User talk:Drowninginlimbo/Archive1

Welcome
Aboriginal Noise (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [[image:wave.gif]] Welcome to Ar-Dubya. 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay!
You are now a better user! \m/ESSIAH 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I promise not to use these to further my marxist/feminist/liberal/anti-white agenda --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, please do. Nice job on the manosphere. 07:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. It's demographic masochism, I just really hate white males like myself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so off-topic, it's in the article!
What is wrong with you? --Someon (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The whole #yesallwomen thing happened in direct response to the shootings. Of course it's on topic. I reverted it because I don't think this place is a forum to decide whether or not it's tacky to talk about sexual harassment you've been through as it isn't as severe as literally being murdered. What is wrong with you? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless your aim is to embarrass women, the section should be taken out of the article. Trust me, I have solved a crossword once. --Someon (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I haven't solved a crossword before? What is wrong with you? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I said. --Someon (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages
Deleting them is bad, m'kay? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦  Some men just want to watch RW burn 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can delete and hide if there is personal info involved or it is really vile (though that is subjective, so there's a problem with that). Here is a serviceable alternatives: collapse the section into a compact box that is hidden from view for the disinterested, like this:


 * section


 * Nullahnung (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think something like this should be decided on a case by case basis. Also I'm really sorry to delete some of your post Nullahnung, I just didn't know how to fix the HTML so that it showed my comment --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What you think is nice, but that's not how the community standards are set. Please stop. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't make the edit again, don't worry --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now the markup is fixed. Sorry for this intrusion, but I was curious about the hiccup. It seems the problem was the indentation colons before the template invocations. (I won't mind being reverted here.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nullahnung (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's interesting, I spent a little while trying to fix it and couldn't. This will be useful for future use. Thank you --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your style
11:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Here's to a necessary and fruitful endeavor in controlling the debate improving our coverage of gender studies--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you wanted to know
An explanation of the Nutty thing. First diff is the initial, second is just correcting typos. MESSIAH OF DOOM  Unite with thy oracle  12:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've read through your comment and that honestly doesn't sound that bad, not nearly enough for his disgusting retort. Maybe it is due my own life experiences but sending emails asking why another person has been rude to you does not seem like a big deal to me. It sounds like you just wanted a less hostile environment to edit in. As with any Wiki, I feel the focus should be on the articles not the editors --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist
I suppose it's too much to ask that these idiots at least be creative. *tips my hat to you* Thanos6 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I was just about to leave you a message. I'm not sure what options we have other than protecting the articles that the IP finds for a day or two until they get bored or the 4chan thread dies. Autoconfirmed should work well as it means non-sysop editors can make changes. It's just a shame for non-vandal IPs --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've had anything remotely resembling authority on a wiki; until now, my experience has been as a mod and an admin on message boards, which attract completely different troll styles, so it'll be a while before I get used to dealing with this new variety. Thanks for the guidance. Thanos6 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I think the only real option is to do it manually. I'm fairly sure there are bots on Wikipedia that can prevent this sort of thing but generally it still comes down to spending an hour or so blocking IPs. They will get bored eventually --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The draft in america
It really isn't gonna go away, it isn't active, but currently still exists and nobody seems all that interested in seriously removing it. Because of that, i see it as a much better use of my time and energy to atleast make it equal, and work on removing it when it seems like there's actually a chance people will do so. -- Mie kal  22:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not put the same energy into trying to remove it? Wouldn't an effective men's rights movement be doing just that rather than focusing all its time and resources attacking women's rights movements? They could be the interest in removing it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, what about the problem with female soldiers being sexually assaulted? Forgive me for being skeptical about a group of rape apologists trying to extend conscription to women. It's one thing signing up to fight knowing the risks but the idea of forcing women into that incompetent system is hugely disturbing Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Some batshittery for you
Heard of these fuckers? TERFs, female supremacists (as in the "let's make some bullshit pseudobiological arguments as to why men are inferior" type), and believers in some kinda weird spooooky magickes or some shit. Additionally, if you disagree- or are even male- you are now barred from commenting. They were locked for a little while, but now they're back and fucking up the web again (I've had a bit of a history with them, involving sockpuppets and misrepresentation of my age & views). So yeah, just because I'm curious as to what you have to say about them. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM  It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me  10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Websites like this do scare me but I also find them faintly ridiculous. There is nothing radical about TERFs. The transphobia in particular is disgusting, even though the pseudoscientific gender eugenics that they use are obviously ungrounded. I haven't seen it expressed quite like this. I hope it doesn't influence any young feminists, its very easy to hate machismo and I can understand why some wrongly extend that hatred to all men, but its counterproductive to the movement and in instances like this it ends up looking similar to right-wing discourse. It's definitely one to keep an eye on either way, we should write an article on it in the style of ours on Radfem Hub if it gains any traction --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * * cringe*. Ugh. Why do TERFs have shitty wordpress pages? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] Ate at a Chinese restaurant therefore is literally Hitler 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine it's because Wordpress accounts are relatively anonymous and are easy to set up, at least it looks unconvincing because of this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Censorship
When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good. That's observation #1 on that page, but the other ones are pretty astute too. The WP user in whose space it lives is one of the responsible old-timers, in my book. Thanks for what you did on that train wreck of a talk page. Derailment indeed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wary about how I act on website after the whole Nutty Roux thing, not really sure how to respond to sexist/racist trolls on website now. Thank you for the comments, it was a shame because I found the discussion interesting before the derailment --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See observations #2 and #29. It seems that guy has decided he no longer wants to participate in RW the way he once did. Maybe he got tired of trying to herd cats. I think his attitude includes a measure of frustration that the wiki no longer conforms to his idea of what it should be. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I get your point --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Is there a reason you are blocking me? I thought the addition I made to the page was reasonable, and consisted of common criticisms. At least provide a better reason than calling someone who disagrees with you a "troll". MesWa (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait are you 5.68.37.251 from earlier? If so I thought you were somebody trying to make MRAs look stupid, I didn't realise you were genuinely promoting those ideas in the articles. I'm sorry. Which edit would you like to start with? It would help if you pointed our which IP number is yours --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am that IP, and I understand completely, I am not an MRA, but I am not trying to make MRAs look stupid, I just felt the page missed out some common criticisms of the feminist ideology. PS: What do you mean by "which edit would you like to start with?" Mind, I am unable to post back for 30 minutes. MesWa (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry let me remove the post limit, you made quite a few changes to long-standing articles and the brake is intended to slow them down. Generally you should go to the article talk page before making a change that may be seen as controversial. I got the impression you were a troll from the one on Anitas page, the flat out assertion that she was a "dishonest" or a "professional victim" is sort of ridiculous. We try to avoid the balance fallacy here in order to properly critique reactionary/fascist ideologies --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll definitely keep in mind your advice, I'm sorry for causing trouble. As for the Anita page one, the intended message was that there are other viewpoints other than the misogynistic hate of Anita Sarkeesian and that there are actual reasons for denying her arguments that aren't based on sexism, but I see that I should have gone to the talk page. MesWa (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By framing it as something anti-feminists say, it doesn't really give the impression that you are representing non-sexists critiques of her work, but I get what you mean. I personally don't like the Feminist Frequency videos too much but I respect the hell out of Anita for the abuse that she puts up with. Either way, article talk page is the way to go --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)