whole heartedly, now I realise how great of a slight that was. - User   20:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Please provide a link to the comparision. What was the comparison? --" 20:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * You are a needy little person aren't you? - User   20:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Congratulations Weaseloid. You are now part of the cabal whether you like it or not. You now get to valk vith va Vansylvanian vaccent. --" 14:16, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 * First job for the cabal: Make a special cabal intercom group. This way, we can plan in top secret. --" 17:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 * No thanks, not interested. 17:28, 12 January 2009 (EST)

You are part of the cabal, like it or not, unless you can find someone who is more willing. --" 17:30, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 * No, I'm not part of yours or any cabal, & it isn't my problem if you can't recruit anyone to play cabals with you. I'm working on something at the moment, so please leave me alone for a while.   17:37, 12 January 2009 (EST)

names thing
Actually keep the old names where they are, but the actual name in the "". 216.221.87.112 21:28, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * I don't follow what you mean.  21:29, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Chalkboard‎
Sorry I didn't update the community chalkboard right away, my supervisor came in to talk to me about something. - User   21:27, 14 January 2009 (EST)


 * That's OK, I straightened it out.  21:33, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Goatmix/cat
That was me, not signing in. It did seem to disturb my cat. Corryundefined 16:40, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 * Hey. I figured it was probably a regular who hadn't signed in rather than a newbie.  What did the cat actually do in response to the goat chorus?  16:49, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 * She was laying around, and when the goats started she was all of a sudden standing on top of her litterbox and making a weird whiny noise. I really can't blame her.  Corryundefined 17:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's a shame. Goats & cats can be good buddies.   17:04, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Block
How dare you interfere with my self imposed exile! POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! You paid the price for your lack of vision 16:24, 20 January 2009 (EST)(four, just for human)
 * I dare do lots of interfering. Such is a weasel's wont.   16:33, 20 January 2009 (EST)

No hard feelings about the block. I had to exile myself for at least some time POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! You paid the price for your lack of vision 16:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * No worries.  16:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Therians
Please stop you're anti-therian diatribe. --" 21:05, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * What specifically?  21:06, 22 January 2009 (EST)


 * Claiming we are wingnuts.
 * Claiming we can't be rational.
 * I'll think of some more later.

--" 21:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)


 * Not guilty.
 * I haven't said anybody can't be rational, but I haven't seen a rational explanation for the concept.
 * I'm entitled to my opinions & to express them.

21:11, 22 January 2009 (EST)


 * You sure didn't do anything.
 * The lack of a rational explanation does not mean it is irrational.
 * You most certainly are, but you should be more polite.

--" 21:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, when are you going to debate me on the werelist? All ye has to do is register. I'm called cheetah. Look me up. --" 21:14, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Please, please register. Believe me, more people there will be able to give rational explanations. I found out what I was about a month ago. As such, I'm doing pretty well defending my position, but I think if you debated me on therian turf, it might be more even. Or, we could meet in neutral territory- say, Wikipedia. --" 21:21, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Apart from the fact that WP does not exist to host "debates", you might not find them "neutral" enough for your purposes:

"Therian in the English language has two distinct definitions:


 * In taxonomy, the term refers to a member of the Mammalia subclass Theria, consisting of marsupial and placental mammals.


 * A therian may also be a member of the contemporary subculture of therianthropy, which is based on a spiritual and/or psychological identification with animals."


 * <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:43, 22 January 2009 (EST)


 * CUR, how many pages are you going to DOMIfuckingNATE. For christ's sake, most of us (I think) here are barely tolerating you & your infantile weirdness. Please keep your wingnuttery to one page, preferably on another site. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 21:49, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Afterthought: get your parents to take you to a therapist [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 21:53, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Toast, that's unnecessarily harsh. CUR, sorry but I'm not going to sign up to another site to debate the issue.  I'm only half-interested in the debate here; mostly just trying to keep some SPOV in articles.   21:58, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Harsh? Yes! Unnecessarily? Don't think so: If he really believes what he's saying then he needs assistance from a qualified professional - not arguments from us. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 22:07, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * What my warm, buttery, drippy friend said. TheoryOfPractice 22:10, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * If CUR is autistic as he has said, I think it fairly likely that he already has, or at least has had, some contact with a therapist. I also think it's probably none of our business. When we're confronted with beliefs we find irrational, we should be highlighting what's irrational about them & let people make their own choices, not telling them outright that they're crazy & should go see a therapist.  That's just alienating & hurtful.   22:22, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Precisely. NYOB. --" 16:26, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Can we please just stop with the furries/therians/whatever-the-fuckian stuff, please? It's driving me up the wall faster than than "alternative music" loves and the so-called "gender neutral"!! You all have to agree that the sheer amount of discussion it's generated is batshit crazy. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 16:34, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Believe me, we'd like nothing better. But I 'live' here as well as there, and I'm a rationalist as well as a therian, and I really hate attacks on my lifestyle. --" 16:44, 24 January 2009 (EST)

...
Why did you ruin my edit war?  <font color="#007500" face="zapfino">Phantom Hoover  16:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * Edit war is still going: just moving in new directions. I find the term "wingnuttery" too ambiguous: we usually use it with connotations of right wing / reactionary thought which doesn't really fit here.   16:08, 23 January 2009 (EST)

PhilipV
Would you mind if I deleted the word 'idiot' from this page: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:PhilipV

A glance at his CP page is pretty funny, kind of like

"Hi, I like trout, collecting fossils, and the color orange. I was so flattered when Penthouse asked me to pose…"

Strange, a guy who calls himself a "young earth creationist" but wants "a full Allosaur skeleton" for his birthday. What does he plan to do with it... blow it up?

regards, --UnicornTapestry 07:33, 24 January 2009 (EST)


 * Never mind. Page gone. Issue moot. --UnicornTapestry 08:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * Not sure why you were asking my permission in the first place.  16:40, 24 January 2009 (EST)

January 2009
Just so you know, I made an article on the 'incident' in the RationalWiki namespace. If it should be there, please delete it- I also put it on RWW, but no one said anyone (of course) --" 14:10, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I just saw it here. It doesn't belong on RationalWiki, keep it to RWW.  Also I think you are exaggerating the scale of the RW versus Therians conflict (obviously I can only see our side of it, not what aftermath it's had at Werelist) - did you read my last post about this in the Otherkin debate?   14:13, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * You might be suprised. I've never seen foreverchargrin quite so annoyed. He called you 'bologna,' and the 'Look at this' thread, orignally for Conservapedia, become dominated by the debate. --" 14:16, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * Well I've certainly never been called Bologna before.  14:19, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * No, the site was called that. --" 14:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I still don't get it.  14:26, 25 January 2009 (EST)
 * I think he was just thinking of a random insult; I do that too, my best one being "wimple".  <font color="#007500" face="zapfino">Phantom Hoover  14:28, 25 January 2009 (EST)

(unident) Neither do I- but you really bugged him. Course, I also said you were the voice of tolerance- something I never expected from you. --" 14:27, 25 January 2009 (EST)

WEASEL WAR DANCE!
--" 16:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)


 * Fantastic! (although actually a ferret). I would like to have one, although reputedly they stink.   16:21, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, but they are so cute. Though ferrets are really just domesticated ferrets. Bet you want to put it on your user page. It's a peace treaty. --" 16:22, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * I think I'll keep it here for now, but thanks.  16:25, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * Another (beautiful) weasel:[[Image:Least_weasel.jpg|300px]]. Male ferrets do stink (an old & very brief boyfriend of mine bred them & sometimes he smelled worse than the beasts themselves) [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 22:28, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Aw, that is a cute weasel. Thanks Toast.  I've never been close enough to a ferret to know what kind of stink they have.  I've heard that if they're neutered when they're young, they don't stink quite as much.  Anyway, it'll probabaly be a few years before I'm settled somewhere enough to think seriously about getting my own pets.   22:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)



Look at that! --" 18:58, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * LOL. I just saw you uploaded that.  Thanks.  I thought the sites that made those got pulled by threatened legal action from the makers of Magic.  I might have to make one or two now.   19:06, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * Not this one. It specificially said 'no profit.' That's probably the only reason it's still there. --" 19:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * I've always fancied getting a (non-stinky) ferret. However, my job doesn't permit me the luxury of owning one. When I was a lot younger I remember being out on CCF manoeuvres in the Pennines somewhere and looking over a dry-stone wall to see a stoat/weasel on the other side standing on it's hind legs looking back at me not three feet away. Exciting stuff. <font color=Blue>Генгис    15:36, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cool. I've only seen one in the wild once or twice, & only running across the road & disappearing into the trees.   15:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Where I live I have also seen a stoat/weasel run across the road. I remember being in Norfolk once and seeing a mole run across the road just in front of my car.
 * I also saw this on my way to the dentists last year. Sorry about the blood. <font color=Blue>Генгис    17:24, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * A polecat? I didn't know we even got those in the UK.  Must be pretty rare.  Shame to only see it dead on the road, but them's the brakes.   17:30, 2 February 2009 (EST)


 * Well the ferret is only supposed to be a domesticated polecat. And I have also seen a live one run across the road but didn't have a camera to hand. Our house faces a field with a steep slope and there have been several types of animals using the same burrow in successive years. Rabbits, foxes and badgers. This is a badger taken from my office window. <font color=Blue>Генгис    17:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nice. I live fairly close to a riverside where there's a badger sett.  Sometimes at night I go for a walk there before going to bed, & quite often see a badger or two.   I haven't tried to photograph them, but maybe I will.  Once or twice I've seen or heard a tawny owl near there too.   17:44, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Owls are cool. When we first moved into KhantAcres the big garden, or paddock as we knew it, was just rough grass and full of tussocks where mice, voles, and shrews lived. Consequently we would often get tawny owls or little owls perching on the roof of our shippon looking for prey. There would often be owl pellets on our brick gatepost but we haven't seen any owls around us for quite a while now more's the pity. <font color=Blue>Генгис    17:52, 2 February 2009 (EST)


 * I know nature's red in tooth & claw but could you bin that piccy please. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 17:46, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Polecat roadkill picture taken down, linked above.  17:52, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * You could always try a different channel. Like Homes abroad. <font color=Blue>Генгис    17:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * PS I hate effin' cat pictures! So please show me some consideration as well. <font color=Blue>Генгис    17:56, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Which cat pics are you talking about? The tiny userbox ones on my userpage?   18:01, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * My comment was directed at Toast and all the other lolcat posters. <font color=Blue>Генгис    18:07, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * thanks. I think they're found in Wales. We have urban foxes & loads of ducks & grebes & swans & rabbits, but don't seem to be any badgers around (a bit urban for them?) Moles, of course are abundantly present, but not seen. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 17:58, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thought so: "They range across Europe. In Britain, polecats are restricted to Wales due to heavy persecution by humans in the past." (BBC NATURE) [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 18:02, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * "Polecats have a stink gland near the base of their tail, from which a foul-smelling scent is emitted to mark its territory." End of polecat info. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Toast) <font color="Maroon">and marmalade 18:05, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yup, we're right on the edge of their territory. <font color=Blue>Генгис    18:07, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * they weren't as good as The Lambrettas. Totnesmartin 18:09, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I had to look that up. Before my time.   18:12, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Stoat snow dance
On a slightly related note... KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 18:46, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow, that's fantastic. Look at him go!  Thanks Klapaucius.   21:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)

External lynx
Sir, that is the funniest pun I have come across in ages. You do a credit to punsmithery. Well done. - Gentleman Publius (V)&lt;,&quot;,&gt;(V) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm afraid it wasn't mine. I can't remember who came up with it, but it was at the otherkin article, which originally contained therian stuff as well.   20:31, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Politics cat
As a counterpart to the and  categories, I intend to make equivalent categories for politics in the US. I would appreciate your and Pi's input on the (admittedly incredibly unimportant) issue of whether to use "American politics" or "United States politics". The relevant talk page can be found here. 21:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Either is fine by me.  21:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Alright then. FYI, we seem to have decided upon using the abbreviations (e.g. "US politics" and "UK politics").   23:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks
Thank you, Weaseloid, for helping with the templates movedto and movedfrom. I really appreciate it. 00:05, 29 January 2009 (EST)
 * You're welcome.  08:08, 29 January 2009 (EST)

PhilipV again
I'm afraid PV has called in the artillery on your sock on CP (wesleyloyd) oh, and if a complete idiot like him can spot it, thats a bad sign-- Redcoat  15:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Indeed. It was supposed to be at least moderately obvious (though not actully an anagram as PhilipV says).   15:25, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I am surprised, however at how long assfly seems to be taking to respond to you... bizarre--[[Image:British coat of arms.png|25px]] Redcoat [[Image:British coat of arms.png|25px]] 15:35, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * He let his banhammer do the talking. I'd include a diff but CP is no workie.  Corryundefined 16:54, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I've already seen it, & put the diff link on the talk:Andrew Schlafly page. "Bye" is the only reply I got out of him.   16:56, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Ark Shit
I noticed you editing some articles re:noah's ark. Is there any type of project here for that or is it a free for all? I actually own a copy of Woodmorrape's Ark Feasibility Study and would love to contribute some knowledge from said goldmine. Neveruse513 19:42, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sure, anyone can add to anything. Have a look in category:Global flood.  There's a "feasibility" article in there; I haven't looked at it yet.  All I'm actually doing at the moment is adding to the "see also" on the articles, so they mostly all link to each other.
 * Our Noah's ark:A feasibility study article is just a one-sentence stub, so it would be great if you could expand it. Otherwise, if it's just going to be a paragraph or so, it should probably be merged into Noah's Ark article (or Global flood).   19:51, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Do you think we could get a flood nav like the pseudoscience nav? - User   19:59, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could do. We've got more articles on it than I thought.  That's why I'm linking them up.   20:08, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Okay I'll make a start then. Any good pictures? - User   20:10, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm just having a look through Google images now. Another cheesy idea is to make a long template for the bottom of the screen & make it kindof Ark-shaped, even if it's just one small box on top of a larger box.  (Actually, on second thoughts, I think that would look terrible).   20:15, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Here is my first attempt. - User   20:23, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I've put a different picture up on it as I found one which is just the right size & nicely eye-cstching.  20:36, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * The colours are still annoying me. I have never been good a getting the one I want in RGB do you think you can find one that is blueish (flood=water=blue) but contrasts with the links. - User   20:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I use these charts to find the colour I want.  I very rarely if ever bother with tweaking them anymore than that.   20:51, 2 February 2009 (EST)

We already have Template:Global flood if it's any help. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:17, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm not sure that it is. It looks ugly, it isn't used on anything & it screws with the page format.  I reckon we should delete it & use the new one instead.   21:31, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, I noticed the weird formatting issues. I think we should "move" floodnav over it, since "xxxx nav" templates are usually wide and at the bottom of the page. Not that it's a big deal. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:40, 2 February 2009 (EST)
 * OK, either way.  21:42, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Seconding
Weaseloid, would you be so kind as to second the Felidae article on proposed best of RW? --" 12:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)
 * No, sorry. It's an Ok article, but I think best of science ones should be closer to the missions.   12:41, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Anti-Vaccination Commercial
Nice finds on the Schlafly paraphernalia. Have you ever seen his commercial? Can you get your hands on it? Neveruse513 15:45, 5 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, I don't know anything about it. I'm just going through some old image files here & categorising them.   15:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
 * It was a rant for anti-vaccination. I assume you've seen this gem. It's interesting to see the kids he's poisoning. Neveruse513 15:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Night Mode
The implementation is complete. Thanks for your help.

So as not to rock the boat (and possibly avoid interference from unsupportive members) I've given every registered user night editing privileges. Henceforth, we'll enforce the policy retroactively, which should make things a lot easier. Thanks again, Neveruse513 16:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

"Don't delete talk"
Don't make me delete you. I'll do it. No, with sandwiches 14:33, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * You & what army?  14:35, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oliver's Army. No, with sandwiches 14:44, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are they on their way yet? Will they be here to stay? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't get me started. I could talk all night. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mei / talk / contribs

Wandalism
I wondered how long it would take you to revert that. Fortunately, I've saved the diffs. Look at my user page for the Quests of Sir CUR Against the Order of the Evil Red Link. --"CURtalk 21:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Barnstar
--"CURtalk 16:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hang on - 7 edits to Felidae and 9 to Cat counts as "tireless work"? 16:51, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * We don't have very high standards of work ethic here, do we? When does Weaseloid comment on this? But he has a standard to live up to- he must add many lolcatz to the cat article. --"CURtalk 16:53, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * One other thing- we have a different definition of 'tirelessly' than Wikipedia. Here it merely means helping out a considerable amount and adding goat. --"CURtalk 17:07, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Um, OK, thanks CUR. I wasn't aware of having worked tirelessly on those. The only animal related stuff I've worked on lately was creating the animal images category. But thanks anyway.  16:55, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Then you had better upload a lolcatz picture before we all look silly. --"CURtalk 16:56, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Favor, please.
If you would, 'Jorge' if it's available. And why is my handle one of your alter egos?G antczak 10:23, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * It isn't. It's just a trick mirror on my user page that shows the user name of whoever looks at.  If you look again now, you should see Jorge instead.  [[image:smiley.gif]]   10:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Sideways, huh?
Hey, TK says you were cp:User:Sideways. I dunno whether that's actually true, but if it is, then I apologize for the anxiety caused in the Audubon Society by my games. Sideways seemed worried, but the article to which I refer is of course a complete hoax. --Marty 03:19, 13 February 2009 (EST) which you can find under "lulz" in the phone book
 * Yes, I was Sideways. Nothing to do with those other accounts though; must've just been on the same TOR node at some time.  If you mean the falconry article, there was no real anxiety.  I doubt any homeschoolers would particularly take that advice anyway.  Partly I was just seeing how much Conservapedians care about things that they should.   13:29, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Hello
I like fish. User:Mei 15:20, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Without fish, thousands of people would go hungry. User:Mei 15:28, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fish are extraodinarily adaptable. User:Mei 15:31, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * I like ray-finned fish. User:Mei 15:33, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't you? User:Mei 15:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes. I agree with all of the above.   15:54, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thus obviating impending disaster. I like your style. Let us shake about the hand. User:Mei 16:01, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sure. [[image:friends.gif]]   16:24, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Do you have any? User:Mei 08:55, 14 February 2009 (EST)
 * What?  08:56, 14 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fish! : ) User:Mei 09:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't keep fish. I eat them.   09:08, 14 February 2009 (EST)
 * They are nicer to keep. User:Mei 14:33, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Project
You are now part of RationalWiki:Project Zoology (or Zoology Project, I forget which). Please report on the project's talk page so you can receive your userbox and logo. --"CURtalk 16:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh Weeeeeeeeeasssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll, wwwhhhhheeeeeerrrrrrrrreeeeeeee aaaare you? --"CURtalk 19:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hello. No, I'm not a member of any project.  I don't have a lot of truck with cabals & cliques, & I don't know anything about zoology.  I've done a few basic start-level articles on the main classes of creature, since we didn't have them already, but that's as much as I'm doing towards it for now.   21:25, 13 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry. But it isn't a cabal or a clique. But I respect your decision. However, you are listed as an honorary member. If you wish, you can remove yourself. I look forward to seeing your contributions in the future. --"CURtalk 14:36, 14 February 2009 (EST)

fundamentalism article
the fundamentalism article mentions christianity explicitly 20 times or so, and islam? at most once?, when islamic fundamentalism is at least as serious a problem as christian fundamentalism.

can you still say it's not biased? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk / contribs


 * The bias is due to what the people writing the article know about. Many of us have encountered fundamentalist Christianity directly; & it's pretty easy to find Christian fundamentalist literature in English on the internet.  If you have some expertise on Islamic fundamentalism, then you can certainly add some content about it, but if it's just uninformed rant like what you wrote at the Islam article, I suggest researching it a bit more first.   09:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)

You people must be generous
You've "demoted" me on my first day? Of all the wikis I've been on, I have not seen one that is that quick to sysopify! On most you need practically a quadrillion edits to be sysoped. How and why are things different here?--Ipatrol 21:19, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Simple. We think the way to avoid becoming CP is to give power to the people. We work as an ultra-democracy, known as a mobacracy. There are no leaders among us that the mob has not given power to. The mob can give you power in an instant, and take it away with the snap of a finger. That's how we work here. We are all equals, except a few odd vandals. --"CURtalk 21:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * "The mob can give you power in an instant, and take it away with the snap of a finger" - actually no, not at all. Taking power away from users is almost never done: only in cases where power has been abused, & only then after discussions of any alternatives.   21:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * I wasn't clear. I meant social status. --"CURtalk 21:32, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Like what?  21:33, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Like my total lack of it. For example, you can be well respected one moment, and an outcast the next. --"CURtalk 21:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * We honor the goat, isn't that self-explanatory enough.--EnAttendantGodot 21:23, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) This is like nowhere else on the internet! This is a mobocracy, not a hierarchy. Virtually everything a sysop can do can be very easily undone by another sysop, so it works out to give the basic powers to pretty much anybody, unless they're an obvious troll or vandal. It's the point we were making about that template: everybody here is either a sysop or likely to become one soon. 21:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * Precisely. Look at me if you want evidence that you don't have to have high standing to be sysop. --"CURtalk 21:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's just like gun control: If you give a gun to a stranger there's a 1 in 20 chance he'll fight crime with it.. or something like that.. --GTac 21:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I sense a lack of common sense
Weaseloid: User:Example was an account made by me to test blocking, vaporizing, ect. It is not meant to ever ever until the earth is eaten by a black hole, make an edit. Therefore it is permablocked to prevent hacking.--Ipatrol 19:49, 17 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't think that justifies it. There's no risk of hacking - why would anybody hack an account which has never made any edits when they could much more easily create a new account?   19:54, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Adding Cats
You know, as many cats as we add to this place, it's beginning to look like a little old lady's home. ;-)-- 12:03, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cats are good, but there's such a thing as too many.  12:07, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * As a fully qualified little old lady: What's wrong with a "little old lady's home"? 11:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

You're no fun. User:Mei 06:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Reply from MHOD
Yes, I absolutely love Seinfeld (it's the greatest sitcom ever, bar Fawlty Towers) and my name began from that iconic episode (although I have to say it's gone a bit beyond that, I certainly don't consider it or use it as a reference to masturbation anymore.. to put it that way). You're right about Conservapedia, I was banned before I even put the word 'liberal and agnostic'.. something which I hadn't expected. MasterOfHisOwnDomain 10:57, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry for the long-delayed reply. I used to be a bit of a Seinfeld fan a few years back, but it hasn't been on TV much since where I am (the UK) & I haven't yet got round to putting up the cash for a DVD set.  So other than a few clips on YouTube, I haven't really seen it in years.  I find Curb Your Enthusiasm disappointing.  I've seen one or two which are really good, but otherwise find it a bit tedious.   21:55, 2 March 2009 (EST)

RWW vandal
Would you mind stopping over at RWW? There's an irritatingly persistent IP spamming the article, and it really needs to be blocked. 01:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)
 * I just caught that, ironically it is Falldown holding down the fort. I couldn't do anything :( <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:29, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Sand cat
And you would know how? -- 19:03, 6 March 2009 (EST)
 * It wouldn't fit, for a start.  19:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Chalkboard link
I'd tried everything (Except the right thing, obviously) to make it work, wonder what was wrong with it? Anyhow thanks for janitorising after me. 11:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * That's OK. I can't figure out why it's doing that, but a regular link to the wanted pages is better than nothing.   11:53, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * It's because the text has an = in it. If a template parameter contains an equals sign, you have to put  before it, otherwise it will interpret everything before the first equals sign as the parameter name. --  Nx / talk  13:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Scheisse: the number of times I've read that on mediawiki (or was it Meta?). Thanks Nx. 13:23, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * You're welcome. --  Nx / talk 13:30, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Yep, cheers for sorting it out.  14:40, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Fall down
Sorry my bad. Didn't know he was actually lurking. User:Mei 19:44, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Huh?  19:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * All is well. Also did you notice you have become fun. User:Mei 19:48, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * No I didn't, but thank you. Do you mean you were the Fa11 down account?   19:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Of course she is. Her only defence against me is to fuck around. Fall down
 * These fascists don't realise they only prove me right. Fa11 down 19:52, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * If you were really smarter, you'd have some better response than a juvenile impersonation. Fall down
 * I'm smarter than you. Fa11 down 20:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * But of course. They thought Galileo was mad too.   19:53, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Is this technically ok? I'm only paraphrasing his comments after all. User:Mei 19:55, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * You're only showing your own lameitude. Fall down
 * Lame leftist dogma as usual. Grow some balls son. Fa11 down 20:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * It's alright by me (as long as you don't go too far with it & start calling good people whores & suchlike). 19:58, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Never fear. That would be far too lame. Fa11 down 20:01, 7 March 2009 (EST)


 * What's up is everything ok? User:Mei 20:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, it's fine. Just taking pre-emptive action against some underhand trollery.   20:25, 7 March 2009 (EST)

cool
I love Ocelots. Mei 15:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Good. I'm just looking for a good PD picture of an oncilla.   15:06, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, oncilla is kinda similar to ocelot & margay. How far do we want to go with this?  A pic of every cat species, or just a few representative ones to highlight how diverse they are?   15:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

The Great One Greasy One The Godly One
Have faith in him brother! But yield to him, for are we not low enough to be unable to utter his blessed name?DSFARGEG 19:27, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ain't nobody can pronounce his dadblasted name, but he won't be hearing any of my prayers anytime soon.  19:33, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh Brother. But TK can forgive you, all you must do is suck up to him. DSFARGEG 19:45, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not an appealing prospect.  19:52, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Unblocks
I know you are doing the right thing unblocking Fall down and his many socks, but at the moment being in the vandal group doesn't prevent page moves. If he moves a page on top of another that has content we lose the history of that page as well as the content. As he has been engaging is page move vandalism it is not a risk I am that keen to take. - User   20:17, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But if we block all his accounts it just encourages him to make more.  20:29, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually that is a extremely good point, you are actually completely right in doing it. - User   21:42, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So the priority would seem to be to email Trent and get him to improov the vandal bin, especially since he popped in a few times today - maybe he has a little time? He said he fired up the email server... this VB thing should be a #1 priority for him to fix I think. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:31, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
 * He will get around to it I am sure. - User   21:42, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

The h in hELL is lowercased because of Teh Fly and his stance on Liberal Deciets. It is a tounge-in-cheek joke. 15:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But it's only cute the first couple of times you see it. After that, it's just bad grammar & inconsistency.  Plus there's only so much mileage you can get out of one very very minor incident on CP.   15:57, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Real world
It's a pain, isn't it? Don't be a stranger now. You hear? 18:21, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually real world things are going pretty good for me right now. After being stuck in a rut for a long time, I'm now in a new city, new job, new house, etc.  So I won't be here as often as hitherto, but no, I won't be a stranger.  [[image:smiley.gif]]  Hope things are going well for you.   18:39, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks
... for unblocking me. -- 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Please consider sticking around.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.   22:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ^This^ (ok, I'm not very vocal). EddyP 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Weaseldroid
Were you able to get a new password? --  Nx / talk 08:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is no e-mail address recorded for user "Weaseldroid"   21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The confirmation email has been sent, after you click the link, you should be able to use password recovery. --  Nx / talk 21:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in now. Cheers for your help.  Weaseldroid 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hope everthing's smashing in the real world. Thanks for making the article I started on the Daily Express more in-depth and gramatically correct. 11:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problemo. [[image:square.gif]]   20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy...
...sorry--didn't think of links to the other version. My bad...Amin7b5 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's best to check the "what links here" button in the toolbox when merging, moving or deleting pages.   01:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well...
You are graced as the first to receive my gassy userbox. Enjoy. (Also, I like the "people who are actually fun" category, although it leads nowhere...) 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal bin
Thank you. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support your local Mei
Good evening citizen. You have been selected for showing interest in your local Mei. Were you aware that you can show your support for the troops the Mei by sporting this userbox on your userpage? It's very pretty. This Christmas Mei will go hungry. Please help feed a hungry Mei today. ''' Play, run, feed and feel good about yourself. tm''' This message brought to you by Mei. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome template
Please don't do that, it hurts the CPU. If you want to change the welcome template, Hoover suggested moving Welcome3 to welcome. If you do that could you change, welcome/IP so it includes welcome with ip as the parameter? Sorry I can't make that clearer but my pad is ribbish. - Pi
 * What hurts the CPU? The randomization thing?  I don't particularly like Welcome3.  My changes were meant as a temporary thing, & I reckon we ought to discuss further before making more permanent changes (like replacing Welcome with Welcome3).   12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pi, if you move Welcome to, say, Welcome old, that's one edit (replacing the contents of Welcome with a redirect). Then if you move Welcome3 to Welcome, that's another edit. -- Nx  / talk 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting!
Civic Cat 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Colours...
Discuss my reverting the change at talk:main? 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Smell that?
It's the beans and tamales I had last night! Jfaartz (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I fed the troll
...and the troll won. I fed the troll and the troll won. 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the picture. Something tells me that's gonna get used a lot. 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

merry that thing we do in december!


Cheers Ace. & Respect for the David Shrigley cards. 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you, you fuckin' fuck.
Yeah, that's right, you little fuckin' RODENT. Fuck you. Fuck you in the ass. Fuckin' asshole. Fuck. :-)TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats right TOP, just keep on repressing and interfering - thats all you ever do around here, you fucking autocratic fucking imbecile/cretin/clown. Once again you have deminstrated that you are INCAPABLE OF TOLERATING DISSENT.  Fuck you too.  :-D   17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You fucking idiots! Do you not see that this proves exactly what you are contemptible idiots? Do you now understand why you are considered as vacuous imbeciles whom everyone holds beneath contempt? Do you now see that you are indeed, the adversary of reason? The bane of liberty? The vice of virtue?


 * Cast your glowering, contemptuous frivolousness elsewhere, cretins, and bow down before me and worship me as a God. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.40.222.53 / talk / contribs
 * Ohhhhhhhh I like swearing too! Fucking jesus godamn cunting christ! Aceof Spades 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can beat that; you gawddamn motherfuckin' shitheaded bitches, go suck a cock you cunts! 20:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fucking fuckers fucking about fucking doing fuck all. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.40.222.53 / talk / contribs

fuck! 23:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Prick
Why are you such an authoritarian prick? What does it matter to you if the page had one of its own? You didn't even transfer it properly you fucking retard. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Videos at Saloon Bar
Is it better just to link to them because of the archives or something? 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because the embedded videos are ugly. It was discussed here & most agreed we shouldn't use them at the Saloon Bar.  I don't know whether there's been any further discussion since.   13:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah right, OK, I must've missed that thread or just forgot about it. Cheers. 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of troll am I?
I suppose the "don't feed the troll" template was about me, so I'm just curious. The only characteristic that fits is "Deliberately angering people", as two sentences of my mostly sincere post were meant to be offensive (as a respond to a person who called me a "retard" and "fucknut", but it didn't bother you then). As I said, I'm just curious ... --Earthland (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A retarded fucknut concern troll. Any other questions? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always been a bit confused with this "concern troll" label. Concern troll "specializes in visiting sites of an opposing ideology", I guess it's true for me (I'm not opposed to RW in general, but it seems that speaking against abortion counts as opposition). And the concern troll, of course, "should not be fed". However, "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.". So the question is "what is a constructive dialogue"? This is a rather subjective term and gives a fascinating opportunity to label everyone who disagree as "concern trolls". --Earthland (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland is not a troll by a long shot from what little I've cared about. People need to stop throwing the term around so loosely. "Concern troll" was very much MC's game, it was practically the defining moment in World Championship Concern Trolling - it involves coming to a site, and bashing it repeatedly out of "concern for its well being". It does not mean "someone I disagree with now fuck off". 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also do not think Earthland is a troll. Acei9 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthland, you may not be a troll, but when you're deliberately angering people and meaning to be offensive, you are behaving like one. The point of my comment on Cgb07305's talk page is my advice to him not to respond to your rant as nothing good can come it. I don't entirely approve of a lot of things that other editors have called you (including ToP's comment above), but I think you have brought it on yourself by being unnecessarily aggressive & insulting. You accuse Cgb07305 of lying about his academic background when your only reason for doing so is that he's said things that you don't agree with. 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Earthland isn't a troll. He might be a douchebag at times, but he's not a troll. And I quite like his contributions to aSK. 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nutty. Acei9 20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

w
Sorry ;_______; -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but don't do it again!
 * Wait, what did you do? 19:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Experimented with blocking MC instead of binning him to see if that would work. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't. It'll just give him more excuses to play victim & still evade the block anyway.  Best to leave things as they are, unless there's any collective agreement on handling it differently.   20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry sorry sorry ;__; -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop saying that!  20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sor-- Well played. You win this time -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

=
Are you doing something fun? -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'd just gone to bed when you posted this. What with it being half past two in the morning & all.   18:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the right time to go to bed. You must have been doing something fun before that. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only vaguely. Watched a movie on DVD, but that only took me up to about midnight.  Then I was mostly hanging around on RW, sipping whiskey & waiting for stuff to happen.  Which it didn't, so I eventually went to bed.   19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fun in a way. I often wait for things. Do you like my Cunning Log? It all sort of works. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. What is Darbishire?  Do you mean Derbyshire?   19:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Darbishire is a person. The rest is a secret. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it a guilty secret?  01:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a little bit. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yaarrrr
I like what you did there matey. Clever to add the copyright side as a kind of footnote. Very well written article. -- 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, me hearty.  23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This page needs more Mei!
Sure, why not. 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry--
Missed that one. We should pibot that page, anyway. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, yeah.  16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Why are you deleting useful redirects? Is there something I'm missing here?-- 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One was a misspelling - not very useful - & the other was "objectivist movement" which was only used once in an article, only two lines down from a direct link to the same article it redirected to. We don't need a "#####ist movement" redirect to "#####ism" anyway - if we did that consistently, we'd have thousands of pointless redirects.   20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was ambivalent about 'objectvism' to start with & I support its deletion. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Now that we have autocomplete (or whatever it's called) in the search box, we probably don't need as many redundant redirects as we used to.   20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was a misspelling. Okay, that makes sense!  Sorry to bug you.-- 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really no problem at all.  20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NO I am a hideous bugbear who drives people away.-- 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you come to mention it, actually yeah. It's unbearable!  Like, I'm outa here.  See ya later, assholes . . .   21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

w
Good weaseling today. I enjoyed it. -- 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I don't think I was particularly active today.  Just a quick bit of weaseling in between other things.   22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Creep
How the hell did you dig that exact link up? What a fucking creep you are. Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume it involved a keyboard-like device, something resembling a mouse, and some approximation of a monitor. An Internet connection may have been involved as well. I Eat Glue (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Saloon Bar rollback
I thought MC was still on revert-and-bin?-- 11:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was MC, & there was no comment to indicate this. In any case, the revert thing was never really agreed policy, as far as I am aware, & I don't find it very useful in cases where he's not actually trolling.  11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we ever agreed on any policy for him. Ah well, not important and not worth a disagreement.  Cheers!-- 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was supposed to be the Loya Jirga's job. As you say, not worth a disagreement.   11:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lazy LJ bastards - get to work! I only noticed he was active again recently when he started commenting on my blog.  Maybe I can keep him there where it will entertain me and not annoy anyone else.-- 11:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, do it. He seems to be enjoying himself there.   11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha I think he's going to cry.-- 10:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob Smith
He posted this after your warning, which I take as a threat and continued harassment. That's what the 30 min block was about. --Kels (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that he'd posted again after the warning. I should have checked more carefully.   00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * S'okay. He did it a second time on Human's page and you would have caught that even if I didn't.  It's all good. --Kels (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

huh? for fuck's sake, Human, "dodging ECs by copying" means you're still ECing everyone else)
I made new section, that can't EC anyone. You EC'd each other methinks, ladies. 10:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I interject here and say that I always copy my comments in the case of EC'ing? He says as he copies the comment... 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I had changed previous comments from * to # so I was committed. Otherwise, Superfarts, I agree and do the same thing on high-traffic pages.  10:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was posting in "Why do I miss those days?", which nobody else had posted in yet. If you're editing the last section of the page, while somebody adds a new section, does that EC it?  Anyway, I don't much like the logic of forking a discussion into two sections of the same page just to avoid ECs.  If you get edit conflicted, it's because other people are discussing the same issue you are at the same time - you just have to ride it out, because splitting that discussion arbitrarily into two is not a productive solution.   10:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it wasn't the most brilliang solution, but it saved my edit the way I intended it. Someone then merged them and I had to do the # thing again, but didn't get EC'd.  Doesn't it suck trying to type and hit "save" fast in order to avoid anticipated ECs?  Isn't it fun to be on such a lively site?  10:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, yeah. ECs are frustrating, but they're part of the whole RationalWiki experience.   10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're editing the last section of the page, while somebody adds a new section, does that EC it? Yes. Don't know why. -- Nx  / talk 10:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the page text has changed since that person has started editing. 10:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you can't ec yourself -- Nx  / talk 10:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC!) Yes, "add new section" does edit conflict whoever posts in the section above (I just tested it). You can EC yourself (at least in Chrome) if you post then click back, because the version of the page you're then editing has four tildes instead of your signature & timestamp.  But that's not what happened here.   10:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I EC'd anyone by pasting my edit into "add new section". But I really don't think that is my fault.  10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can EC yourself. I do it a lot if the connection is a little iffy. It sends the data but the "return signal", as it were, gets stuck, so if you hit "save" again, you get the EC with yourself. Also, I think you might EC with the last section if you add a new one. I'm sure I've seen ECs happen and then when I press F5, I get no new comments, but a new section has been added (that's assuming those people used the new section link, of course, which can't be guaranteed, but you'd think it'd be so obvious as to be second nature to anyone who's made more than two-three edits to a talk page). 23:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Move
You're supposed to undelete the deleted revisions of a page after you merge them. -- Nx  / talk 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of such a policy and cannot find it in the page move guide or other relevant Help pages. If this is a real RW policy or practice, please cite where. If you just want a sysop to do something you're unable to do yourself, asking politely is more likely to get a positive response.  I've restored the deleted revisions, since this is obviously a big deal to you, but I don't appreciate these patronising little instructions.  You desysoped yourself and should accept the consequences of that.  You don't get to dictate policy and tell other users to do your bidding.   12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. -- Nx  / talk 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that doesn't say what you think it does. Nothing about every revision of a page being preserved intact.   13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of "They must not be deleted" is unclear to you? If you delete a talk page, you remove users' comments from their publicly viewable list of contributions, even if you do copy over the text somewhere else. -- Nx  / talk 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn Frenchie.
That's what I said. Go back there. Quaru (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghuhuh?  14:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I already commented on the England page ..   I was just going to continue my joke here, but I've gotten bored of it. Quaru (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh.  14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Them hyphens
They can be tricky to spot, even when they're red, and the rest of the text is black. :) --<b style="color:#FF4488">Eira</b> <sup style="color: #220088">omtg!  The Goat be praised. 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that was probably the case.  18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Be Fair
Hey man! I thought long and Hard about that!--Tolerance (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So who are you? 14:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BoN?
Hello.

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

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "BoN" is an abbreviation of "bunch of numbers," which is how we refer to IP addresses in polite conversation. 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This may help. i9 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. [[image:cigar dude.gif]]  16:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Spam
Should have done that myself. 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was going to unpick all the =s & whitespaces to turn the headings into regular comments, which would have been the polite thing to do, but thought why the hell should I waste time cleaning up somebody else's mess?  20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 18:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Very few things are necessary but some are fun - sex is one of the latter. 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * It's best to continue discussions on the talk page they start at. Anyhoo . . . Assisted reproductive technology is a very expensive industry, & is used only for couples or individuals who can't conceive naturally.  It's not a cost-effective or desirable alternative to sexual reproduction.  Sex is a natural instinct that many, probably most, adults find very pleasurable, as well as serving a biological function, for those who want to reproduce.  If you find it icky, that's unfortunate, but it's a silly value judgement.  Childbirth is also icky, as are test tube babies, & babies in general.  In fact, most of the human body's functions could be described as icky.  It isn't a sound basis for opposing something.  19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Also, which article?

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 20:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Human race doesn't particularly want to die out. Chess is an icky function that isn't necessary for the survival of an individual.  And since there are chess puzzles and chess computers, you can get your chess pleasure from them.  Also what article?  23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

CP homework rollback
Real minor thing I know, but by Swedes I meant the people who settled in Delaware, led by Peter Minuit, in the 1640s, not the Norse who settled in Newfoundland. Jsonitsac (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah OK, but since "Norse" means Scandinavian, the wording was a bit odd, like saying "settled by the English, and also the British". Anyway, put it back in if you want.   06:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I saw this...
Totnesmartin (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)]]
 * Wow, that's an awesome coat of arms. Or should I say: stoat of arms.  [[image:smiley.gif]]  20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File deleted, I guess.  21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Just a bump to remind you of your nomination for the RationalWiki Foundation board of trustees. You can accept or reject your nomination here. On January 10th, nominations close if you have not signaled acceptance by that point it will be treated as a rejection. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I'm in two minds, hence my non-response up to now.  I am kindof tempted, but I haven't been onsite so much recently & can't really be certain about how much time & energy I can regularly commit to RW.  So I'm gonna have to decline.   21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

UncleHo
could you at least, you know, weigh in on the discussion before arbitrarily reverting something a number of people agreed on? P-Foster (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did. So why did you bother informing UncleHo he was nominated for a ban if he wasn't going to be given any opportunity of responding?   23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He can still spew on his talk page if he has anything to say. P-Foster (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude
Haven't seen you in ages. Semi-ironic brofist? 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [[image:smiley.gif]] Brofist returned. Do you mean at Wikipedia?  I don't really do much there; just correct the odd error or amble into the odd argument if I'm wandering by, but don't have time to really get involved.  I'm here quite a lot, on & off.  I must have missed when you were back here in December.  Hope to see you around more often.   07:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just appeared on Blue's page and said "Quick! Let's be festive!" And she said "OK, then". It was pretty short, so you didn't miss that much. 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's always interesting when long-lost RWians show up, even if only for a moment. Are you still a Black Rabbit at WP, or did you morph into something else?   23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pink is/was a rabbit? That's quite a far cry from jellyfish. 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But they both taste great in stir-fries.  18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. 23:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

advice please
the encyclopedia dramatica article for [shockofgod/shockofgod] was deleted link at the bottom of the [shockofgod/shockofgod] article. i put something on the talk page but thought i should ask first if the link should be deleted from the article or something put up saying it was deleted.
 * I've taken it out. No point in linking to a deleted article.  If you find any more broken links like that, delete them; just make it clear in your edit summary why you're deleting them.   18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Laughing Lauren
See here and here. 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about it? Duck jokes & gossips; harmless stuff.  Also, see here.  Why make a big deal of taking the vandal brake off when you were just going to put it back on an hour later for no particular reason?   00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See the ensuing discussion. Bluntly, they seem to have actually linked to some stupid trolling page on Uncyclopedia (I wouldn't know, as I refuse to look at that stupid site) and then, after I un-braked them, admitted they were only here to vandalize. But, meh. Little prat is probably gone anyways, and I respect you too much to fly off into an HCM over this. So, do as you see fit. 00:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually they admitted they were only here to vandalize before you unbraked them; you just didn't notice it what with refusing to read the link & all.  :-)  Either way, it's better to brake/block based on what people actually do rather than what they boast about (common sense exceptions apply) - in this case it was pretty harmless & didn't last long.  They may well be gone as you say, but I'm gonna unbin them anyway.  Obviously if they do come back & cause trouble, they can be binned again.   00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A lumbering, impassive, thoughtless monster.
Absolutely brilliant. Corry (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Corry. [[image:square.gif]]  20:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about writing on those pages earlier. I see they clearly have some function beyond normal article pages. I was just trying to get them to stop showing up under WantedPages. Won't be doing it again. --Danfly (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I don't even know what the deal is, but clearly the wikicode can't handle those page titles as it gave a 400 error (bad request) every time.   21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Coucou !
And thanks for the little welcoming message. :) Am13 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for being useful.  Are you a native Francophone, or just a cunning linguist?   20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for your source
I'm still waiting for you to cite a source indicating that the patterns for legalization of other drugs would be any different from the patterns after prohibition. Alternatively, would you like to simply state that there's no evidence either way, but that you nonetheless demand that we all pray to your legalizingdrugsincreasesdistribution god, whose existance you have no evidence for?--Mustex (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Eyebrow.gif]]  23:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What's to be confused about? You claim that references to prohibition are "irrelevant."  Now, if we had good studies on the effects of legalizing these drugs, I'd agree with you.  However, in the absence of such evidence, we have to rely on what data we do have.  Thus, until you can cite a source showing that, for example, making heroin illegal reduces consumption, the fact that you believe that it "makes sense" is trumped by the alcohol data.  Lots of things "make sense."  The watchmaker argument "makes sense," but is still wrong.--Mustex (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Winking0001.gif]] 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:33.gif]] 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...so, then, I can safely assume you have no evidence for anything you're saying, and your entire argument is based on the Balance fallacy, and Argument from incredulity?--Mustex (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in what you assume about me, nor in your ridiculous demands for one single proof.  19:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [[File:Rulez.gif]] 14:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What rule, exactly, am I going against? Could you be more specific?--Mustex (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Except...
Genesis isn't in the Qur'an. The story is similar but distinctly different. -  <font face=times color=black>π    01:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And the term "Judeo-Christian" isn't applicable to Muslims either... you need the broader term "Abrahamic religions". -- 01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Genesis isn't in the Qur'an, but then it isn't in the Gospels either. The Qur'an is the revelation of prophet Mohammed, & is the most sacred scripture in Islam, but not the only one.  Genesis is in the Torah, which is a holy text for Jews, Christians and Muslims.  I was avoiding the phrase Abrahamic, since Abraham had nothing to do with the creation.  & Why are you talking about this here?  Last I checked, article content/wording disputes are supposed to be settled on the article's talk page.  11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wordsalad
Excellent word! Especially as I am eating salad with mushroom, bacon & leek quiche as I write. Pippa (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We have an article on word salad.  Usually two words, but I felt like compounding it in my edit summary.   15:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like a source for that
What do you mean by there is no such thing as Indian Pale Ale? -  <font face=times color=black>π    03:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I must admit I always thought it was Indian too, I guess it is a matter of preconceptions reading what you thought is says rather than what it does say. -  <font face=times color=black>π    03:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IPA is India Pale Ale, not Indian. In old times it was made in England for export to India & other colonies, not made in India.  So Indian Pale Ale is a misnomer, although it appears to be a pretty common one, especially among American drinkers.  If a brewery is actually selling something as Indian Pale Ale, it's probably not a very reputable one.   18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't entirely disagree...
With deleting the, on Racism:talk. I just thought we needed that particular template, so I stole the code for it and cobbled it together. C ® ackeЯ
 * Fair enough I guess, but I don't think that BoN was a parodist & anyway I don't think collapsing discussions with these kind of templates is particularly helpful anyway.  16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You need more goat weasel
I'm learning to play with images. YOu are my ginny weasel. --<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">En attendant Godot 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

HEY YOU! YEAH, I'M TALKIN' TO YOU!
About references on talkpages, why are they not allowed? I'm not saying they should be, I'd just like to know why. Ta fanx, MtD  Pinko Scum   08:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they're not a talk page thing. They're for adding footnotes & citations in articles, then putting a footnotes section at the bottom of the page.  Talk page comments shouldn't need footnotes (brackets can be used instead for side-notes) & putting them there makes a real mess of the page.  If you add refs without a references section, the ref isn't visible, and there's an ugly red warning telling you so.  If you add a reference section at the bottom of the page, it interrupts normal talk page conventions as everyone would have to post above it, or else below it which then leaves references pointlessly in the middle of the page.  Plus the talk page comments are signed by users who post them, while references sit unsigned elsewhere on the page.   12:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. MtD  Pinko Scum   20:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

W. Mitt Romney
iPlease reconsider the way you moved W. Mitt Romney, we're on the first page of Google for W. Mitt Romney but not for Mitt Romney, sad. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? He's universally referred to as Mitt Romney.  There's no point adopting an obscure title just to be on top of a search engine ranking for a search term nobody's ever going to use.  18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protections
If you want those page protections to be effective, you will have to dial them up another notch. 20:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like what?  20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops; I guess there is no "moderator" option. I suppose we shall have to coop JimJast and wind him down a notch instead if he keeps it up. 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've given him a warning.  20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a moderator option, but there are no moderators. -- Nx  / talk 20:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured there probably would be. 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see only "Allow all users," "Block new and unregistered users," and "Administrators only." Is the moderator option only available to moderators? 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And techs. -- Nx  / talk 20:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Weaseloid, Do you really believe that when something like a brick drops its kinetic energy gets created from nothing like gravity physicists believe? (and remember that in Einsteinian physics there is nothing beyond $$E=mc^2$$ that can be legitimately called potential energy, partly utilised in A-bomb). So are you ready to prove that part of it gets changed into kinetic energy every time when something drops? Because if not then from where the kinetic energy comes from? Serious question which you might call "crap" but you should rather explain why. JimJast (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question about badgers.  21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But I didn't call it "crap" did I? I just don't know what Badger is. But you know what brick is and know that when it falls it has more energy (which is call "kinetic" if you missed it in your school). I wanted to explain you everything what you don't know. For certain things you have to use your brain to respond so I won't call you a crypto creationist. So far you still are one since you believe as some physicists do, other creationists, that energy can be created. JimJast (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I ever made such a statement of belief? I strongly suspect I have not.   22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And ain't you curious where the energy is coming from? JimJast (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I have my own life to lead.   23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that knowing why things fall would interfere with your ability to lead your life? Knowing too much is bad in RW? That's why you are against my explaining the people why they don't fly off the Earth despite the Earth does not attract them as discovered by Eunsteins almost a century ago? You don't like questions that you can't answer? Do you prefer the faith in creation of energy from nothing and that God did it? But yet a simpler way is to learn a bit of physics that is already discovered by Einsteins though not believed in by creationists. Even if they still prefer the "gravitational attraction", with its handy in such system of beliefs, "Big Bang", but impossible in the real world, since in the real world the energy can't be made from nothing. That it can is PRATT. JimJast (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your election to moderator
You were one of the seven elected moderators, the results can be found at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results. I will be changing your user rights shortly to reflect your new position. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great news & much appreciated. I'm gonna be lying low for the next week or two, as I've just moved house, have a ton of things to sort out, & haven't yet set up home internet access, but I'll be active again pretty soon.   12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More like a couple of months. Normal service will be resumed in early Sept.  12:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Votes
Would you mind weighing in or signing off on the proposed plan for procedure for the voting standards votes? 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing content
Why did you take this out? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what bits of it are things Ray C says & what bits are what the article author is saying about him, plus some bits of it are unreadable sentence fragments with missing or broken words. It don't make it clear what point Comfort makes with the Anne Frank stuff, & it looks like it's just there as an excuse to make silly Hitler analogies.   18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Votes, again
I have revised my proposal for the procedure for the voting standards votes. Please go here to sign off and/or comment. Thanks. Blue2 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are all mods obliged to sign off on it, or just a majority? (I.e we need to know how voting on the vote about the voting method for the vote about voting methods is going to work.)  [[image:smiley.gif]] But seriously, I've given my opinions & the proposal doesn't really match any of them, so I'm reluctant put my name to it.   18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. While your opinions certainly have merit, right now I'm more concerned with whether or not you think my proposal would be a legitimate voting procedure rather than the illusive "best" voting procedure. 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what answer you're looking for here. If most of the mods support it & there aren't serious objections from the rest of mob, I would regard it as legitimate.  19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, just wanting to know whether or not you had any serious objections. 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pirates?
So what squad are you with that is the Pirates? Are you the one that posted to vandalize this site on the cheerleading forum?
 * No. 15:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

eve
I'm about to get into my first edit war, but I don't know how to roll back an artcile. The eve artcile really needs to go back to where I had it last, in bulk. But I don't know how to step back that far.--<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  If you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I put it back to the relevant edit, plus made a few further fixes. Not that it will keep.  The way to do it is to click on the relevant edit in the Fossil record (i.e. the one you want to revert it to) & click the edit tab from that.  You'll see a small warning at the top of the page to let you know that you'red editing an old revision.  Make any changes you want or just save it as is.   21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How DARE you add options. Can't you real the rules
I mean, it's as if you think your ideas matter, or that some other option not yet thought of could simply not be as good as any we already have. Don't buck the rules buddy! (rolls eyes).--<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  Tue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting the above incompetence aside, Weaseloid, I feel bad about removing your vote. If the "Goat" option offsets a majority, we'd have two choices: the entire vote will have to be redone, which would mean more of the tedious shit that a few extremely vocal editors think drains the lifeblood of the wiki (moreso than aeons of HCM, in their case); or we just leave the result canceled and continue without duration standards. I think both alternatives are bad. However, it doesn't seem like one vote (yours) has the potential to lead us there, so I'm not terribly worried (as it seems DickTurpis has reinstated it). 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're both very silly. 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you
thank you-- 00:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I smite you with drinking smilies.
steriletalk 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I smite you back with. . . some guy jerking off on a pirate. 00:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, OK. steriletalk 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Charming. Aceace 00:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [[image:Cigar dude.gif]] 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

fun
Why did you revert this template?--Mr. B (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't link to anything. 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made redirect Fun:Encyclopædia Dramatica‎.--Mr. B (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mod business
RationalWiki:All things in moderation -- Nx  / talk 05:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you go about feeding a little weasel?
With liquor and hate. 23:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More like this. 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC) _______________________^

"oriental woo"
I'm curious... in the US academic system we were strongly discouraged from using the term "oriental" to describe anything, as it is (likes most things) a "white oppressor word" to describe an area that is so large, the cultures share nothing with eachother, not even a "racial" (so to speak) heritage. In other words, the term was as offensive as "indian" for our native people. Any thoughts? --<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  Some would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 17:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did have a quick look at WP:Orient when deciding what to call the category, & I'm aware that it's sometimes considered offensive (probably more in the US than the UK). I only really use the word to refer to historical cultures/traditions etc. - I wouldn't usually describe a person as "oriental" or refer to East Asia as "the Orient".  If you've got a better idea for what to call the category, let me know, but I still think it's a pretty good fit.  Re "cultures share nothing with each other", the fact is that ancient/medieval Chinese colonialism & trade spread Chinese cultural influence a long way, so many aspects of Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese cultures (for example) are at least partially adapted from Chinese influence.  I think everything I've put in that category for now originates from either China or Japan.  However, there is the question of whether Indian woo (e.g. yoga, chakras, ayurvedic medicine), which appeal to a similar New Age audience in the west, can also be classed as "oriental woo" despite coming from rather different cultural origins than the Chinese & Japanese stuff.  17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

moderator
I pledge support to you in your moderator campaign. If we are both elected I hope to work productively with you. May an era of peace bless us all. AceVote Ace for Mod! 21:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ace. That gladdens this Weasel's gnarly old heart.  21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed because we say we will not go quietly into the night! It is our INDEPENDENCE DAY!. AceVote Ace for Mod! 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Those were the days...
....was just reading this with a feeling of sentimentally and nostalgia. AceVote Ace for Mod! 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good times, for the most part. I'm curious about what interactions with CUR your comment here referred to?   23:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I went and tracked him down on the Werelist and he was extremely rude, suggesting those on RW bullied him because they couldn't open their minds to his rational proposition regarding him being a wolf/cheetah thing. I was quite polite but he got very upset about...something and blocked all communications warning me that he could ban me from his little site. AceVote Ace for Mod! 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's our CUR for you. He did start his own wiki like he promised to, on Wikia or one of those kinda sites.  AFAIK he was the sole editor of it; maybe still is for all I know.  I got an email from CUR inviting me to it, but didn't see it till months afterwards as I don't really use the email address linked to my RW account for anything.  23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the good old days. Nowadays you'd just block someone like CUR for three months for being annoying. -- Nx  / talk 23:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm Nx, Human isn't around today. No need to butt in a voice your displeasure. Why don't you set up a page in your user space where you can be nasty without intruding on others? AceVote Ace for Mod! 00:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

'Ship of Fools'
May you please restore the article so that I can improve it so that I can improve the wiki and hence help out around here and start pulling my weight. Idiot number 613432 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of dozen words isn't an article. Please respond to my question on the "article"'s talk page.  I really don't see any justification for why we should write about this topic, but if you can explain what it would contain as a proper article & how that would serve the site missions (see RationalWiki), then we can see above restoring or replacing it.  22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its funny I'm just trying to help out, i don't see what the problem is or why you're being so hostile. Idiot number 613432 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not hostile, but the problem is that the page you created isn't needed or wanted. I've responded further at talk:Ship of Fools.    23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my userpage?
Huh? Was this some kind of joke? Kate McCormick (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the page was created by an anonymous IP user. Feel free to recreate it, but stay signed in to show that it's you creating the page.  22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just undelete it bro, what's wrong with using proxies? By the way, this "vandal bin" as you guys call it is annoying, I don't know if this is something you have just for new editors or what, but it's not very welcoming. I dunno, maybe it's the proxy I'm using, but if that's the case I just use a proxy for the anonymity ever since the time some asshole moderator on a forum just didn't like me and DoSed the IP I was using. Lets just say the principal and the IT guys at my school weren't very happy with me when they found out it was a guy from a forum I was posting on that sent the whole school's network crashing down. Kate McCormick (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we'll leave it for you to undelete, since user's pages are their's to do with what they want. As for the Vandal Bin, it's a security measure against vandalism which IP editors are, by default, sorted into. It's a pain, I know, but it keeps an anonymous IP from using a computer program to vandalize us. 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys sure are welcoming, "fuck off troll" says this guy named "Pi"? You guys sound just like the overly paranoid sysops at Conservapedia. Go kick rocks, no wonder people vandalize this place. Kate McCormick (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wahey! Just like Conservapedia! Drink! Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody mentioned anonymous proxies, the quote was about an anonymous IP. We don't care if you use a proxy. However, we have had some problems with anonymous editors posting personal information about someone else who claimed to be a high school cheerleader, so when an unidentified editor creates a page using what appears to be a real name and gives some personal information we act to protect privacy.  12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I almost voted for you...
...for moderator. Pool closed on me. Shucks. Do you want to be Board Member?, 'cause I could totally make that happen. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lume, but I can't really commit to the Board stuff. 11:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of perhaps voting for you at one time but then got drunk and forgot all about it. ;) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of voting for you, but then I remembered that voting is meaningless so long as we're ruled by a corrupt two-party system.   11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, judging by the preliminary results, third parties seem to be doing OK. --DamoHi 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are preliminary results? 11:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but apparently Trent made a mistake. Hopefully the mistake is his, otherwise RW will be in for HCM the likes of which we have never seen before.  --DamoHi 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, oh dear. [[image:facepalm.png|20px]]  13:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That better be incorrect. steriletalk 13:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the comment on the rights change. You'll be back soon enough... 03:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Huw. I'm promoting him within the shadow organization. Respond that email, Weas. It's your time. 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I'm pretty happy with the election results.  None of the people I didn't want as moderators got in.  I agree with comments in your email Nutty.  Not sure about the shadow organisation, though.  Is it like Skull & Bones?  10:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck Nutty, "people" are watching. We'll skype about it later. AceModerator 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Minus the robes. It's rush week don't you know? Come on over to the crypt for some punch and cookies and we'll fill you in. I'll send a carrier monkey over with details this morning. 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungry weasels
How many could you feed, magic typing weasel. TyBother me 22:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Approximately 42. Doesn't say for how long . . .  22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing for one meal. TyBother me 22:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 64. or 2 cats.  I am not dying in my own home.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    Grow a vagina 22:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * {EC, reply to Ty} Nah. Ferrets, which are similar to weasels but much bigger, only eat about 80-100g of food a day (about 5% of their body weight).  Most weasels would be less than half the weight of a ferret.  42 would only eat about a kilo or so between them in a day, by my reckoning.  22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. TyBother me 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

the Asshole Atheist page
teh comment you removed (and i'm totally fine with you removing it of course) wasn't supposed to be armchair psychology, but bitchy sarcasm. ;-) <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot    Grow a vagina 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I guess. I didn't feel like it really added anything, either way.  07:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I had a feeling it might be along those lines but I had never seen the word before. Why not just put Xem there and do away with all the bullshit Him/Her/Them/Xem?Tielec01 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the usage is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. 08:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Humour detector must be out of batteries. Tielec01 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did anyone specifically link to us, or has he been revealed to be so much of an asshole that people are actively googling him and finding us? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He linked to us himself about a week ago. Not sure about any further links following this feminism/rape debacle.  08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're fairly high on google (I can't tell if that's just inflated for me because I go here a lot) and he doesn't seem to have a WP page, so it's hard to tell. We'll see if it turns up on google alerts. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

altering user comments
Armondikov altered my comment with. I reverted, requesting it be left as-is, there is reason for red links in that comment, it shows that a page name is being suggested, and it will, in the future, show whether or not the page was created or moved. I was again reverted by you. So, for my understanding of RationalWiki practice, will you please explain this thing to me? I understand that some users don't like red links on article pages, though I've certainly seen exceptions. But on a Talk page? What's the problem? To what extent will the mob allow users to edit the comments of other users? It can be a very slippery slope, some people tend to get pissed off about it. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody altered your comments. Removing a redundant non-link is not the same thing.   19:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment was altered, that's obvious, it was edited. The link distinguishes a pagename from text. The very point was that it's not an active page. Given that I was actually suggesting the creation of two different pages, this, then, makes the text less effective. It was not redundant, or did you not notice that the names were different? Suit yourself. If I find that I sufficiently give an eff, I'll ask about this.--Abd (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Geniocracy
Are the citation needed tags necessary? I'm taking all of this from the book. Should I provide page numbers? The book is less than 100 pages short. — Haamer (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And the PDF book is linked to in the external links section, it's free. — Haamer (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should still be linked to where it's quoted, to make it clear. Either use the repeat references thing (see Help:References), or put a citation in where the book is first mentioned, stating that all quotes are from this.  01:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Linked to where it's quoted? What does that mean? I know how referencing works, I'm more than experienced on Wikipedia. So I don't need to provide page numbers? — Haamer (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Page numbers would be a good idea. 12:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The English did not invent the idea that Joseph of Arimethea brought the Grail to England. A French writer did.
I have amended the Holy Grail article accordingly.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Why are you telling me this?  19:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In an edit you made to Holy Grail circa 19:01, 12 May 2010, you wrote


 * "The cup was believed to have been preserved by Joseph of Arimathea, who later brought it to England (at least according to the English, who wrote most of this nonsense)."
 * . . . [further comments relocated to Talk:Holy Grail] . . . --WickerGuy (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what? Two years later, I don't need a fucking memo when somebody wants to rewrite it.  Nor do I want to be personally lectured on the subject.  Go away.   03:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to evade a community decision
My name is on the account creation for all those accounts. I could not defy a community decision with those accounts because everyone would know it was me as soon as I'd pop up. This was in case users like P-Foster and Ace McWicked decided to unilaterally strip me of my rights and block me, to ensure that I could protest their actions. And you know what? Users like P-Foster and Ace McWicked already have unilaterally blocked me and stripped me of my rights, and using sock accounts I had previously created helped me to get unblocked.

But now, thanks to the interference of you and Mikalos, my contingency plan has been compromised. You've brought unwarranted attention to my sock accounts, and the next time P-Foster, Ace McWicked, Nutty Roux, Archie Goodwin, and whoever I'm forgetting decide to unilaterally strip me of my rights and block me (which they've already done), they'll be conscious of my backup accounts and block and desysop those too. Thanks a lot.-- 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course, you're just going to sit back as P-Foster bullies me?-- 01:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You brought attention to your accounts, by unblocking the other ones. If you hadn't they wouldn't now be listed, for example, on your rww page because everyone would have forgotten about them. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 01:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But Weaseloid and Mikalos certainly exacerbated things.-- 01:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, i stopped a suspect in a massive attack on the wiki from creating spare sysop level accounts, a sane rational thing to do; and beyond that, when did it become ok to just make accounts and grant them rights?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  01:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other users have done the same. As long as it's just you, there's really no harm.-- 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed, hmm? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 01:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

dos vacas
I see it as a common way of interpreting item three of our mission. As for Uncyclopedia, I don't see how it has any mission relevance.-- 07:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Desert Island Discs
Wanker. 10:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? It was nominated for deletion for over two months and not linked from anything.  Non-useful content gets deleted all the time.  What am I being called a wanker for?  11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is better known as strawman fallacy or strawman argument
But if there's some reason that we want to keep the laymen's terminology, I'd like a bit of an explanation, other than "don't do that" which was remarkably unhelpful, especially if I may want to do the same thing elsewhere. 23:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "We" who? You've been here two weeks & want to arbitrarily rename a popular article that's stood here five years, without even looking for other people's opinions first.  If you want to do the same thing elsewhere, think about not doing it.  That's my advice.  00:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what we call an Appeal to antiquity. Good to know. 01:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, who are you claiming to be talking on behalf of, or is this the majestic plural? 01:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm using a proxy, you idiot.
You can unblog the IP address before, takes me two seonds two get a new one. How's the weather over there? 17:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rainy. 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it
But I'd rather have you than one of those other ones-- 04:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What Bricks means is that you've been nominated for moderator. 04:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that too. And I certainly wasn't talking about sex just then-- 04:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brx. I'll think about it.  07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The sex?-- 07:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That too. 07:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Boy's club
For all that I think we are a boy's club, and often find it hard to "fit in" as it were, you are one of the single most forward blogs/wikis that's *not* devoted to women, specifically. And that's why I stay (other than also liking most of you as people). Right from the start someone made it a priority to include women's issues, and imediatly stomp down any overt or covert anti-woman sentiment. It's a good place to be, for that reason. But the very fact that 90% or so of the active posters are men, and the in jokes are so often male oriented, and the discussions about women's issues often have a male point of view, still makes it a boy's club. RW has taken the steps needed to change that, but it's not changing by and large because these kinds of forums and exchanges still draw men, and men talking with men will frame a male space. --<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain 23:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True, and those are issues the RW community should consider (& why are you framing the RW community as "you" rather than "us"?). But I don't think that has very much with what Brennan is saying.  I find it a little ironic that you side with Brennan in saying the community is male-dominated while citing Blue as the only other woman who posted in the thread, when in fact Brennan's post was attacking Blue (whom she doesn't consider to be a woman) as an example of male-dominance.  23:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I hadn't even read her article, (though I should) when I started to see a pattern in responses that sorta poked me. Something I'd seen done on abortion topics that are pro women, but largely said BY men.  it made me bristle before I even read the article. I didn't want to get into it, and should have shut up, but didn't. ;-)   As for Blue, you should know that my first reaction was shockingly just like hers. "but she's not even..."  i was ashamed at myself for that thought.  so i said nothing.   I dont' know what to do with those kinds of feelings when they come up. They are intellectually invalid, but they are, nevertheless in my head.  WE all have our biases.  that's mine. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  23:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And while I'm *confessing* as it were, the worst thing about my biased though on Blue, thinking "she doesn't even know what it's like to be a women", is that "maybe not, but she's had a hell of a lot more to deal with about being someone unaccepted in whatever role it is, and that's worse". but my "she's not even" spoke up sooner.  Bad Tanya! [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  23:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That thought essentially conflates the female experience with womanhood. It's extremely common and broadly applicable to think that because someone wasn't born as x then they "aren't a real x" or they "don't know what it's like to be x," i.e. "immigrants aren't real Americans" follows the same impulse that leads to "trans women aren't real women." The issue with that type of thinking is that it assumes that there is one experience that is definitive of whatever identity group you're talking about - which is usually bunk. 00:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And that all "x" feel the same way about things. I've worked with Native American women and Islamic women enough to know better.  Doesn't mean i live up to what i *should* think.  ;-)  you'll keep me in line! [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Tut tut, looks like rain  00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I love people like you, people who are proof positive that cisfolks can change. As for the others... I don't let it get me down. As some random cis person on the radio once said, people who are fundamentally transphobic will always find some way of saying transfolk aren't real whatevers. When we have vaginoplasty, they say we can't birth a child. When we birth a child (science is close!), they say we don't menstruate. When we'll menstruate (people have died attempting ovariplasty, but sooner or later it'll work), they'll say we weren't born female. And finally, when we say our minds were always female, they say we're lying. If you can't win, why bother getting worked up about the game? 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is that doing there?
I include  sometimes to make sure that the next section starts below all thumbnails of pictures. 06:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes a big stack of needless whitespace in the middle of the page. 06:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * chacun à son goût - it should be the last entry in a section and it becomes unnecessary when the section is long enough.  06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please
don't do that again. I put a lot of thought into that. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like what? 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats
You've been re-elected to the Moderator position. 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I really appreciate your standing down. But please wait for more users' input/comment before making any changes or announcements of results.  I don't want to come out of this thing looking like a usurper, so let's see if everyone is happy with this interpretation of the results before going ahead.
 * Alright, fair enough. 13:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bootstar?
Some people say...that you're awesome! :) 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Who are these people? [[Image:square.gif]]  06:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay lobby strikes again
Once again, the gays have prevented a discussion about their parasitical activities. When will you allow a free and fair discussion about homosexuality? &mdash; Unsigned, by: MarkCarthy / talk / contribs

Right, cause there's totally an Oompa Loompa land!
Thanks for the save, I forget that with my already racist username people might fail to see the humor and go right for OMG racist! So thanks again. C ® ackeЯ 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for unblocking me. Although blocking Tor exit nodes is kind of pointless, I just press "Use New Identity" in Vidalia and Tor gives me a new one. Since Tisane's page could well be illegal, I am complaining via Tor because I don't want to admit having seen it in a way which could be tied to my real life identity (e.g. via my IP address). 85.17.26.51 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but by linking to it you're prompting other readers to look at it from their own IP. 12:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are right. I didn't quite think this through, did I now. But maybe now as many people as possible should look at it. As they say, there is safety in numbers. 85.17.26.51 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That link
Would you like for me to add it to the spam filter for the duration of this? Тy Bored 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank link, or that entire website... Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not particularly. Only if people keep posting it.  12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. Тy Bored 12:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mod stuff
Read and comment, please. Thanks!--talk 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi I am new and I was told that my username is offensive in the UK. Could you change it to Guidedog? Guidewog (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

About credentials
I listed Melissa Harris-Perry's degrees to be thorough, though I concede it was pedantic, as we do link to her website. Because I'm new here, I do not know, should I only go into detail about credentials when they are suspect? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless it's particularly relevant. 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Patience
You don't think that you could maybe wait for a little discussion before deleting articles that this "agnosticorationale" spent time on creating? Try to imagine how frustrating it must be to spend time completing something only to have it instantly shut down. I'm not saying that the articles should be kept. I'm sure that they're worthy of deletion. But you need to consider the implications of swift deletion before anything. You wouldn't want to needlessly bring down another user.-- "Shut up, Brx." 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF?
Why the hell did you take off both my articles? I left comprehensive references to replace the Google Test. You could have at least followed them before deleting my goddamn work...

-- AgnosticoRationale


 * Your references don't establish those things as "internet laws"; one of them was a comment posted in a forum today FFS. We're not a repository of forced memes, and don't need to write an article about it every time somebody somewhere on the internet says something they think is witty.  18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your references don't establish those things as "internet laws"; one of them was a comment posted in a forum today FFS. We're not a repository of forced memes, and don't need to write an article about it every time somebody somewhere on the internet says something they think is witty.  18:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rights
I'm an elected mod. My constituents require representation. Chop, chop. Acei9 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Once you stop fucking around with other users' rights, you'll get yours back. 12:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He already did, thanks to Punky. -- Nx  / talk 12:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For Chrissakes, take them away again. He's obviously dead set on abusing them.-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What did he do now? 13:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just now, he removed all of Blue and Nx's rights.-- "Shut up, Brx." 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Report
Thanks for that. it's really strange to read it, cause it's like "yeah, THAT!". First question I was asked is "why were you at the bar, where you looking to hook up?" as if that somehow would make it less a rape. I hope things have changed in the now 30 years. Sounds from this, like most of the studies that had "icky cops being mean" were 80-90s. unless of course you are a drug addict, a prostitute, a gay man, or the wife of a policman/soldier.--<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just something I found on a Google search. Haven't read it fully; just scanned the intro & conclusion, but it's an interesting study.  07:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Move
I don't think my post belongs here. — Haamer 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - Shrug. - So move it here.  18:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Moves
Why do you move all my posts to the forum falsifiability which is a discussion on Popper. So a screed on suicide gets moved there and also a neuroscience discussion also gets moved there. Why is that? I do not understand the logic. Ta. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they're all reiterations of you airing your views on mental health & diagnosis, and I'm tired of seeing multiple variants of the same debate taking up half the Saloon Bar. If you're going to keep starting thread after thread on the same topic, please keep it within one forum page and don't keep spamming the Bar with it.  Ta.  21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

AndrewStewart1
I dunno, the Truman thing was better than a redirect, showed some potential. Your call, but there are editors here of long standing who do far worse without getting reverted on sight and blocked. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with the blocking & don't approve of it. But the two stubs I looked at were embarrassing frothy-mouthed rant.  The Harry Truman article can be reinstated if somebody's going to temper & balance it a bit, but as it stood I don't think it was better than a redirect.  20:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Boxing day
Thanks for getting rid of the cat. <font color=Blue>Генгис 20:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still there. I left it alternating randomly between the two images.  20:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I must be having a lucky run then. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 10:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh
Are you resigning? Do you want your rights back at some point? 23:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not particularly; otherwise I would have signed up to stand in the election. They expire in, what, nine days anyway, & I think I get cope without them till then & the wiki likewise, but if you want to tell Reckless Noise Symphony that he's now a mod for the next nine days, by all means go ahead.  00:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, since he declined his election candidature, it's probably more bother than necessary to make RNS a moderator for now. Can the wiki survive with just six moderators for a week?  00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We can survive with no moderators, as long as the dickheads don't wake up. <font color=Blue>Генгис silverbrain.png 10:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been awake for hours. Acei9 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "If men were angels..." 21:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider running, Weas. You're among the few it seems doesn't feel compelled to reinvent the role to consolidate power, yet do nothing to ensure our new rules are enforced fairly. GK's definitely got the right idea about "light touch"; I haven't seen you act any differently and I trust your judgment so far. The only thing that matters is being prudent about putting out fires, not all this bullshit extraneous posturing. Do it. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with Nutty. Mods like yourself, GK and AD are what is mandated for. Not for people who have these grand statement like they are running for political office because mods aren't any sort of grander position. Just assholes with more buttons, not community drivers/elected officials/senior users. Acei9 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nutty & Ace; I really appreciate that. But, having suggested that this mod election is irrelevant & unwanted (which maybe it isn't after all), it would be a little hypocritical if I stood for election now.  I also do support reinventing the role (at least to some extent) but that's more to do with widening power rather than consolidating it.  I really don't think the seven-guy STV popularity contest is in the community's interests, & having pointed this out several times to no avail, it would again be hypocritical for me to continue within the existing system while it remains unchanged.  When the role is open to more candidates on a less capricious selection process, I'd be happy to put myself forward again.
 * So how come you guys aren't standing? 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So how come you guys aren't standing? Me? Really? Even if nominated I would decline having abrogated my responsibilities last time in a somewhat bombastic fashion it'd be a cruel joke to run. A joke on me more than anyone. I haven't read the conversation you linked to but will do so now but I feel, looking at those who have stood and the lack of enthusiasm in general, that this has come down to a total failure in the mod system. But I stand by what I say in regards to you, GK and AD. Acei9 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So how come you guys aren't standing? 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real point in running now that the discussion is effectively over and I've alienated myself enough by getting quite angry in prior discussions. I don't even think there are enough editors left who understand the discussion for it to go anywhere. It really does seem to me to be exactly the popularity contest people who purported to want order railed against in the bureaucrat system and that we're worse off for it. My real interest is in continuing to help the board but, despite doing the corporate filings and dozens of hours of research and other work, I'm not even sure I can win that election. I fear that the popularity contest is going to spill over there as well. Oh well. As for Ace's perspective, I mostly agree but we've had some heated off-wiki arguments. I don't think AD is a great choice. Good enough, but not great. He's just as disconnected from fairly enforcing new rules, though I think he's in it for the right reasons. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One-liners
You're right. Sorry about that.--Krej talk 23:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No biggy. I just don't like coming to a page & finding it's only a few words.  Could the comments re Bob Barefoot maybe be put into the Kevin Trudeau article, unless you think there's much else to be written about BB?  23:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, yes, I'll do that just as soon as I get to a non-mobile device.--Krej talk 22:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Nonsensical block reason"
Dirk Steele was blocked earlier per his own request. When immediately thereafter another editor joins the same conversation saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same manner, I am inclined to think that editor a sockpuppet. 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So fuckin' what? Did he ask for all his socks to be blocked? Has the community had any input?  22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not ask to be blocked. I stated that if censorship of ideas was the rule and that thinking differently from the 'norms' of RW was a crime.. then I would be glad to be blocked. For two years!! So do not play the straw man please.. helloSailor 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When I asked if you wanted to be permabanned, you said yes. See the diff-link above. 22:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * where? Quote in context. helloSailor 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, since you cannot be bothered to click a diff-link, here goes:
 * You: "Theory of Practice now rules RationalWiki. Look at his actions. Censorship by fascism. I give up on this site."
 * Me: "Would you care to formalize that giving up by having yourself permabanned?"
 * You: "Yes. Just undo all of his censorship in the past day. See for yourselves."
 * 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And did anyone "undo all TheoryOfPractice's censorship"? Because it looks like a conditional request.  Besides which, we have a history of not permabanning people, even when they ask for it.  Besides which, if somebody asks to be banned (in a "so ban me why don't ya?" comment) then goes on editing as a sockpuppet, it suggests they didn't really intend to be blocked, doesn't it?  22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Look. I am on an uber ultra rant! You cannot expect me to remember every fucking incoherant statement that I make... 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)helloSailor


 * And so ban me! But you will have to ban all the other nutters here also.. (no I only mean't ban me in a symbolic metaphorical way.. you know..) helloSailor 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cunt
You're the worst cunt of them all. Free MarcusCicero. Now. ProudTory (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Marcus. I did rather suspect it might be you.  Your spelling is improving.  Keep it up.  11:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fuck you. ProudTory (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure. 11:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Amn't I going to be banned? the only reason I behave like this is because I usually have so very little time. ProudTory (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not by me, but I expect somebody else will oblige. If you used your time better, it might not keep happening.  11:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Numerous times I tried to come back by asking to be forgiven, but some little virgin dweeb like Tyrannis or Nx shows up and I'm banned again. You're like a slave owner telling his slave that if only he were less black he might be allowed to be free. ProudTory (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm not responsible for whether you get banned or not; but as long as you keep behaving like a dick, I don't think you'll get a lot of sympathy.   11:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't think you're just like a southern slave owner circa 1850? ProudTory (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. 11:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Help me help myself. Be my advocate. Help me with a retrial. The first one was bogus and wrong, we all know that. It was a show trial in the Stalinist tradition. You're a man of wisdom and good sense, help me fight the evil in this place so that I can bring about the reforms so desperately needed. ProudTory (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I? You just called me the worst cunt of them all.  12:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was before I saw your humanity and your inherent sense of destiny. ProudTory (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You silver-tongued devil you. 12:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to unblock you mate, but they re did it. I think there is some sort of conspiracy against you. Naca (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I appreciate that. Just bear in mind that every oppressed minority - Jews, blacks, homosexuals, gypsies - have had these kinds of obstacles to overcome. I console myself with the thought that in the end, history despises tyrants above all else. We're on the right side of history mate. They're the people operating the gas chamber control room. We know how history judges them, and how it judges us. ProudTory (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nottingham
Why did I think you lived in Somerset? also, Bondurant is a Nottinghamite, one more RWian and you'll have the three wise men of Gotham. Sophie Wilder  13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I first edited RW, I lived in Wiltshire (at my parents' place, temporarily). Prior to that, I was living in Exeter; I think I may have chimed in once or twice when you've been talking about Totnes or Devon, so that might be the reason.  I've been in Nottingham 3+ years now.  14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed a full stop in your reply, and misread your last line as "...so that might be the reason I've been in Nottingham 3+ years now." :)  Sophie  Wilder  14:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some guy I've never heard of sneaked that in without prior discussion
Reasons why the Community Standards should be locked at mod-only, perhaps? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but more closely monitored. 00:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

appologies
I wanted to appologize for yesterday. I was extremly up set about work (we were given our "reduction in force" notices a week ago, and tensions here are very high) and i took it out on you. please forgive me, and chalk it up to the "walks into a bar, looking for a fight" but virtually, attitude. :-)<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot Chúc mừng năm mới  16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean on the MRA talk page, I didn't take it personally. No worries, no apology necessary.  I think we were both misunderstanding each other.  + I do agree with most of the stuff you added to the article recently; I just disagree with some of the generalisations.  Sorry to hear about work; are you actually up for redundancy or just other people at your office?  19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll be there through the end of this month. they entire Firm is going away.  This is not public info on my Facebook page, just cause i don't want my parents to worry.  I don't' *think* you are on my FB page.  :-)  MRA is one of our messes that gets created when we have 3 or 4 different "pages" or "larger ideas" trying to shove into a smaller framework.  How you pull that back from the brink is what's beyond me.  Again, I think making "MRA" separate (or a distinct part) from "men's rights" would really help.  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  Chúc mừng năm mới  19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That sucks about your job; hope you have other options. No, I'm not FBF with anyone from RW; I've thought about it, but mostly like to keep RW separate from my life in the real world.  Re MRA, I'll add some comments on the talk page shortly, probably tomorrow now.  21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Feminism
The fact is that feminists claim that 1 in 3 women in the US have been raped, while 1 in 5 women were raped during the Soviet invasion of eastern Germany. The End Ian Kershaw. Page 181. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's innumerate math. You are banned from all statistics. If every human were to die, that would be a catastrophic global event. Every human will die. Do you see the difference? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about everyone dying at once versus the fact that everyone will die eventually? ఠ_ఠ  Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Shocker, right? Raping 1/5 of the population over a year is very different than 1/3 of the population eventually being raped. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I sort of see the difference. Though they also claim that girls in college are also equally like to be raped, which mathematically is a lot closer.  ఠ_ఠ  Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC, reply to Inquisitor Dickhead) So what? You are lying about what feminists have said (has any feminist ever really made the "more likely than" comparison you suggest?), you accuse them of "exaggerating" rape numbers without citing any relevant statistics to support this, and you are ultimately using some irrelevant facts about atrocities in the past to trivialise & downplay the very real problem of rape in modern women's lives.  Disgusting.  20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally think that rapists should still be executed for what they do. I am standing up for the suffering that rape victims suffer.  By calling out attempts to trivialize that, I am defending attempts to show the problem of rape in the lives of women.  ఠ_ఠ  Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you aren't. You are trivializing and downplaying the very real problem of rape, by denying it's severity. You used an argument from incredulity, and then lied about facts to do so. Is there a reason you are here, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC, reply to Inquisitor Dickhead) Yeah, by implying they're lying or exaggerating or have it easy compared to the Nazi women of the past. Real classy.  20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that they "have it easy." You are degrading the tragedy of rape, and that is disgusting that you would do that.  ఠ_ఠ  Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's what you're doing. What was your intention in introducing this red herring into the feminism article if not to invalidate legitimate concerns feminists have raised about the high incidence of rape?  20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also a reality that we are some 60 years gone, and rape is defined differently now. Getting a women drukn to the point where she giggles at your toes, turning on a fan, or a box of crayons and then having sex with her cause she's too drunk to even realize what you are doing - is rape.  It wasn't, just 20 years ago.  Telling your wife it is "her duty" to please you IS RAPE.  it wasn't before the 70's.  If you are 21, and you have sex with someone 17 - that's rape today, even if she's fully consentual.  that was hardly rape 40 years ago, it was normal.  It's a useless comparison to make, it serves none of the arguments in making it. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  Chúc mừng năm mới  20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re 17-21 - depends on the jurisdiction. However, your point stands. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are so many holes in the comparison, it's really not worth picking over them one by one. Let's just make sure it doesn't find its way back into the article.  21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of trolling for opposing the secondary victimization of rape victims?
Because that is absolutely appalling. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest. I have defended you today, but this is totally unnecessary.  Stop spreading this shit all over the wiki.  DamoHi 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm accusing you of trolling for derailing valid concerns about the prevalence of rape by insisting on irrelevant & badly framed comparisons with wartime Europe. Congratulations on getting everyone to argue with you over the details though.  & If you don't like being accused of concern trolling, maybe you should stop playing the "it's disgusting that you disagree with me" line.  22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about acting like an idiot. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector  02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. But I still think a lot of your opinions (e.g. on rape & feminism) are rather ill-informed.  13:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another ill-tempered little mustelid for your delectation
Even men with steel hearts love to see a pine marten on the pitch. Sophie  Wilder  13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at him go! Oddly, I see the Guardian has now edited out the footage of him being grabbed, since you posted this earlier.  Thanks for this anyway.  19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Footage of real live pine marten grabbing was obviously too upsetting for Guardian readers. Sophie  Wilder  21:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Trolls
Exactly in what way is it illegal to meet a troll IRL? ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Signature
ఠ_ఠ ఠ_ఠ Sturmkrieg Sector Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Ordo Scharzenkommando  22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just use a plain text signature and never change it again, then nobody will ever complain about how unwieldy it is. --MikallakiM 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just changed it. Also, you're saying that on the page of a user who doesn't use a plain text signature.  ఠ_ఠ  Sturmkrieg Sector Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Ordo Scharzenkommando  22:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor is his large or annoying, something you have often received criticism on and yet keep doing. --MikallakiM 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at some other people's sigs, particularly the height and length; that's the accepted style of sigmaking. They emphasise the user as an individual, without yelling LOOK AT ME!!! Sophie  Wilder  22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has attracted a group of people who can't agree that the sky is blue, yet we've all united on how ugly and annoying your signature is. Yes, Weaseloid's signature uses colors, a graphic and various fonts. However, you can scan a page without getting annoyed by the appearance of Weaseloid's signature. Yours however, is as irritating as all hell. VOX  HUMANA  23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this better? ఠ_ఠ  Sturmkrieg Sector Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Ordo Scharzenkommando  04:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No.When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 04:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) Marginally so, yes, but the adjective you're looking for is "tolerable." That, it is not. Peter mqzp 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Try this: ఠ_ఠ Sturmkrieg Sector Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Ordo Scharzenkommando  When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lose the border, the grey fill and most of the unnecessary words and you might have something. Put in a link to the talk page. VOX  HUMANA  04:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll work with that. Although I don't think a talk page link.  I don't see the point of it.  It pretty much renders user pages irrelevant when people can bypass it directly; no one is going to see it otherwise.  It's not hard to click the talk tab. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Streamlining the process is a bad thing? (talk to a) Nihilist  05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I dont see why the way pretty much everybody does it here should be followed, it seems silly". Thats great, but its considered the way to do signatures, you should learn that while trimming all that cruft off . --MikallakiM 05:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an easy solution, we'll just refactor their signature until they come up with one that isn't as annoying as all fuck. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) will do the job nicely. VOX  HUMANA  05:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lose the grey box, for a start. And please keep the link to your talk page. Forcing people to go through your userpage makes you look like an attention seeker. Sophie  Wilder  11:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ninja vs Ninjas
The rest of those sorts of pages&mdash;bots, techs etc&mdash;all seem to be at the pluralised version of the name for some reason. Peter mqzp 05:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, whatever. The user groups seem to be named arbitrarily, some in the singular, some plurals.  05:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Further arbitrariness is probably fine then. Peter mqzp 05:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think that external links are too promoting
I can always take several extra steps out of my way for your benefit to take screenshots and upload those to show what websites look like. Then again, all the links here and on all MediaWiki websites are rel=nofollow by default, so such links wouldn't provide any SEO benefit anyway. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk) 17:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:I am FED UP with the Democrat Party's leftist commie pro-porno, pro-fornication, pro-Islamic-TRASH agenda
Is it you? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a regular troll who creates ridiculously over-the-top usernames. Sophie  Wilder  19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He's got previous. Don't bother about him. Sophie  Wilder  19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Weaseloid removed the Poe's Law template.  Is this guy serious?  His userpage seems like Poe.  –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 20:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferrets on steroids
-- "Shut up, Brx." 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Awful. 17:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Race
I was trying to find a way to separate what biologists mean when they use the term as opposed to a more everyday meaning. Also, the way the whole thing was constructed was horrible as it went back and forth between talking about species and the specific human connotation. Check it out and see if it's any better. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 23:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolution
Your were right this didn't fit in the article an Pope Francis except as background information. Why didn't you add it to the article on the Roman Catholic Church? If I hadn't spotted it good material would have been lost. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Color@TF
I'm aware that quotes are a tricky business, but I would suggest that you refrain from using colors to mark them. Some readers are colour blind, some even completely blind, and they would no see the difference. Thanks! --193.254.155.48 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I find green a soothing color. Reminds me of the walls of various government facilities where I've passed many an idle hour. 69.50.55.110 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally
I think it's funny how cat food might be advertised as having been grilled, or that it comes with gravy. My cat just finished his "Sea Captain's Entree," which the ingredients helpfully label as consisting of "fish" (just fish, not any specific kind of fish), animal liver, and meat byproducts. You have to wander if he gives a fuck about whether or not his food is nautically themed or not. I like to think my kitty prefers fish-based filets, but in all probability he chows it down just the same as anything else I give him, indifferent to such nuances as gravy, parsley, or poaching.-- "Shut up, Brx." 01:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you value liberty?
Where will your loyalties be when the revolution breaks out? I've always pictured you as a member of the ancien regime, but when freedom comes will you stand for the interests of the people, or for the powerful?

MARCUSCICERO
 * No one here values liberty. This is the Imperium of Man, we have no need for your silly ideas of "liberty"--Token Conservative (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cat and marmot wrestling
-- "Shut up, Brx." 22:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cute. Thanks Brx.  22:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's...
...From UseNet. I spam on UseNet.--Thrinaxodon (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Monty Python's Flying Circus! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that from the golden days of talk.origins. Which, now only get's 100 posts per day.--Thrinaxodon (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

On being normal namecalling
Just to let you know, everyone someone says "there's something not write about you" or anything to that effect, (Mikal is possibly the worst offender) it's triggering. Not usually that severe, but it's still triggering. Just though I should let you know. I thought maybe I should let you know that I know what it's like to be part of a marginalized group. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't say anything because I understand that's how normal people act, and it's "just part of what we do." –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dead wrong
'' saying that trans people are weird, have a disorder & should conform. You've made a series of homophobic & transphobic comments''

I do not think that they should be required to conform. Furthermore, I have never said anything homophobic or transphobic. They're people like the rest of us and they have a right to their way of life. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on your talk page, just by medicalizing their behavior and treating it as a "condition" or a "disorder," you're already on the path to discrimination. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the path to discrimination not discrimination. Slippery slope fallacy.  As someone who has a skill for self psychoanalysis and is dedicated to fighting intolerance, I can be sure that I won't start hating people over stupid reasons.  –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehrenstein, those are all things you said on talk:gender dysphoria. 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a question
Would it be appropriate to edit the barchives of the discussion I started (in the last barchive as of this post)? I have a reply to post, but I don't know if I should start a newer topic or not. --Trar, the one true Scotsman (och, talk to me laddie) 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Best not to edit the barchives. An archive is an archive, so any new comments you add will probably go unnoticed by whoever was involved in the conversation, + making any kind of edits to an archive is usually frowned on.  If you're replying to one particular post, you could contact the relevant editor directly on their talk page, or you could start a new thread if you think it's important.   17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I started a new thread before I read this; figured it was the best way. Thanks anyhow. --Trar, the one true Scotsman (och, talk to me laddie) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope, etc
Are you prepared to run for mod again, or did you swear off the idea at some point (I forget)? Peter mqzp 20:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit pointless. I'll see what the lay of the land is & think about it. Thanks for the nomination anyway.  18:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Linode affiliate link
That was placed in the Saloon Bar by David Gerard when we were talking about web hosting, for the benefit of RW. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So why is it in your userspace, constructed by you & unlinked from anywhere? 07:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I had to find where it was originally was in the Saloon Bar. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 17:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocking rights?
Hi Weaseloid. As the elections loom, I'm afraid that me and my supporters will be crushed and placed in house arrest a la the Green revolution of 2009. I would feel a lot more secure if I have block/unblock rights in order to protect my ancestral liberties. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with me? 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just thought that since you're such a great guy - the kind of guy that girls want to be with, the kind of guy that guys want to be - that since you're such a great guy, you might just do a great thing like provide a cast iron guarantee that no funny business will prevent the voice of the people being heard. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that I think you're a swell guy. I believe I speak for all of Rationalwiki when I say this. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Like/Dislike
I just thought you should know that the only reason I separated William F. Buckley's actions into "like/dislike" is because that's how the Stephen Harper page is formatted. You should change that page so people don't get confused, as opposed to just acting like a jerk in the fossil records area of the page. I put a lot of time into improving the page with citations and research into Buckley's life, how it's categorized was/is secondary to me, so I just copied the Stephen Harper page because that's what I thought Rationalwiki wanted.ClothCoat (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Clothcoat
 * I'd also like to add that the Huey Long, John McCain, and Mike Gravel pages also follow a very similar format, making it impossible to know what the hell the "right" kind of formatting is, especially since you aren't freaking out over those pages.ClothCoat (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's used on a lot of pages but that doesn't stop it being a shoddy presentation that dumbs down complex issues and people to the level of magazine filler & makes RW look like the liberal version of Conservapedia it's often accused of being. Why is wanting to legalize marijuana inherently something to like?  Or laissez-faire free market economics something to dislike?  Isn't it better to let the readers decide for themselves how they feel about these things, or at least explain why you think they should be seen positively or negatively rather than flatly dictating what readers should like or dislike?   22:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that but I was just using the format that I thought Rationalwiki liked. I had my doubts about where to put those so I just put them where they seem to fit "best". In retrospect I could have put a "Your millage may vary" section but it didn't come to mind. Also I thought it was important to separate the stuff that was obviously bad (support for fascist leaders) with stuff that was obviously good (rejection of anti-Semitism). Rationalwiki itself makes arguments for why legalization of marijuana is logical, so I didn't think I needed to make another argument on that page. I did explain a bit that getting the GOP into laissez-faire has been harmful because of their obsession to deregulate the economy, and other Rationalwiki pages make arguments against laissez faire, so I thought it fit there best.ClothCoat (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My recent block
First of, let me thanks you for significantly shortening the recent block I was given. With that being said, I sense that you're under the impression that I was indeed engaging in the offense for which I was banned. I can assure that this was not the case, I wrote a clarification on PowderSmokeAndLeather's talk page. Sorry for any misunderstanding. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. You're welcome. 2. I have no opinion or interest in this issue. 00:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bigotry Wiki
I haven't been writing about RW users there that I've had problems with because it would violate the "no attacks" policy. You also sounded like you're trying to imply something. What is it. BTW, one of the admins there is another RW user. The only mention of anyone from here was a questionable argument made by someone I don't have any problems with. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 01:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have written about a RW user there & what you have written is potentially libellous. 05:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it someone other than Enlightenment Liberal? –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Who else have you written about? 11:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's it. It's quite clear you're reading it...  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IIRC there's no one else. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Help
You seem good at identifying not even wrong arguments. I was about to edit Liberal Logic 101 by saying these links qualify as not even wrong, but do they? I just want to be sure. If either/both of them do you can edit them in yourself or just let me know if I should do it. Thanks! ClothCoat (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem pretty confused & strawmannish. I'm not sure I'd choose them as the best examples of 'not even wrong' but it's a pretty loose concept.  16:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok then, thanks. I'll just add the first one since that ones a little crazier.ClothCoat (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not silly on days that end in x
I put the citation needed tage for the sentence "feminism is a movement 'of for and by women'" because I really do want to see the source of the quote. Some people would argue that feminism is a movement of, for, and by men, women, and children. Rand0 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people might argue such a thing but they would be somewhat missing the point, and really why should we pander to such oddballs? RW isn't Wikipedia and doesn't need a citation at the end of every sentence even when presenting fairly ordinary comments and observations. & It's not like feminism is some obscure movement that the reader won't have already heard of before reading our article.  22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Double standard
When I said that Gender Identity Disorder is a disorder, you acted like it was a hate crime. Yet when I say that being against abortion is misogynistic, you say that I need to tolerate them. I used to, and then I realized that people can't be against the rights of women without being misogynistic. It's no different than saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 14:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been my experience that these kinds of inconsistencies are quite common among Nazi sympathizers. Good work for for calling him out on it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 14:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nazis aren't even related here. Good work on being even worse than me.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been my experience that, in addition to Nazis, ableists, racists, and ageists. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I accusing him of that? No.  You're at my level right now.  If you find it problematic, than don't be.  In fact, you're worse than me because he hasn't even done anything remotely Nazi related.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I heard he's also a neo-Nazi white power anti-feminist men's rights advocate who pushes people in wheelchairs out into moving traffic and endorses rape. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think that all those things are a joke. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, rape. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you think rape is a joke. That's Hipocrite's job.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuck it, you win
Talk to Civic Cat  22:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [[image:banana.gif]] 23:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate people when they're not polite.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gonna run over to RWW, RWWW, or whatever the fuck-site and add to whatever hatchet job?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. If anyone wants to complain, this site is all there is.  RWW has been dead for over a month — it no longer exists on any server and its url is now owned by one of those web squatters.  RWWW was run by a pedophile who is currently in jail.   23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all choked up. I'll granted that article you guys made of me was at least 40% accurate.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Weaseloid, I put my original edit back into in the article, so if any of you assholes want to revert and give no reason for it, much less a thoughtful reason, I'll understand (understand that you are assholes). It's the RATIONALWiki thing to do. So drink up, you buncha of RationalWiki alkies!Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey alkies, I'm going to be going soon. Thought I'd share you a song that I've listened to several times today. The title kinda made me think of you right now. Hannah Georgas. Still it's a nice song. Have a nice evening, assholes. Hope your hangovers from your RATIONAL booze-drinking doesn't hurt. Talk to Civic Cat   00:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a drink in weeks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cat, you're not much fun to deal with. We generally don't link to essays from mainspace articles so I reverted it.  It was just a 'see also' link which can't have taken you more than a few seconds to work on, so quit acting like King fucking Lear over it.  06:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm frikin' King Lear, and you alkies had nothing to do with it. Allow me to describe my mentality. Many times when I log in, I get the feeling that people here are waiting to pounce on my edits. I'm surprised that my article on Albinism or my edit on the greatest songs have survived this long. Let's see if I got the hang of stuff here. RW has a clearly defined mission—albeit one with possibly more detours than conformities. I have a sneaky suspicion that most of the articles here that are not related to Conservapedia, or are otherwise non-notable by WP standards, are far inferior to WP's versions, in some cases inferior to CP's. (Consider RW's Argentina and CP's Argentina. But quite understandable, huh. After all, RW has a disporportiante number of British editors, and the British have so little interest in what goes on in Argentina, huh? :-D  —my compliments on how RW'ians can create internal links to CP though.) "Fun" in Fun pages can mean pretty well anything. Talk pages are ours—but they aren't. This ain't a social network site—but it has some aspects of one that can easily give people the erroneous impression of one. People here are worried over what the young'uns (let's say "KinderRats?") might think of stuff they might see here—don't want to give them the idea that this is a site frequented mostly by male internet nerds—yet some of you feel free to call others, including each other, cunts and twats. When people cite that the elder editors aren't being RATIONAL!! , you guys binge—Psycho Killer included. Granted, I figure that many of you are Christopher-Hitchens-wannabes. You call your community portal the "Saloon Bar," you not only have an article on alcohol but a frikin' catagory devoted to it, and even a Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki/Dive Bar—last attended by PowderSmokeLeatherAndPsychoKiller, but just as Hitchens was imperfect—being a cheerleader for Dubya, and leading a lifestyle that lead to his premature death—so might you guys not be so frikin' terse with your critics—this very wiki being a reaction to people who weren't only wrong, but allegedly assholian. ''We generally don't link to essays from mainspace articles so I reverted it. It was just a 'see also' link which can't have taken you more than a few seconds to work on,''  (so Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah). Okay, so let's assume that what you say is true: essays generally don't go into the see-alsos, even often linked ones, even, might I say, RW's more notable ones. Very well, so why couldn't you have put that in the edit summary? Huh? Why could you have not simply typed something like "reverted, no essays in main named articles." 7 frikin' words? As for this "It was just a 'see also' link which can't have taken you more than a few seconds to work on" bit, what are you saying? What do you mean "work on"? Hide that it's an essay with a pipe? —e.g."I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki?" What do you mean "can't have taken you more than a few seconds?" Do you mean that I should have put back in my edit? If I put back in my edit, which I did, you would have reverted it, which you did and again w/o an edit summary. Had you said those 7 aforementioned magic words, or something like it, I might have at most reverted and upon you reverting again I would have taken it to the talk page—likely not even that—likely just left it alone. But you didn't. You took the drunken RW'ian asshole approach. Revert. No summary. (glug glug.) Therefore, I reacted. Then after my post on your page, instead of you taking the hint that I'm a bit ticked, you give me the dancing banana, and PowderSmokeLeatherAndBooze and Stabby chimes in. (I can imagine you guys IRL high-fiving.) Not RATIONAL!! , huh? Feel better, alkies? Don't bother linking to your stupid essay—I've done it already, but have your drink. Your dead Atheist Saint Christopher would have been proud. (Was he cremated, and if so how long did it take for the fire to burn itself out?) Cat, you're not much fun to deal with. Yeah. Just as alkies think they are fonts of wisdom when they are talking bullshit, they also think that they are only the humourous ones. "Not much fun." Yeah, more like not fun to make fun of, huh Mr. RW W 'ian. You of all people, Weaseloid, the frikin' monitor, or ex-monitor, should know better. Talk to Civic Cat   19:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would almost take this seriously if it weren't written by a guy who wanted to use our servers to host his database of fetish porn. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, YouTube videos are porn. Go ahead, drink, alkie.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   19:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Told you, I haven't had one in weeks. And even at that, i'm a 2-pints-and-go-home kind of guy. But thanks for the offer. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been going through a lot of RW pages--my kinda binging from time to time. I'm pretty sure you've made links to that incomplete-at-best-essay followed by "drink." Since you cited my alleged fetish (there's less there than meets the eye), let me ask you this: are you in recovery? The question is more-than-half-rhetorical.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Last question first, no, I am not, I've never really been a big drinker. I can count all the times I've been rip-roaring drunk on one hand. I do smoke a bit of ganja every now and then, but not as often as a lot of my peer group. As for the first part, I'm sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with someone who apparently believes that telling an in-joke that mentions the concept of drinking is necessarily a reflection of actual, in-real-life alcohol consumption. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 20:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure people made fun of Dean Martin's drinking though I read that much of it was an act. You got some jabs about my list. Again, this wiki celebrates alcohol and Hichens—drunk atheist hero—even lying about him hating everybody—to better add to the drunken curmudgeon rep I suppose.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   20:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey PSL (or anyone else reading this), you apparantly like Talking Heads. What do you think of Severed Heads (All Saints Day)? For what it's worth, I like it more than most TH songs (as worthy as are TH). Would I be presumptuous in saying you like country? If not, what do you think of this this (The Highest Order) (Rainbow of Blues, that is). I suppose it would be a bit like Cowboy Junkies if Margo Timmins sung like Marlene Dietrich (here doing a cover of "Where have all the flowers gone" ). Talk to Civic Cat   21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Question
Is this conversation all about the ridiculously sexist "essay" "what politically evil bimbo would you fuck?" or some such? do you really think that's something about RW we want to HIGHLIGHT? and on a feminist page? <font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's just about Civic Cat being precious & wasting everybody's time. & Something about alcohol for some reason.  21:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. ok. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let it not be known that RW'ians objectify women.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ....and feed trolls. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if by "feed trolls" you mean "address legitimate concerns." As for the alcohol, it's that essay about you guys not really being rational you cite, then your "drink", on top of the aforementioned bits about alcohol. Maybe Weaseloid might try reading this sub-heading (now two sub-headings), huh. Or would that be feeding the troll? Again, Weaseloid. All you had to do was give me a 7-worded edit summary when you reverted my edit and all of this could have been avoided.I hate people when they're not polite23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say "i'm sorry" but i really don't get it. You were reverted without comment.  happens all the time around here.  I assume you took it to talk page (don't know or care really) - so i'm just not sure what the butthurt is about?[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As for teh specific essay, it embarrasses me that it was written here, but it's not surprising. people say and do stupid ass things all the time.  and you get on a band roll and add your own.  and giggle and say "this is funny".  The point of feminism, to me isn't to assume people don't do dumb shit, but to assume they don't do it often, and aren't overtly proud of it after the fact.  hence the reason I don't think it would belong in an article about objectification.  yes, that's exactly what the guys here did.  But highlighting it says "and we don't fucking care if we did it".  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should, but this has some context. I try to comment on summaries when I revert or remove stuff.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. Edit conflict occurred when I posted my last. As for your last post, their implied apathy would be telling, informing. Anyway, I gotta go soon. Just enough time to listen to Hanna Georges (link above). I'll contine later. Cheers.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   00:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. First off, I re-read some of my posts and noticed some minor grammatical and spelling errors, though the worst error is I put in "talk" pages when I meant user sub-pages; but the rest is reasonably accurate. According to this here page, Help:Edit summary, it says, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." I'll read the whole page later. A head's up to Weaseloid: I'll be putting the link to the essay back into the page in question again, but this time I will also post in the talk page. Cheers. Talk to Civic Cat   19:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

3 months later
Okay, it's been almost 3 months. I'm not going to say I'm sorry about the above because I stand by a lot of it, and of course I'm not expecting apologies from you or PSL, because I took you guys to task in my part-rational argument, part-rant, part going-off-tangent. Actually the King Lear bit was a bit funny as I think of it now. I never really got into Shakespeare, but let me guess, this Lear character was likely played with great drama. (Click this WP meta-article: wp:Wikipedia:Drama—I got a kick out of it the few seconds I saw it.) I hope and trust that my words didn't hurt you guys so bad—somehow I get the feeling they didn't: so again, I won't apologize, but I'll try to keep my rants against youse guys as minimal and infrequent as possible—ideally non-existent. I'll try to be a Vulcan—minus the repressed emotions—yeah, I'm going to act like a frikin' Vulcan. ("Excuse me, but your action was erroneous." "Piss off!" "Hmmp: fascinatingly illogical.")

I might have made a bit too much about the alcohol and yeah, there's likely an even greater amount of hypocrisy on my part as I did similar on Yahoo! Answers—though again, it wasn't in attack save for religions and maybe the big and bad. Ramadan section—de facto Islamic section—" No alcohol?!? Not even a few swigs to help me steady my shakey hands?" I suppose in time I'll post links to them here (most if not all, as my account there was suspended) in my user page. (Note to RWW'ians: Yahoo! Answers was the only site on my user page I was suspended on. You'd realize this if you actually had clicked the external links to them—suspended accounts tend not to be active (or at least merely dormant)). If by precious, you mean pretending moral superiority over references to alcohol, yes, I guess I was—still, a night with an alkie is generally a night wasted.

Btw, thanks for the edit summaries you guys are using on Andrew Jackson and Brazil. I checked wp:Pontiac's War and it confirms what PSL says—I read the article not because I doubted him, as much as I wanted to figure it myself. I think I heard it elsewhere besides AJ, and it wasn’t in the wp:Andrew Jackson article. I could have sworn heard it from a Cherokee over 10 years ago on a radio show about AJ, so yes, PSL obviously corrected my error. Also, in the Brazil article, I was half-right, Weaseloid go the other half.

Finally (for this edit at least) I reiterate my high opinions of the both of youse—and you too Godot. Talk to Civic Cat  23:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work.
You are the Troll Killer. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. [[image:square.gif]] 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who was the troll he killed, PSL?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alphabet
I'd ask you to take another look. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty miscellaneous, & not massively relevant to the site missions. 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

VenomFangX
Good change.--talk 19:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I started looking at which sections to cut, but figured 'all of it'.  If there's anything much worth saying about the guy, it'll get written (hopefully in less detail), & it seems too small a subject to waste much time agonising over.  19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That upload
As far as I'm concerned, that's the same as editing someone's post. In fact it is. No one can tell from the post it was you who uploaded that shit. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what makes it funny. 06:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. So impersonating you would be funny.  Good to hear it.  You've seemed to be one for double standards.  Gender Identity Disorder is hate but I need to tolerate anti abortion misogynists.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Impersonation is dickish.
 * you're a humourless sod. 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
–Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 20:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Moroning
Ooops. Sorry. I just checked WP. My error. Sorry. Talk to Civic Cat   17:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fasting = Health woo?
Can you link me where exactly Rational Fasting and Dr. Arnold Eheret are listed under Health woo, as well as with substantial counter claims? Thanks. ~Æ (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "As a form of health woo; fasting is claimed by its proponents to cure all manner of diseases and ailments, up to and including cancer, and cleanse the body of toxins." We don't need to list every example individually. 02:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that always bugged me about CP...
...was the way sysops would pat each other for blocking someone ("Nice block on that vandal!") as though power-tripping while clicking a mouse is a great feat. So, notwithstanding my feelings on that sort of thing, nice delete on that article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, one or other of us was going to do it anyway sooner or later. 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Better him than me. I'm at a baby shower trying to enjoy myself. Can someone rewire this person's brain so he acts like a human being and observes rules and folkways? Thanks in advance. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Titanic
I would have thought that the conspiracy theories surrounding Titanic (such as it was actually her sister ship that sank) would be totally on-mission for the wiki? --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin Поговорите! 11:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So bring it up on the talk page, or write an article on the subject. The stub that was deleted wasn't much use to anyone and was nominated for deletion for over two months with no moves towards keeping or improving it.  18:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Saloon Bar
Why are you deleting the post with the gun control image link? Tielec01 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything racist in the picture - can you point to me the bit that is racist? Tielec01 (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then check the page history & the other crap posted by that guy. & Stop putting it back unless you actually intend to respond to it, which I don't advise, as per DFTT.  09:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize what the link was earlier when I added to it, or else I'd have removed it myself. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok so I checked the guys contributions (an extensive list) and there is nothing racist. I have no idea how you check the page history of a image so I'll assume you are talking wikifu outside of my belt. However, it does occur to me that you might be acting deliberately obtuse and making me run around like a fucking retard because you are too embarrassed to admit you were wrong - so please disabuse me of this notion and show me how I don't know what I'm doing. In the meantime I will continue to restore what seems to me is a good faith, even if misguided, contribution. Tielec01 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FFS, here you go:, , , , , , , , . Good faith contributions, in a pig's eye.  14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably just someone getting a kick out of provoking RW with minimum effort links and inconsistently varying degrees of bad grammar/spelling. Nullahnung (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, some of them are pretty shitty. My apologies. Tielec01 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Spambots can't do math
Justine Brodney was married when she was 13 years old, apparently. Godspeed (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange and terrible things happen in Birley. 01:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Blog
Meant to go back and do that, got distracted by coffee. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuality" and MGTOW
Two ways to look at it: 1. It's a bit of adolescent fun; 2. Strictly speaking, it's a movement made up of people all from one sex, therefore, it's a homosexual movement. I know the more accurate term is "homosocial," but see reason 1. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't really agree.  I doesn't belong in a category made up of articles actually relating to homosexuality.  12:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse against Enlightenment Liberal
State your case here. Explain what claims in the article are not supported by his statements. Sturmwächter (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to, as I don't want to become involved in that site at all. I will leave it to your own conscience & content policies.  FYI, the discussion that Sasha alludes to & quote-mines (but doesn't cite) can be found here.  I do think that his summary of EnlightenmentLiberal's comments as intent to rape a (hypothetical) person constitutes libel.  10:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why
did you delete Qarawiyyin university? Pass a Method (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it only contained about twenty words, none of which had anything to do with RW's site missions. 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have added a stub tag since Brigham Young University besides others also exist. Pass a Method (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not going to have articles on every university in the world. what makes Qarawiyyin relevant? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 17:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its the oldest university in the world. Pass a Method (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good for them! How is it relevant to the mission? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 17:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would give us a relevant wikilink if we are trying to analyse scientific know-how in medieval times. Pass a Method (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need to link to every noun in every article. If people are curious about the place, they can google it themselves. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about i recreate it while keeping MISSION in mind? Pass a Method (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? What will it say? 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rape Culture.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_culture&diff=next&oldid=1270836

Yes it does.&mdash; Unsigned, by: A Real Libertarian / talk / contribs

Not a dictionary
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Iconoclasm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Xenophobia

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Misogyny

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transphobia

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-Europeanism

Can you please explain to me why a page detailing the irrational fear of iconography and/or symbolism is unacceptable on a "rationalwiki?"
 * Twenty words isn't a page. The articles you link to above actually say things about stuff.  Your "page" didn't.  00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry. I hit "save page" rather than show preview while working on it.  Iconophobia is a very common feature of religious people and areligious people.  I suggest doing a google search for "Iconophobia site:.edu" to illustrate its applicability to the | subject matter.  Bloomingdedalus (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Libel
Meet me at gamer-net.sturmkrieg.com for a private conversation. I'm considering removing that page you complain about. –Inquisitor Sasha (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks. 20:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Hey, hey hey, hey. Hey.
Hey. Since you do not have wiki e-mail enabled, can you please shoot a blank e-mail to powdersmokeandleather at gmail? In the words of Tom Waits, "I wanna pull on your coat about something." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome
I'm not involved one way or the other, I have no axe to grind and I know next to nothing about the issue - but I think you should have waited to get some kind of consensus before deleting Rome Viharo. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's never going to be 100% consensus on a subject like that, but most comments were in favour of deletion, excepting a couple of noobs & troublemakers making the rather uninspiring argument "let's keep this article so we piss this guy off". 17:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty obviously you're not going to get a 100% consensus on anything on RW. As I said, I know little about the issue, but given its contentious nature a vote before deletion wouldn't have been a bad idea.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good riddance to bad rubbish. Yet I have a feeling a guy who compares himself to rape victims after rightly getting tossed off WP will find himself back on RW eventually. Leuders (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

short articles
Hi, I think we should keep pages even if they are only short articles, they should be separate as they are notable. I'm happy for them to be expanded but I will be voting to keep these pages anyway.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * there is more information at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians --Darrelljon (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something that's only twenty words long isn't an article. It's wasting readers' time if they follow a link to a page like that, thinking that it is an article page. 14:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How come a number of these articles were deleted with no further discussion from other users?--Darrelljon (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they were short & rubbish, as outlined here, & other users didn't object to such "articles" being vaporised. 00:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this normal on Rationalwiki as on Wikipedia speedy deletion (bypassing the usual deletion discussion on a particular page) is done according to policy? I can understand why stubs such as articles on California might not need discussing individually, but not stubs relating to articles that would otherwise be notable for rationalwiki.--Darrelljon (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cato
I thought the Cato edit at line 6 was reasonable. What do you think? The rest I have no feelings on.--Barryjon (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He/she removed various things from the page, while only giving a reason for one of them. I don't really care one way or the other about the gay bars being namechecked.  19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The rest may have been dishonest and wasn't included in the message, agreed. But I don't get the gay reference.  It seems arbitrary and without an explanation it is probably a bit homophobic.  Happy to continue this discussion at the Cato page but nobody else seems to care :-S  --Barryjon (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the maps on those bars' sites, I see they're nowhere near each other, so I don't know why they're being mentioned at all. If they were right next to the Cato Institute (which I thought was the intended meaning) it might be worth mentioning, but otherwise I don't see what the point is, so I've taken it out.  20:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry to have bothered you, just saw you had edited the page :-) --Barryjon (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Darrell Huff
Hey Weaseloid. I want to clarify why Darrell Huff is on-mission. He wrote a book called How to Lie with Statistics, which is all about how people misuse statistics so as to create falsehood. I have restored the page, and I will go now to edit it to this make this clearer. Rand0 (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so now it's three lines long instead of two, & there's still nothing that links to it. If you've nothing else to say about this guy, then put it in the statistics article or somewhere else relevant.  08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"This user's IQ is a flock of angry weasels."
No! That just... cannot be done. Arrgh! The computer rejects it. What would Watson think? How would it process that? Reasoner (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Burkean
The guy is a crank, read his Mel Gibson tirade here and his belief that pre-war pacifists were Nazis in disguise. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of the people who called for appeasement did not and would not like a Nazi regime. That's part of the irony, you see? People who would never want to live under Hitler were calling for appeasement. That's not really saying they're Nazis. So again, you're dishonest. As for my "tirade", what I actually said was that the left weren't the only ones who engaged in what is considered sexual deviance, aka the conservative Mormons who practice polygamy. I also said that while Mel Gibson could certainly be thought of as misogynistic, he might have just been really drunk. Why the hell would that piss you off? Burkean (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? That doesn't justify a month-long rage-block.  Or any length of block, as far as I can see.  01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask that same question to Psy, please. Because I don't regret it. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're obnoxious and you don't regret it. No surprise there. I love the rationalization "psy did it so why can't I. Waaahhh!". What are you, 4? Burkean (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I still can't believed I argued with him for so long... ClothCoat (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean the part where you claimed that comparing the tactics of Obama with Hitler is the moral equivalent of comparing the strategy of Obama with Hitler? Yeah, you're right. You were completely stupid there. Burkean (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Clog WIGO
The issue isn't that I don't understand it; it's that the WIGO is entirely wrong. The article says nothing objectionable, let alone what the WIGO claims it says, and it doesn't disagree with its source. I apologize for commenting it out if that wasn't the right thing to do, but my understanding about the voting was that it was more a comment on the content of the WIGO as opposed to its validity. - Grant (Talk) 19:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted my comments about the WIGO already on the talk page. Liberalaland does claim Obama was "incorrect" to cite the wage gap as $0.77 to the $, then links to a webpage giving exactly the same summary.  And Liberaland is incorrect (as far as I can see) in stating that it is only "professional white women" who make 77 cents on the dollar: the cited report shows that white women make $0.78 to each $1 earned by white men specifically, while non-white women earn less than this, but so do non-white men.  As I said on WIGO talk, I can't see how these figures work out at $0.77 to the $1 overall, but I'm not much of a statistician & obviously only looking at the headline stats here & not the source data & other ways it could be sorted.  Meanwhile the report confirms that the wage gap across the baord is women earning an average of $0.77 to the man's $1, and I see no reason to doubt that unless it csn be shown to have been calculated incorrectly.  20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; I responded there as well, and will not continue to clog up your talk page with comments more suited to that location. - Grant (Talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

just wanted to say
Thanks for sticking up for me, weaseloid. Class act, appreciate it. :) Burkean (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Junk
You deleted my contribution with no more reason than "junk". Can you explain what you mean by "junk"?Forces (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Aww poor baby ...
Removing what I'm saying to you? You do realize RW is going to suffer bigtime for that false article right?

Here
http://www.rational-wiki.org/ - That'll have stuffed added to it and climb the SEO charts like you morons are doing to others.

Apology and question
I am sorry for the misunderstanding the mission, sir. I pinkie promised it would not ever happen again. I been looking up a page about Andrew Schlafly and see that he have a full birthday date. So I thought to add that info into Kevin article. Citation 3 given away his age and Citation 55 confirmed his full name. The information is already there. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also I am so not sure, the Above Top Secret have mention he is 28 in 2013 and this page is still publicly available. So what is wrong with the info? --Daniiieeeel (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lastly, his brother already told me he's 10 years years older than me in a Skype Call, so I do not think it is cyber-stalking. If Kevin is his twin, that would of mean they're almost the same age. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The new mayor of NYC is your friend.
Seriously. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neat! Good news for New York.  17:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

what the hell
is this thing you have added to the wiki and why does it have to exist?-- Mie kal  02:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Manifesto
Honestly I think you covered most of what I would have included, right down to his preoccupation with throwing drinks at people. The only other things I can think of at this time is a section on his classism (i.e. his "british aristocracy" spiel and his horror/contempt for anything beneath his ultra-privilaged bubble) which could well be rolled into the "magnificent gentleman" section, and maybe a few paragraphs discussing the contents of said manifesto (especially the last few pages where he "concisely" sets out his views on life, the universe, and women) and how it relates to established loveshy/pua dogma. In particular I remember being reminded of infamous loveshy bigwig/psychopath and all-round revolting POS Fschmidt (if you dont know who that is, check him out on FSTDT, hes one of the most repulsive contributors of quotes) as well as several other loveshy "intellectuals'" plans/wank-fantasies for their perfect new loveshy order, right down to enslaving all non-loveshy men and forcing all women to be breeder sows when reading that part. Indeed Fschmidt and co were praising him and hoping he murdered "the right people" mere hours after the shootings while heartily agreeing with his idea of a "perfect" society. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 12:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and I think there definitely needs to be a section on the insane amount of wealth, privilege, and opulence he spent his life immersed in (and which he detailed with loving verboseness right down to the sausages on the fucking buffet table at his 5 star hotel he stayed in during in his regular trips to London) contrasted with his constant whining about how hellish and terrible his life is. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 12:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add any of that. For now I've concentrating on the 2014 Isla Vista killings article itself.  There's a lot of important stuff to be added, like accounts from people who knew Rodger (online or IRL), the various reactions from the MRA/incel manosphere (ranging from idolisation to disowning him), the gun control debate & Joe the Plumber, and the usual "crisis actors" crap about the shootings being hoaxed.  12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok then, ill try to add in more detail of his classism/obsession with his opulant life tonight/tommorow after work. It will take a bit of time gathering up sauces for loveshy reactions as well as similar manifestos from "big name" loveshies so I will try to do that somepoint next week (by which point someone would hopefully have beaten me to the chase and freed me from dredging a few dozen loveshy sites.) Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it doesn't cross over into obsessive detail, that's fine. We don't want to draw any more attention to the killer than is necessary to discuss the psychopathic misogyny (otherwise we'll be just as bad as the media). Nullahnung (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

lols Are Strictly Forbidden, Good User!
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Predictions&diff=next&oldid=1333403

--A Real Libertarian (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound very libertarian. 00:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My edit
What is wrong with my edit? Does that attack not fit into the article? Is there a place on this site where it would fit better? &mdash; Unsigned, by: I hate MRAs / talk / contribs
 * Discuss it here. The people you're defaming as MRAs have been users of RationalWiki for upward of five years and are not MRA.   07:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they aren't MRA? I thought that that was the official story? Are you active on the RationalWiki Facebook? I hate MRAs (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. But none of the accounts I've seen (from involved parties on both sides of schism) support the view that it was the work of MRAs.  If that's the "official story", I've no idea who is putting it about or making it official.  Please read the discussion I linked above: the guys who gutted the old FB group give their reasons for doing so.  If you have questions or want to take sides, do it on that page.  Please keep it out of our article pages.  08:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Anecdotes/Coincidence essay
I was editing it at the exact same time as you, and there was an edit conflict. What a coincidence! :)--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 23:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Hyde Amendment info
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound anti taxation, I think cancerous solipsistic capitalism will probably be the death of us all. I find it deeply disturbing there's no mention of the Hyde Amendment on the Wikipedia article for abortion. As a former and hopefully future Wikipedian, I wonder what else is Wikipedia not telling us? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you didn't intend to be anti-taxation, but the argument "if we object to X, we shouldn't have to fund it through our tax dollars" kind of plays into the anti-tax rhetoric. Re Wikipedia's articles, the Hyde Amendment is covered within WP:Abortion in the United States.  I'm not sure that it would be appropriate within the main WP:abortion article as a global overview article.  21:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Godot's new account
If all parties involved are comfortable with this, would you mind please specifying this new account, so as to satisfy my nosiness curiosity? Thanx braaaaah. 101.168.127.245 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you? 08:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me on a friend's phone so as to evade my self-imposed block. Messiahsock1 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you....
..For removing that crap from my talkpage. There seems to be this weird idea amongst some users that my "RationalWiki doesn't welcome pedophiles!" stance is negotiable. You know, as do I, that nothing could be further from the truth, and I will continue to put the screws to this asshat until he goes away. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he should be leaving now; it sounded like he understood that most of us find his views abhorrent and don't want to hear them, and, from the looks of things, he has calmed down quite significantly, so I'm hoping we aren't going to see much of him again. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM   Suffer! Bastard! Dolan.png 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "There seems to be this weird idea amongst some users that my "RationalWiki doesn't welcome pedophiles!" stance is negotiable." I haven't seen anyone actually say that they have this idea. I don't know who you could mean. Nullahnung (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a rhetorical straw man. Some users (myself included) argued that a person who showed tendencies towards paedophilia shouldn't be banned. Read through the chicken coop if you want further elaboration; it's a complicated issue and no-one was overly sorry when that user was eventually banned. I assume this is what RNS is referring to. Tielec01 (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Brx's earlier accommidationism and this Doxys Midnight Runner person who appeared on my talkpage who were saying "let's debate them," as well as, and specifically to, the people in the talkpage post that Weaseloid erased. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I've wanted to stay as far away from this whole thing as possible after my initial post under Doom Messiah's. It's just that I tend to respond when spoken to and for whatever reason the BoN felt like targetting me. Nullahnung (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Haven't been paying much attention to that scenario. I'll refrain from putting words in your mouth. Tielec01 (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The cause of "righteous justice"
It's badly ironic that a site called RationalWiki is talking about their no-compromises intolerance against a naturally occurring kind of human. My calmness is directly proportional to how reasonably you behave towards me. For instance removing texts into which I collectively poured hours of work and have paid attention to only give good scientific and professional citations, to not fall for any fallacies in my reasoning, to remain relatively calm even against the most aggressive people, removing these without even giving a proper rationale or addressing even a single argument put forth in them or showing any of the given citations to be faulty, and then putting up censors that prevent me both from reposting these texts and from creating new ones on the same topic by filtering common words and citations I use, is not to be expected to help me remain calm. I'm already being overly tolerant towards your behavior. I don't know how much time you people have at your hands, but unfortunately I still haven't retired, and it will take a lot of time to "fight" against your intolerance in more powerful ways. If you continue like this I WILL look into ways to do it though; if you agree to tolerate my existence and accept that many of my arguments are essentially sound (and explain my why the rest aren't), we can progress. 95.211.60.34 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about you register an account, because you seem to think there's hate for you, when really people are just used to stripping random anon IP whining from talk pages.
 * The fact that your opinions, after some review, are wrong, doesn't counter the above point. Ikanreed (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone like RNS or Mikeal will just come along and ban the account again, eventually. On that topic, is there a history log of the removed talk page of the banned account "Drotsky"? Looks like it was removed permanently? I separately archive all the lengthier posts I make here for future reference, but I don't archive people's responses.
 * Oh and, if you can explain to my how my opinions are wrong, that would be great. :-) 128.204.203.103 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been told repeatedly that pedophile advocacy isn't something we welcome or are prepared to host on our site. Again, as I've told you before, I think you will find websites open to this sort of thing, but RationalWiki isn't one of them.  You are repeatedly evading bans and abuse filters to post the same things you have been banned for.  This is not acting in good faith, and your threats to "fight" are certainly unwelcome.  Quit playing the victim and find somewhere else to play.  22:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification?
Was that "how about no" directed at me? You changed other stuff that should be deleted (and wasn't me), so I'm not sure where your comment was directed. MarmotHead (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed instructions & sources for accessing child porn, as posted by anon. I thought these comments had been deleted previously but apparently not.  I don't know why it would have anything to do with you.  20:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a coincidence of timing in that I'd also just edited the talk page. Cool, then I'll take my unjustified paranoia somewhere else. MarmotHead (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you please e-mail wikipedia's Arbcom and say I'm a constructive editor over here?
I would deeply appreciate, one reason being so I can see how much copy pasta taken from rational wiki they reject. Wikipedia still doesn't mention sexism in drug testing on any relevant page (even sexism), and someone needs to add where the term African American was first widely used by Malcolm X's Organization of African-American Unity. That's slightly different from coining the term, but people who only popularized terms normally get mentioned in linguistic histories as well. I actually do care about wiki projects, I just got a little carried away doing categorization spree's and didn't know about point of view wikis like this one, where racist and homophobe are actual categories. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As promised
For services rendered:  -- "Shut up, Brx." 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

huh
- why? Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it makes the article look like shit. 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think it's important to debunk the argument that the movement isn't what we say it is. I'll write a more fullsome section about how they have done approximately fuck and all to do anything about actual problems in game journalism, and that their targets have. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

TERF
What I mean is the tactics and rhetoric are the same (posting nudes, doxing, threatening people and publicly hoping they kill themselves, linking up with other hate groups with complete dissimilar goals, shutting people out of group events with threats of violence, etc) and it comes from the same angry, entitled gatekeeping mentality that group X aren't true gamers / women and are trying to ruin everything, and so deserve whatever shit can be thrown at them. It'd probably serve as an interesting exercise to compare just how identical the two movements actually are. King Skeleton (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aren't you the guy who already drew parallels with ISIS? Yeah, your comparisons aren't actually that helpful.  23:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First I didn't (analogies don't work that way), second this has nothing to do with that anyway, and third you didn't address anything I just said. King Skeleton (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Et Tu Brute?
Good thing we all cease to exist when we die, (a different non existence than that first one) or else we might be reincarnated as someone who can no longer read that info. Oh the many atheism's. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [[image:shrug.gif]] 07:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weight of the worlds on his shoulders; Atlas here shrugged. Also, this is now up for discussion at the chicken coop, where I will be preparing a jury of my peers as well. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Bible contradictions.
"(Undo revision 1377818 - The Gospels say different things. That's what a contradiction is. There are ways of explaining it away, which might be valid, but it's still an apparent contradiction.)"

Genealogies that show a separate line are not in opposition of each other you thick-headed dopey cunt. One shows the mother's line, the other the father's. There is no contradiction, there would be only if they were both telling us of the father's line. Before you rollback or make a change, read the talk page and make your point in there. Because relying on your ignorant statement shows your lack of thought, knowledge and understanding. Thank you. RoryWatt (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

DeadManWonderland
I've already vandal-binned them, no need for a block.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? He's not any kind of contributor.  Edit warring that article is literally all he does.  For seven months now.  A vandal brake will make no difference whatsoever.  19:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the same logic, a 3.6 day block won't make any much difference either. Feel free to re-block, I just wanted to give you a heads-up if you haven't noticed my application of the brake.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. Next time it happens I'll block him for 3.6 years.  19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could block him for π years, but that would be irrational. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Over here
In your own time, of course... Robledo (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tag!
Just thought I'd open up the conversation on the robot article here, as I've made my point on the articles talk page and you have not. I would like to hear your reasons for continuing a needless edit war that you know you will lose, just look at AI box experiment, LessWrong and Roko's basilisk. If keeping the mission template you know is wrong template makes you feel better about being here longer than me; than you can have it, what ever makes you feel the slightest bit happier. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at War on Drugs
Hi, you reverted me at War on Drugs. Did I do something wrong? --Ymir (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I must have clicked against that edit by accident from recent changes while editing from my phone. Sorry. 12:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey!
Why did you take the Pinky & the Brain quote out of Caligula? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it looked dumb & didn't seem to serve much purpose. No doubt we could fill our articles with quotes from Rugrats & Spongebob Squarepants & Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but it doesn't tend to contribute to us looking like a site that's got anything worthwhile to say. 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologia
Hi, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make a judgmental comment like that. If you'll noticed I added additional content and links (including descriptions of the bad nature of "manosphere sites), and replaced snark with more neutral and factually written content. This may not be Wikipedia but the ratio of "snark to substance" shouldn't be excessive - it's also a fact there are legitimate dating advice sites which get lumped into the PUA category (some of these openly call out PUA materials like ReturnOfKings as being garbage) - so you're painting it all with a broad brush. Believe me I know because I've investigated many of the websites and books - what is your experience with the materials?

Please don't simply revert and use an ad hom, thanks. Some information was also incorrect (ex. Tucker Max isn't a pick-up artist - he's the author of a black comedy book called "I hope they serve beer in hell").

BTW, I've had an account here since the beginning of this year - but no longer have access to the email. --206.255.11.166 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the relevant article talk pages. 19:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is me from earlier this year: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.255.1.57. I don't remember my screenname.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss my edits and what you claim is incorrect about them. When you reverted me you ended up removing sources (such as a newslink regarding a PUA being banned from Britain which the article didn't source), and complete paragraphs which were in no way apologetic.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - you haven't discussed the problems with my edit so I'll be reverting 1 more time - if you keep this up then I feel you're abusing your authority as an admin so I'll discuss this with another admin. Please comment on why the edits are not of value, and tell me what your experience with the subject is while you're at it - thanks. I'm being totally polite to you here and trying to reach and agreement, but you're just ignoring me and using insults. If you don't have the time to discuss the subject, then maybe you should let a member who's more active in the article comment on it.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've discussed it at talk:pick-up artist where it's supposed to be discussed and where I've already told you to discuss it.
 * You're changing a longstanding article's PoV and need to seek support from other editors before doing that. I've reverted your changes yet again other than a couple of additions to the notable pick-up artists list.  Please stop edit warring, use the talk page & wait for comment from other editors.  This is your last warning.  Next time I see you revert without discussion, I will either lock the article, place you under vandal brake, or both.  20:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually dude - if you'd taken the time to read the article you'd have seen that there is conflicting POV throughout the article. The article as it stands already confirms that some PUA resources overlap with mainstream, non-"scammy" dating advice - (this is backed up by other sources as well which I can add later) - my attempt is to focus specifically on specific PUA concepts and individuals which are controversial. I added actual examples of advice (including normal advice, and the manipulative and scammy advice the article references) which the article included very little of to start with. The article's POV wasn't changed.


 * Much like an article on creationism shouldn't just read "creationists are all stupid uneducated nutjobs, etc etc" - it should focus on specific beliefs creationists have which makes them so (ex. "creationists literally believe that Noah's Ark existed, etc").


 * It doesn't sound like you're actually interested in discussing the subject, or even remotely informed on the subject at all for that matter. Instead you just display a lack of social skills by threatening a "vandal break" for an edit which clearly isn't vandalism. This isn't Conservapedia - you should be more civil than that rather than lord your admin privileged over others; there's no point in reverting an edit which isn't pure vandalism if you're admitting you're not active in the page anyway. But I'll discuss this with another admin before I keep this up, heh.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for schooling me but can you fuck off now please? You've been told enough times to raise your concerns on the article talk page.  Don't post here again.  21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my last response. That's really all you got? "Fuck off" to someone who's written several articles here over the course of this year? Heh, I'm sorry lack of basic empathy or social skills - and if you'd bothered to pay attention you'd see I have left discussion on the talk page - the discussion here was about your and your juvenile behavior which violates community standards (which I pointed out in the comment you reverted).

I'm glad I'll never be as hateful and misanthropic as you - here's hoping that some admins with a little class suspend your privileges (though I won't count that they will) - I show them your "fuck off" comment as well. Adios for now--206.255.11.166 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * --Palaeonictis (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Vagueness
With regard to this edit, I mean, let's face it, the user who added that was just hoping that someone wouldn't pin them down to specifics. But you did. The truth is, no one knows much about Caligula, because all the historical accounts are heavily biased. I wish it were otherwise, but we really don't know much about him. It frustrates even revisionist historians. I hate that it has to be this way, but it does. Landmartian (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The information was taken from a bunch of top ten lists, I just thought it was unusual no other historical figure is accused of being quite that evil. Why weren't more figures accused of having peoples children raped to death infront of them and eating their enemies genitals? Those are great false allegations to make; I'm fairly sure some of that did happen because no one else in history is accused of doing that; not even Elizabeth Bathory Jack the Ripper or Vlad the Impailer are painted as being that bad. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to make slave owner a category
Wikipedia doesn't mention how many slaves Washington, Jefferson and Jackson owned either; they say nothing about the slaves in the white house up until 1965 during Lincolns presidency. Also, I know I don't have proof; but I like to talk alot and at least try and be polite, I asked Ryulong on his talk page back on Wikipedia to allow category size change for Super Sentei Power Rangers and Ultraman. He viciously defends the super sentei page from mentioning it has size change, while on his talk page here that Japanese television doesn't matter. Feel free to test his short fuse and misogyny by adding this category to super sentei; for added measure adding it to other movies with giant women will be extra annoying. The only thing sillier than macrophilia is macrophobia, particularly when it's about sex. Ryulong doesn't appear able to delete the record here, just flash mob discussions and have them closed after a day. I'm afraid this wiki is terminal.

David Gerard deliberately forgot to delete slave holder from Muhammad. Hope some of this is useful to you; I at least want the presidents pages to mention how many slaves they own; even if their is no category. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I could use your assistance on the rape page and with Ryulong.
You were right about Robot; Ryulong edited his Wikipedia talk page to say I never tried to make peace for the edit war we had over size change in fiction. He hates women, particularly impossibly powerful ones. I think unremitting horror should be applied to rape; and if someone would like to argue it isn't sexism in some form until there's an equal number of women raping men and men being raped, they can feel free. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignore this, EE is a fucking idiot.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an edit war over whether or not rape deserves to be called an unremitting horror like the many other serious examples on that page, I trust you know the right thing to do. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

... unless limey means British
RationalWiki:2015 board of trustees election/Nominations 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion logs
Nothing personal, but I saw your recent deletions in Recent Changes, and I really think you should have replaced the autogenerated deletion reason, as the contents of those pages are pretty much namecalling and personal attacks, and now they're in the logs. I would suggest hiding the log entries. I could do it myself but I thought it would be best to run it by you first. --Ymir (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They were worthless rants: that's why I deleted them. Nothing further is necessary.  Revision deletion is serious business and is being way overused by new editors.  It isn't necessary or appropriate to deep-bury something that's mere childish namecalling.  20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hiding the logs is overkill, but it's a generally good idea to hit Ctrl+A and Delete to clear the deletion reason box unless there's a reason for the contents to be visible (such as deleting a redirect).--ZooGuard (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, what's the difference? In a case like this, that first line of page content indicates why it was deleted.  18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on
We've warned and warned and warned them. It's four characters to type, and refusing to do it is obnoxious as heck. Ikanreed (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You want to block somebody (who's only been here a week) for a week for a few unsigned comments? How does that correspond to any of our blocking policies?  Also, I looked through his/her most recent few comments and couldn't find much that was unsigned.  Has he/she actually refused to sign comments or are you just making that up?  22:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can see user Pits Brazil does seem to have a problem with the concept of signing. But it's more a case of invoking ridicule than invoking a block.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked through a whole bunch of his/her comments and nearly all of them were signed Pitzy, so I don't see that he/she has a problem with the concept of signing. Further comments about this on Pitzy's talk page.  22:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Portuguese page
Was there something problematic about the translation. I thought it was about a vaguely(admittedly pretty vauge) on-mission Portugese language feature about Bush and Authoritarianism. Was there a broader concern here? Ikanreed (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not Vandalize my page
Perhaps you do not understand copyright doctrine, so let me explain it to you: Pictures which are cited for use in a non-commercial educational article are what is called "fair use"(even if the images are copy-written). If you do not have any evidence to suggest that I am using pictures outside of a non-commercial educational article, then do not vandalize my work(such accusations without evidence constitute libel). If you do not like or understand the article that is not a reason to vandalize it.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about libel, so I'm perfectly qualified to say that I really don't think that's libel. It's just being a little bit mean, which sucks, but libel it aint. Tielec01 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He categorically did not "libel" you and it's not possible to "libel" a bogus and conclusory "legal" argument. You must justify your claim of "fair use", which you didn't bother to do. You simply asserted it. And it was unsupportable. There is no reality in which a picture of Voldemort, for example, used to window dress your own material, whether or not it's educational, on a completely unrelated subject passes fair use muster. But prove use wrong and go through the appropriate analysis. In short, let me suggest that as an outsider on your way out, you be very careful attempting to intimidate editors here with your "legal analysis" unless you know what you're doing and are prepared to deal with the consequences. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallery
Why doesn't the packed tag work?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 02:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I've never tried it.  02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did when I split up the gallery and it didn't do anything here. I figure that would be better than forcing an image size.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 02:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"racism does exist outside the USA you know"
You're right, of course -- I forgot we had that article, otherwise I would've put that one there in the first place. my bad. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I didn't notice who'd added it anyway.  19:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's funny when you see Americans politely call a black person "African American" when that person has never been in the US/the Americas and/or doesn't have any remotely recent African heritage. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

donotlink.com
02:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your signature
There's a pipe in your template reference. This blasphemy shall call a plague of weasels upon the land; I know this because they can easily fit into those pipes. 03:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am super annoyed...
Are you the one that harassed us at Krasnaya Security? Lieutenant S. and Arcane are both nice people and do not deserved to be treated that way. (I am Tau Ceti on the wiki so I should have seen the nasty things you said). 202.142.129.178 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I've no idea who you are or what you're talking about.  23:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Krasnaya Security is a hacking hobbyist group of some sort, though I have no idea why one of them is here. --Madman (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * I imagine something to do with that creep who got banned awhile back, Inquisitor Eherenstein... or whatever his name was. Pretty sure he goes by Lieutenant S something and Arcane was sorta his buddy.  Marlow (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * *Shivers* Ehrenstein. Somebody really ought to make a compilation post of his antics.--Madman (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * I'm Tau Ceti there too! Inquisitor Ehrenstein is a NICE GUY and is not harassing anyone. You're doing it.
 * Same with Arcane.. I talked to him about it and he says he's never even heard of it. XY007 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this is nothing to do with me. 13:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so it was a Weaseloid impostor who edited Krasnaya Security. XY007 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ehrenstein once wanted to buy a Karabiner 98k for the "historical value", has prior convictions and is obsessed with Nazi rape. Still sound like a nice guy, kiddo?--Madman (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * I will tell him you are a saying this.. XY007 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a good look, kiddo. This is from all of his various sock puppets, as well. --Madman (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * Arcane here. Someone under the name Weaseloid came and spouting some BS on my KS talk page and did some other retarded nonsense, I laughed it off, and IE was willing to just let it go. Unfortunately, Tau Ceti went off on his own initiative here to start something, and both me and IE told him it was a stupid idea and to drop it. I apologize for this whole sordid business and both you (Weaseloid) and RW have my apologies for this nonsense being dragged over here. For the record, IE has no intention wanting to start shit here and I've been trying to be the conscience, if you will, as to why no further BS should be started (it was foolish to begin with IMO), so again, both yourself and RationalWiki have my apologies this nonsense got dragged over here. Arcane (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't the same Weaseloid, and I'm sorry for the attack... I just wanted to know who was the source of all this. Thank you, Arcane, for saving us all. XY007 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arcane. I'm not pleased that somebody is impersonating me, so please let me know if it happens again.  08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah we put web crawlers on the site. XY007 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again Tau Ceti does not speak for myself or IE here, please ignore this idiot's diarrhea of the mouth. Arcane (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Krasnaya Security will also be taking action against anyone who impersonates you or anyone else.  The "Weaseloid" account has already been globally banned.  Катюша91 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you're a Gator, a minion of the infamous Inquisitor, and you're bugging Weaseloid because he happens to use the same username as someone who trolled your site. And, y'all have deployed web crawlers for some spying purpose. I see. --Castaigne (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the guy trying to keep IE, this Tau Ceti moron, or anyone else from trying to start anything with RW, because frankly I don't care who tried to troll me, I laughed it off, it's just the fucking idiots on my end want to start shit irregardless, and I will personally throw them under the bus if I have to, just tell me which RW admins to email and I'll give you the information you need. Seriously, I'm the neutral party trying to do the right thing here. Arcane (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, he was referring to XY007, not you. 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ayup, I was referring to XY007, not you Arcane. But I'm not paranoid - just amused at this...bullshit broheim crap by XY007. Russian hackers, they're so juvenile. --Castaigne (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear. I just sent off what information I could to RW staff, and I just made it clear to IE I have zero tolerance for this BS, here's hoping IE takes me seriously, as I informed her I have informed RW all relevant information concerning this incident. Arcane (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's all good. I'm just going to snark about it. ;) No need to take me seriously. --Castaigne (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Clicking about the website Arcane linked to a couple of comments above brought me to this threat to: "drop this under all 3,300 real names of RW users...use that as justification to fuck up the lives thousands of RW users." Yikes! 18:08, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)
 * I saw that too. It turned my stomach, and I will provide whatever info I must to RW staff to prevent that from happening, as I do not sanction, condone, or support that at all and want to do the right thing. Arcane (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, lovely. I dig threats by Russki hackers. Please, do publish my real name - I'm not afraid of being doxxed. I have nothing to hide and it's all public info anyway. By the by, if you do dox me, please also let me know at the same time when the Russkis are going to give back the family property in Königsberg. --Castaigne (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Krasnaya Security will be deleting all such materials and will not tolerate doxxing threats. You have nothing to worry about.  Our privacy policy is here.  Катюша91 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about it, I'm just taking the piss. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Jarrah White article
15:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair 'nough - we were kinda beginning to clog your talk page, but the BoN asked you to intervene/respond so I suggest you at least post some kind of response to him in the section you moved (back) to the Jarrah White talk page. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Encyclopedia Dramatica & Inquisitor Ehrenstein
I've left an explanation at the Saloon page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

1ABC3
I don't think 1ABC3's edits could be considered "pedophile advocacy" by any reasonable definition of the term. But I guess it's pretty harmless to vandal bin him since he can easily just come back under another account. Landmartian (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're an idiot. He/she literally said "There is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults and children".  09:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are too irrational for rationalwiki.
There is nothing wrong with consensual sex between adults and children, the only real difference being age, I wish I knew how to make you think I am not a troll, and you have personally convinced me to leave rationalwiki, even as a reader. Your authoritarian style reminds me a Conservapedia's close-mindedness.
 * That's nice. 09:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WTF
do you think you're doing? Why are you going around deleting discussions? I had an honest question, and come to that, the answer still doesn't entirely make sense to me. --ShorinBJ (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Weaseloid was trying to delete that "Example.jpg" placeholder thing that had been sitting at the top of the talk page, and accidentally swept your question with it. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

help
Leandro Teles Rocha is the creator of the article of Conservapedia |"Olavo de Carvalho". He also was banned at Wikipedia. He was banned at the portuguese Wikipedia because he used offenses and after this for sock puppetry. Lechatjaune is a renowned professor at UFRGS (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) and one of the editors of Wikipedia in Portuguese most respected. I believe the Leandro should be admonished to contribute to RationalWiki without vindictiveness. This way he will bring better contributions. Best regards.
 * I'm not sure what you're asking for here. If you want to admonish somebody for something, go do it yourself.  12:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Those redirects to Rosemary
Why did you think they were deletion worthy? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They were terms that are not explained in the article, that nobody would search for, and they clutter up the search-box autocomplete with meaningless cruft. 19:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If alt names were listed in-article, would that work?
 * If nobody searches them, then there's no harm; if somebody searched for, say, Compass plant, they probably wouldn't know or be able to find out from RW it referred to Rosemary.
 * Sure, redirects fill the autocomplete box. Just type "200" into the search box. But they're still useful, for internal links and people searching for an exact name. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're useful when they're useful. Creating dozens of redirects from arcane terms to pages that don't explain them is not useful, and "no harm" is a shitty rationale.  These "alt names" simply aren't common enough to be worth noting or to be terms users will search for.  "Compass plant" rarely if ever refers to rosemary (see WP:List of plants known as compass plant).  Similarly, if there's a connection between rosemary and the phrase "old man", it's not covered in our article, nor in WP:rosemary or WP:old man, so anyone wondering why the phrase "old man" comes up in autocomplete and directs to a list of medicinal plants would really be left wondering.  Listing these names in the article won't be helpful either as it will do nothing to further our missions of analysing and refuting things; it will just add yet more trivia to what's already a rather listcrufty piece.  21:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rusmary (as one example) is a pretty common Indian term for Rosemary. It's certainly possible that someone will search for it. The same is true for other names.
 * The only plant on RW which compass plant applies to is rosemary; when other relevant ones are created, Compass plant can ascend from redirect to disambiguation.
 * Why would listing alternate names be trivial? Knowing what something is, is important to knowing what it does.
 * Would you agree that some of the redirects may have been useful? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even Red clover, Trifolium pratense, or Rosmarinus officinalis (which were restored)?
 * Or Rusmary, a common Indian term? Or compass plant, a common synonym? Or related term compass weed? Or Anthos[wp]? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude. This is the same as an edit war. Do you wanna talk, or just revert away? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 00:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to recreate these redirects, it's not worth the bickering anymore. It's been a week. Could I pretty pls with sugar & goats on top have my sysop back? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not from me. 01:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What did I do that merited desysopping? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You blocked me twice within five minutes while I was trying clean up the mess you made. 09:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "mess" that I defended on my talkpage, to which you didn't respond before deleting a dozen pages? Blocks of total length 15 minutes that you could easily undo, unlike the 1 hour block you gave me after desysopping me? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BoN
That BoN has been trolling the Gamergate talk page for a week and a half. It's not my fault someone gave him the time of day but there is no reason to have that thread open or for you to have blanket reverted all of my dits to the page because you didn't like one of them. I know what I'm doing. None of you seem to understand that.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 07:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, regardless of how talented or how much of an expert you possibly are, acting full of it isn't gonna help you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it isn't everybody but you failing to understand. Just a thought. 166.137.248.113 (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Um...
Sure, Ryulong has been pretty liberal with using collapse boxes, but are you sure this is the one you wanna uncollapse? Bullshit false-flag theories and whining about RW being too pro-social justice doesn't seem particularly worthy of anyone's time. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then how does putting a big attention-grabbing box around it help anyone? 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can change the colors and make the border transparent if that's the problem. As far as I've been able to tell, these boxes basically function as RWian trigger warnings to let people know some really crazy/trollsome prose is ahead. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Collapse boxes, as far as I can tell, are a recent phenomenon, and they don't help much. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe they were popularized because of LM777. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, people need to butter their toast properly. PacWalker 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bah, I don't use butter. And I don't toast my bread slices. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable when ribs are involved. PacWalker 00:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't put any meat (or bones for that matter) on them either. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wilt thou next tell me thou dost not spread creamed cheese upon thy bagels, good sir? PacWalker 00:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't like cheese. Bagels are good though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...well I guess we can agree on that... PacWalker 00:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On cheese being gross? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No on bagels being good! PacWalker 13:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SPJ
How are they ad hominems if they're what he proudly says about himself on his own website?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything against the person is ad hominem in a literal sense. 03:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But if it's something he wrote and recorded himself and is hailing it as what he should be known for, why would my repetition of this information count as ad hom?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 04:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's irrelevant. 07:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pointing out Gamergate has picked another winner.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's poisoning the well. Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.  18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gator boxes.
Right now half of the talk page is a mess. At least those 'stupid boxes' could hide pointless shitposting that is in no way contributing to making the article more readable. Typhoon (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those boxes are contributing to it being a mess. They don't make it easy to read a thread & follow what's going on.  Users can choose what they comments they want to read.  Hiding them in collapse boxes is dumb.  20:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you feel if...
I started adding people to the "libertarian wingnuttery" category and removed them from the "extreme wingnuttery" category to see how it would look if it's less bloated? Would you let me do that before detonating that page? ClothCoat (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1: You might need a "conservative wingnuttery", "neoreactionary wingnuttery" (etc.) page for non-libertarians. 2: You can't "detonate" a category on RationalWiki, because we don't have recategorization bots, so every article has to be manually removed from the article -- you've got time. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 01:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok good to know. Weasel (understandably) hates the page and wants it gone, others want it broken down to various degrees. I'm going to just break it down between authoritarian and libertarian and then break down "authoritarian" further as you suggested, basically phasing out the extreme wingnuttery category completely. Let's see how that works out it seems like a win for everyone (for now). ClothCoat (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What does the wingnut label add, though? Aren't libertarians, conservatives and neoreactionaries pretty much automatically wingnuts? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all conservatives and libertarians are wingnuts. Wingnuts tend to be anti-science and pro-conspiracy theory, and those on the same end of the political spectrum tend to support similar "theories", hence the categorization. ClothCoat (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't feel
that rent boys would make a nice addition to that sort of articles, here? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What would it say? 20:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well my original article was, "Rent Boys They are exactly what you think they are." but I was not able to post it.
 * However it would be possible to expand, or even replace that with a more precise explanation. it seems to me that if we use terms or phrases here that we should be prepared to expand on them.  Of course my views are not always typical of what is expected of a rationalwiki editor. Carptrash (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When the definition of something is "it's what you think it is", I don't think that really needs saying, and certainly don't think it warrants clicking through a link to another page just to be told that. 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that certainly is the rational way to approach this. Carptrash (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplication
Look at my archives, look at my talk page, and see how my edits removed duplication, please. --Castaigne (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Really?
Really. I'll refrain from logging in a pocketsysop, but I expect your action to be undone quickly. Hipocrite (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find yourself surprised. 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I might, but I doubt it. You, unlike those two shitheads, I respect, so I'll refrain from further warring, but I hope that you return at least my, if not both my and Ryulongs tools posthaste. Hipocrite (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find yourself disappointed. 23:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remind me that I don't respect you. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * [[image:shrug.gif]] 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * lel <font color=#1111FF>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Star_of_David.png|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''I like... being punched in the face. 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Help
Doxing, etc.—<font color="MediumSpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="DodgerBlue">琉竜 ) 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? 06:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Why?
What was that about? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton&#39;s king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was about ethics in journalism. PS Your signature is fucking stupid. 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent contribution to the IFL Science page
Please keep article content disputes on the article talk page. Thanks. 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion
Please see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guidelines#Deleting for what can be deleted without discussion. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dad. 23:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate&diff=1541595&oldid=1541585
Thank you for that, seriously. The fuck is up with some people.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
You edit conflicting me in the saloon bar prevented a less measured response. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * a couple of times in fact. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Civic Cat whine
How did you trim them? Talk to Civic Cat   21:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Things must be busy for you, Weaseloid. I'll try to figure it out. Until then, links will be untrimmed. Bye for now.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG  Talk to Civic Cat   22:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also how does one revert while giving an edit summary?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BoN voter franchising
So are you reverting me for the sake of it being me and the BoN's voted to keep or is he acually allowed to vote when another BoN with more edits (and a longer history locally) had his vote struck out by someone else?—Ryulong (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any other struck out votes on that page. If you think a genuine RW policy/guideline (rather than one in your own mind) has been violated, the onus is on you to demonstrate it, not to revert war.  If it's a judgement call, frankly it shouldn't be yours.  01:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 70.61.121.86's vote was struck out by himself. I was striking out 98.27.29.192's vote.—Ryulong (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) RationalWiki:Community_Standards (which you linked on the BoN's talk page) refers to "policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user", not AfD votes. To be best of my knowledge, no one ever formulated any "minimal requirements" for an AfD vote. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just thought AFD counted. The other BoN still withdrew their vote though.—Ryulong (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't stop you claiming they "had his vote struck out by someone else" though. 01:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly thought that was what had happened.—Ryulong (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't stop you from berating me for not knowing who'd struck it out. 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't do it!
Don't go to Syria!

American grammar
Not sure how I stumbled on that edit summary, but: How is "based off of" worse than "based on"? 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ on a pogo stick, Fuzzy, don't you have i's to cross and t's to dot somewhere? Have you ever gotten past thirty miles from the barn you were born in? SmartFeller (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Unjustified"
That's fine, but if you think is just him being "helpful," then you've drunk the coolaid. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What coolaid? Where are you quoting "helpful" from?  I've said no such thing, & there is actually some middle ground between "helpful" and "blocked for three days".  23:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fuzzy and totally smoking coolaid about how it would be awesome if you just invited the gators over to state their case. Helpful was a "scare" quote. Hipocrite (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't invited any gators to do anything. You're confusing me with somebody else. 00:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That user should be blocked. He's posting threats of doxing Queex -- and included info about him -- as a concern troll: "Guys, this is what 'they' say they are gonna do. I'm just trying to warn you!!!" ---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your undo
You are probably right that my footnote was not where it should have been. However, I was making a point about how gays are of positive benefit couched in economic terms. That may be patronizing, but I live in a country, where gay parades account for 20% of the population or so or more, and I'm personally totally indifferent to people's sexual orientation. But in this country - you can find out which by a little digging - gays are very valued guests. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You're nominated!
You've got the chance for another shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude
Engage in debate. Don't be like that. You haven't even tried that. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I DO NOT appreciate the blocked like that for something as silly as this; I came very close to losing quite a bit of work on User:Carpetsmoker/Braco as I initially didn't notice I was blocked and almost closed the tab. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See, it's really not that hard. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh
Why has Mona deleted conversation from the Saloon Bar instead of archiving, AND protected the Saloon Bar from editing? Edit, OK, she re-archived it. But still, this is not in accordance to site rules. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, why are you asking me? 16:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have more rights/power here than I do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And? You asked me a question about her actions.  You could ask her yourself.  17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't. She protected her page. I do not have permissions to ask her. *shrug* --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Email
Could you possibly link one to your account? 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actions & consequences
You have a problem with something, you suggest an alteration on the talk page. You don't march around like Richard II chopping off heads. You will hear me. You will receive discipline. Marcus Cicero SPQR 14:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? 15:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion greatly needed
Your professional judgement as a moderator is needed here. If you are unaware of the background of this case, please read the whole thing first. Thank you for your time. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For clarification
I asked a question on my talk page, but since you're probably busy, I'd like to draw your attention to that, namely, what is ‘substantial’ in this context? The „sentence“ is really only an admonition to stick to RW-rules. Fine with me. The quotes in „sentence“ actually refer to that. I'll gladly comply. But does this mean that others may make substantial changes without discussing first at a whim? And, yes, I know that it is not considered good form to draw attention to one's talk page, but I may perhaps be forgiven this one time. I really am curious. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte has now set forth an elaborate stmt of intended definace
IN the "Summing up" section of his page. He's telling you and the community what his terms are. That which he find unacceptable he intends not to abide by. Paravant blocked or binned for such stated intent to defy. ---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of it. I'm not going barter terms with him.  Nor with you.  You're both dragging this thing out while everyone else is over it.  If Sorte doesn't stick to what's asked of him, he'll get what's been promised.  As long as he's just pontificating on his talk page, my advice is to ignore it.  21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll stick to my end. The question I'd like an answer to is, for how long will Mona hold the power of veto? You can despise me all you want, but this deserves an answer. If it's perpetual, then there's nothing to be said for RW. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a mobocracy, so no matter what the official answer is, the actual answer is "until you prove that getting rid of you will be worse for the wiki than putting up with any shit you get involved in". Try fleshing out some of the stubby articles or go to the Revent Suggestions and create desperately wanted pages?  Instead of edit warring with others? CorruptUser (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggested this myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mona doesn't have any "power of veto". I think I've made it clear that I won't take orders from her.  22:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * She seems to think so. In any case, I did read and reply to Castaigne's suggestion, and I am actually having some fun. I'll stay cool. But as long as we are both here, there are bound to be clashes in the future. Chomsky happens to be an interest of mine, never mind what Mona thinks — including owning the article, and I'm not saying this to provoke. I'll try and sin no more, but try and snark about Chomsky and it will be reverted. It doesn't have to be me. But, to repeat, there won't be any problems for the next months unless Mona has acquired more articles. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may have been punished, Sorte, but the price for making that happen -- the cost extracted from me -- has been too high. Avenger, Arisboch, Castaigne, and you. This wiki tolerates them all, unless and until they formally break the minimal rules. It's not worth it. Arisboch and Avenger and/or their pals from KWF The BoNs will still be allowed to head right for the articles I edit and harass me, as will Castaigne. I can't keep asking for, and expecting, standards of civility and reasonablenss at a wiki that has no collective will for them. One of the moderators here is now contemptuously insulting me, and mocking my stress at what was done to me through attacks on my family last month. That's appalling, and abusive.
 * So I'm leaving. I first must figure out how to copy certain articles in the form they are in now, before you and the Zionist fanatics and haters tear them apart.
 * Once I get my articles settled at my User page, I will be gone. And the wiki will be left with an asset like you. You and Castaigne are what this site wants. So be it. I won't accept those terms any longer.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it short. I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. I did not see this coming. Sorte, you are too intentionally confrontational. "there are bound to be clashes in the future." This is inviting conflict. This is not useful. It doesn't help anyone, least of all the wiki. It shows that Sorte does not have unbiased intentions here, and is trying to push his own personal agenda on the wiki. I'm not going to talk about whether Mona is guilty of this right now. It's not being argued. I don't want to discuss it. We are all here to talk about you, Sorte. You may not have caused this war, but you exacerbated it and made it grow to 50 times its original size. You were on trial, and you were convicted by the mob. Now you're going to dictate the terms of your probation? That's ridiculous! Be advised, if you break the terms of your sentence, you will be punished according to the terms dictated by the mob at the coop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you sound like more of a prat? Even I, at my most bombastic, don't sound so much like a scolding kindergarten teacher. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I was being realistic. I have something to say about Chomsky, and Mona is not an expert on my points. But feel free to welcome me back, or not as the case may be, and gather a crowd. You can't accuse me of not being up front. I stick to the terms. I'm not dictating. I just saw the future, although I didn't see Mona leaving. But if the mob in the aptly named mobocracy cries for my blood, then by all means. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free to do what you want Sorte, but we are free to ban you for breaking the rules. The mob has spoken, and in the words of FedTruther our Statetheist religion has received the holy words from the king of the all deities here, Coopiter, that should you break the rules we shall smite you for a week. CorruptUser (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For once I'm a bit nonplussed. RW has always had the opportunity to chastise me, punish me or whatever for breaking the rules. I will keep my promise. Mona's departure, if she is indeed leaving, has nothing to do with that. I don't celebrate her going. This isn't victory for anyone. If it felt like victory, I should certainly be be banished from human society. As for FedTruther, Statetheist and Coopiter, I'm too lazy to look that up, and it is also late. But if you want to gather a lynch mob in, say, two months time, you can read my talk page. It states my intentions. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Dicking Around
Says the guy who defended ryulong.брэндэн (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited your comment
I know it's not the done thing, but I edited your comment here. Creating extra links to a problematic page is probably not a good idea. I'm being over-cautious, and if you want to revert me I'll have no objection. I'm mentioning it here so there's no question of editing your comments behind your back. rpeh •T•C•E• 23:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ineligible vote struck
Could you explain? Read-Write (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Community Standards . You registered 22 December 2015. You still can't vote for penalty and policy decisions.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * K, thanks. Read-Write (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Please do not alter the comments on my page. If I wish for a wall of text to be on my page, then lo, it shall so be. There's nothing in the rules against it. Also, readding the comments from the troll from Kiwi Farms is not cool. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Chicken Coop
With regards to mucking around with the sections, how else is the community actually going to vote on proposals to resolve the situation? A talk page format is far less useful, especially in the chicken coop, which is designed to resolve conflicts between people. We need to actually vote on something rather than just hurl insults and throw shit at each other for the whole time. We need to be done with this. Over. Gone. Please allow my resectioning to stand. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not prevented anybody from voting, but the proper place for new sections is at the bottom of the page, not arbitrarily between some of the existing sections. Plus you altered section titles which were obviously part of other users' comments.  Don't do that.  21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Will not do again. I am slightly unfamiliar with formatting, I suppose. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

GFTOW
Any reason for the delete? 22:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine because it was a very stupid idea to create a redirect for weird-ass term to the a long list of weird-ass terms it featured on. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Creating the impression that people can expect to find separate articles on phrases like these here is probably not the way to go, Fuzzy. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

We don't need garbage like that showing up in the search autocomplete when it's not actually an article subject nor something users are likely to be looking for. 23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Pizzameister Deal
What's the deal with Pizzameister? I'm not trying to contest any decision that you made, I just wanted to know what the damning evidence was that Pizzameister was a sock. I had suspected it for a while, especially because of the nature of his appearance (right in the middle of an important coop case), but I really didn't get the sudden reveal. Do you know what I mean? I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See here, among others.--Pippa (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any decision having been made about Pizzameister, though I personally wouldn't be averse to banning them with the reason "Avenger sock or else a very good impersonator". ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Look at this from the recent changes page: Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Pizzameister from autopatrolled to sysoprevoke ‎(sock of desysoped & vandal-binned user)  This was what I was referring to. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I would want you to explain your side of the Sea Shepherd issue
Before you revert or undo take the time to think about what illegal means. Sea Shepherd doesn't make any distinction based on legality. You should ponder before you undo again. Of course I'll lose a protracted battle over this, but I would like to see your point of view. What's legal in this case? A lot is legal. Sea Shepherd is against all of it, legal or not. Don't let your personal tendencies spill over. My edit stands for itself, although I will probably in the minority of just a few. No matter, I'm used to that. But what is your conclusion having brushed up on the law? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the talk page where it's appropriate. Thanks for the patronising lecture though.  01:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The lecture wasn't patronizing and vandal binning is far too much. Methinks you grabbed the first opportunity. I live in one of the few countries where whales are hunted and I happen to know a bit about the subject. Now, I'd suggest you pull me out of the bin. I have a clean record for the time being, and that has to say something. Your binning was abuse of power. And in any case, since it's late over here, for how long am I binned? I'm judged for a trivial matter based on the green opinions of one particular moderator. I explicitly said, which was to be my final entry and said I would do no more. That was honestly meant. I've given up on edit warring because it's not producive for anything, but as a moderator you have followed every step of the way and edit-warred yourself. You at least seem to undo this matter as a reflex, sight unseen or at least with a very limited knowledge of maritime law. I don't want to run for help crying to other moderators as seems to be a favorite tactic, but if your vandal binning is overly long, then this will have to be taken up in a larger group. I've been seclusive for quite a while, and it is irritating to see a trivial matter becoming an issue. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, now I'm apparently free. I just have one question to ask: On which possible grounds were you removing the illegal. I really don't care, but it would be curious to know, nevertheless. You can cite me chapter and verse about my sentence, but that sentence doesn't include whaling, and you started undoing relentlessly knowing that you're a moderator. Not an exalted position. As for me, I have mostly been tending my garden in fits and spurts, when I feel the need. With authority (moderator in your case) comes responsibility and that means you can't go on searching for fights just for the fun of it. Check out my contributions from last month. You'll see mostly harmless stuff, which according to Douglas Adams pretty much the current situation. And, as always — how do you define legal or illegal, or possibly your legal assistant? I'm quite relaxed as is and don't intend to involve more than necessary. And, finaly, I don't take kindly to be bullied which was your tactic here. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This belongs here
Somebody said, that one should never attribute to malice when stupidity is sufficient. Since stupidity is not an issue here, I have to conclude malice. As the one who started edit-warring, you bear the blame, and judging by the very fast responses I have to conclude that you deliberately provoked this bout. Otherwise you would have to believe Sea Shepherd's official propaganda, and I don't think there are many here dumb enough to do that. Sweet dreams Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: After today's system crisis, I checked whether I had left any loose ends. It turned out I did, but among many nations not replying is accepting. So until you analyze yourself as you should, I can only think that you've got nothing of substance to say and implicitly agree with me. Remember: Vendettas bad. Bullying bad. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend not to give a fuck about your opinions or loose ends, implicitly & explicitly. 01:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not much of a riposte, but the feeling is mutual. And this is still acceptance through silence. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like silence to me. Go away.   01:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just painted in a corner. Your not saying anything speaks volumes. But I'll leave you be for the time being. Perhaps until after the semester is over. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why keep Alternate and Patent Medicine separate?
02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are different things from different time periods with no duplication of content and there is no logical reason to merge them. 08:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But the history of patent medicine is essentially the same as alternative medicine -- claim benefits, have no proof, make money. I think it put altmed in a useful historical context of bullshit in advertising. 12:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ipboptions
The parenthetical (only spam) was to get and get fewer people to use that log of a ban unnecessarily. Any suggestions for a less ugly way of doing so? 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't give blocking abilities to people who won't use them responsibly. 13:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that long time users also abuse, there's no way to do that without desysopping almost everyone. 14:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To ensure that you read this
As it says. I left a request for a comment by you on FuzzyCat's talk page. Since for anything to happen, you apparently have to comment on my sysoprevoke yourself. Now that I know you've seen it, you don't have an excuse for not commenting on the grounds that you didn't notice. So, I ask for a comment from you, and it is actually your moral duty to do so. Your last vandal binning was particularly out of order, moderator or not. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)