User talk:Sorte Slyngel/Archive2

Avengerofthe BoN
Leave them in the bin. They are a problem user and unless the rest of the moderators agree to let them out, we'd prefer to keep their shit on this wiki as limited as possible. Thanks. Gooniepunk (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know it's in the singular. I stick to my end of the deal. He'll be out tomorrow if he's in the bin now. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Goonie was using the singular "they," an ancient established usage in English, to indicate a person of unspecified gender. Also, moderator action. SmartFeller (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorte, Goonie is a mod. You cannot defy him without risking your own mop.---Mona- (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed he was. I'm not particularly attached to my mop, but not having one would render me pretty useless in pardoning somebody, when that becomes an issue. I'm sure it will. As for the language, I'm aware of the various conventions, none satisfactory, but I thought it was abundantly clear by now that Avenger is a German male. My nationality and gender is equally known. I haven't looked at what Avenger is supposed to have done this time. That can wait until January. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Goonie has seldom interacted with Avenger so may not have known he's a he. Anyway, Goonie altered the vandal bin edit summary to say Avenger may not be unbinned without approval of the mods. If you want to throw yourself on a funeral pyre to unbin, when it would be immediately reinstated and you would likely lose your mop, I guess you could -- but what would be the point?---Mona- (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There would be no point. I'd realized that. But there should be a way to take this to the mods, where I can at least argue. You could do me a favor and tell me the procedure. As for me, I have quite a lot to do before the new year, so I won't do a bit until January. When that time comes, whom do I ask and where? Merry Christmas Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please, please wait until we've concluded the voting and reached resolution on the GG articles and machinations of the lunatics targeting various editors here? We've pretty much reached consensus not to formally discuss and vote until after the holidays. This is a pretty urgent issue that is taking up a lot of attention, so it wold be helpful to handle only one issue at a time (and other bullshit could arise while the GG thing is going on).---Mona- (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is known as Chicken coop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks my friend. I'll bring it up. I think I can still at least argue the case, at least I've not left that too much of a criminal record, so I should be able to be heard. Shalom Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, same to you :).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ach, das war es. Ein Weltweites Wohlfülen weltweites Wohlfühlen an alle, insbesondere Du weißt welche. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorte, I am appalled you would adjust your holiday greeting to suit Sean Hannity and the loons at Fox. Of course, you aren't American, so may not know it is imperative to join the "War on Christmas" and never, but never wish anyone "Merry Christmas." Indeed, you should be wishing us: "Happy Depraved Liberal Satanic Winter Solstice." The "Shalom" is ok, cuz it isn't especially religious, but no Hanukkah stuff.---Mona- (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Satanic? And if one is atheist? Satanic would then not be an option, since an atheist doesn't believe in evil deities, either.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, gleðileg jól, then. It means the same but etymologically it's happy yule which is as heathen as and non-religious as anyone could want. :-) Anyway, I'm an atheist, should that not be clear, and this Sean-thingy is unknown to me. It just doesn't matter to me which greeting is used. For ɞthe same reason I use BC/AD for clarity. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Be very glad you don't know Sean Hannity. Also, why don't you use a urbe condita?
 * Thanks for that information. I'll not read anything by him. As for the calendar, there are too many sects out there, that you're bound to trip some line. (Just to say what is, no comment has irritated me on this page.) I grew up without any religion at all so I haven't had to struggle to be the master of the mind or what you wish to call it. BC/AD is just a convenient standard.

Re:
So long as you edit in good faith on all matters RationalWIki (action taken against Arisboch had nothing to do with Avenger), I don't see a coop case on Avenger's behalf as being an exercise in futility. On the contrary, it's robably better handled by the community-at-large than by a moderator who is completely unfamiliar with the Avenger case (i.e: yours truly). Gooniepunk (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The moderator expert was probably Paravant, who's tired of war and has retired. Some of the candidates have an insight into the matter and at least David Gerard should know about it. I haven't researched Arisboch's conviction and I won't have time to do that either for a number of weeks. I disagree about this being a popularity contest. It probably has to do with the fact that the jury system isn't used in a great part of the world, including mine, and I distrust juries let alone general voting on a judicial matter. The moderators seem to be the equivalent to what I'm used to as judges in the Roman system and they are trained to be professionally assisted evaluators, not the twelve good men and true who are not necessarily either. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * David Gerard has also recently binned Avenger. At any rate, I can pretty easily marshal the history of Avengers' misbehavior and disruption, including prior coop cases. Something along the lines of the case CarpetSmoker presented re: Ryu. This is a pain in the ass, but such is democratic functioning.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was about to fall asleep, as I wrote the above, and I have only the vaguest of recollections about it. Anyway, it depends on which implementation of democracy you mean. There are more than one, and a direct vote by the constituency is probably the worst. Refresh your history about Athens in the Peloponnesian war. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This was poorly worded: It should have been that self-selected juries are not very reliable. Isn't a personal dislike against the „accused“ a ground for dismissal from serving in a jury? Referenda have their functions but in my opinion, they should be used sparingly and never to decide on the fate of an individual. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Vox populi, vox Rindvieh –—–

The Rememberererer
Hey, Slyngel! Don't miss out on reading my campaign pledge, and if you're still interested, giving me your endorsement here. Would be swell if you did, or didn't, just so long as you feel you're doing what's right. Peace buddy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Long time no see. I'll gladly endorse you, but take into account that it may end up costing you votes. If you're elected I hope you don't turn out to be yet another politician and forgrt your constituency until next election. And you owe me you know what. :-) I'm in a hurry now, endorsement follows today. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The footnote
You have the weird idea I see some "propaganda" value in this footnote. Why would it matter if Muslims think their sacred text has to be in Arabic? Catholics also used to think the liturgy had to be in Latin (some still do). It's not unusual. This is about evolving religion. The world has 1.6 billion Muslims. In countries like Indonesia. Arabic has the same privileged position in that faith that Latin has in the Catholic Church, but with both, modern times have caused vernacular translations to flourish. Or do you have a reference for otherwise?---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I said according to strict interpretations. That should have been enough. You did water it down and that was falsification. You took the content, which was correct per se and changed it altogether. Write your own. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how wikis work, Sorte. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange how every hay-penny tuppenny illiterate user flocks to tell me something like that. But you were always a good puppy, so this was to be expected from you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict! You infidels!) Not that it matters, but the consensus opinion in Islam still is that the word of god shan't be translated. In fact there is a view that someone who speaks no Arabic gains more from looking at the letters thaen from a (bad) translation. Something that I find quite convincing when it comes to the awful translations of Shakespeare into German, that are worse thaen just hearing the sound of the words in English and not understanding a thing. If anybody disagrees with the statement that this is in fact the consensus or a common view in Islam, I would like to see a source. As for the source of the "Mainstream Islam says Q'uran cannot be translated" claim see here. And in fact this is not entirely unlike the concept of certain legal documents only being valid in a certain language. Of course the Catholic preference for Latin is an entirely different issue, because Latin was not the original language of any piece of the bible (that would be Hebrew and Greek) and even Jesus likely did not speak it (that would be Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek or any combination of them). However, for the Q'uran we can be next to certain that it was written in Arabic and that that language was the mother tongue of Muhammad, if he historically existed (of which there is IIRC little mainstream doubt). So yeah... Some liberal Muslims might have made translations of the Q'uran (as has indeed the Saudi ministry of religion) but there is a reason why those are usually called "the meaning of the Q'uran" or other evasive texts. Just like a translation of a legal text would have the disclaimer "not valid in its translated form"... And by the way, this very issue shows just how man-made religion is. If the Q'uran were indeed divine, there'd be no trouble "revealing" it in every language there is, including obscure ones like Volapük and French Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No different than the way many Catholics see Jereome's Vulgate translation. But Sorte said it was not "valid." Wrong word. It's just not the best version.---Mona- (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You'd better have something really important to say, if you post here. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, something important! This I can do. Sorte, I'd like to raise awareness of human rights activists and government critics imprisoned by the Saudi regime and subjected to torture and inhumane punishments. You may ask "But I am just an individual, what can I do?" Well, we are all just individuals, but the same is true of the Saudi government. And the more individuals work together in resistance to this repressive regime, the harder it will be for the Saudi government to continue their brutal practices. By putting human faces on the repressed populations of foreign countries we can help to reduce the grudging apathy that's taken ahold of much of the international community. Please help support human rights, Sorte. Every voice matters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I voted in this case. But just in case it was not completely clear, since the lunatics have taken over the asylum here in RW, I do not want to be bothered. This exchange will be archived soon. I still hope for your cause though. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You posted this on User talk:Sorte Slyngel/ (with trailing /), not on User talk:Sorte Slyngel; These are different pages ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I'm sorry. I'll blank the other, athough I don't know whether I can delete it. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Retired
Despite what it may seem, I have not retired — I'm only taking a semi-vacation. I'll check on one or two articles of my choice every now and then, just for the sake of diversion and amusement. The diversion and amusement are both to be understood as personal. Seemingly some are not amused. Perhaps some are, but one rarely hears from them — or there are none at all — according to Borel's Law the probability of anyone being amused is zero.

If you have something on your heart requiring attention, feel free to drop a note. If it is about procedure, check out RationalWiki's main page and its rationale first. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Pb3-somethig has blocked me for 8 hours. I'll regain my freedom next morning, but this is abuse of powers, to be answered. And the rationale was idiotic, like he seems to be. But he's a staunch follower of Mona's so that is to be expected — never expect fairness. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit, I didn't mean to do that for 8 hours. I must have clicked the wrong button when I added the other reasons. I'll fix it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is futile, because Sorte can unblock himself. He's a sysop. Once again, we need a mod to deal with this endless Sorte bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently I can't, so don't worry, Mona. Or if I can, I don't know how. I'll check that out. In any case, my blindly undoing was just an answer to the same. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did wonder to which moderator you would be running next. Search for Moderators in RW, and then you can click on a list. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And, Pb, you have not yet removed the block. See you tomorrow. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I said I'll fix it, which means moving it back to the 1-hour limit. If you would like to appeal your block, please feel free to do it here. Blanking large sections and reverting the same edit 3 times in 30 minutes counts as edit warring, which is a blockable offense in this case, as you have not demonstrated that you are willing to work out your differences on the article with Mona peacefully on the talk page. Once you start doing that, you won't need to be blocked anymore. I hear your possible future self saying "but it's Mona that can't work out differences." I don't care if it is both of you. You were the one that reverted her edits repeatedly without attempting a constructive discussion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made all the attempts at "constructive discussion" I intend to have with Sorte. Henceforth I will simply be posting a link to the Saloon discussion to explain why I am not required to engage him. Some of his edits were already addressed, repeatedly on the article's talk page and in the Saloon. He has no support; I am not the only editor who rejects his edits. He will continue edit warring, no matter whether he's outvoted or not. Unless and until a moderator stops him.---Mona- (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mona how long do you plan your list of people you won't talk to to become? 176.2.59.0 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC for topic page
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Need_irc_club

A decision on Mona and you
I'd like you to edit articles that aren't related to Israel-Palestine for two-three weeks.

This isn't to say that you're entirely to blame or that your opinion is invalid on those articles, but that I would like both you and Mona to cool down; because she appears to have majority opinion and somewhat more grounds against you, you bear the burden of cold, cold temporary exile. Both of you have been moved to write huge amounts of text about each other, declare reversion-crusades (excuse the hyperbole) against each other, and generally increase RW's HCM.

It might be a good idea for you two to privately email (yes, that purest of evils) each other and attempt to come to an understanding on those articles. Perhaps you could include sections of praise (or counter-criticism) and of criticism proper, which would [a] make more balanced & informative articles and [b] allow both of you to write your hitpiece/hagiographies simultaneously.

During the two-three weeks: You expressed interest in rebutting not just right-wing wingnuts but left-wing moonbats as well. I commend the effort. Some categories to improve might be Category:Liberal moonbattery, Category:Feminist moonbattery, and Category:Hard green.

02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you FCP. However, I very much do not want Sorte to have my email address. All he has to do is that which he has repeatedly stated he would do: stay away from the I-P articles that I heavily edit. I've adduced a great deal of evidence to show why it is unreasonable to expect me to engage him, and I should not be forced to do so by his editing. There are other editors here who do not agree with me on those topics and we generally work things out. So, Sorte's POV will not go unrepresented.---Mona- (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mona: Re: Email: Noted. 02:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank to all above. I have stayed away from I-P for quite a while now. As I am studying Icelandic and Linguistics at the time, I thought Chomsky might be an appropriate article. I knew that Mona admired Chomsky, but that was not the reason I chose Chomsky. I thought the last two chapters had been well chosen. I simply assumed that would be some rephrasing from books: But there we have it: Mona will not allow any changes to her article.


 * In view of this, I can't see, how we might come to an agreement. I'll gladly write about his linguistics. For that to become accurate, books or articles written about them are certainly documents in their subject — for or against. Mona asked, probably imagining the acronym LOL, whether I would introduce Marx. I wouldn't. But the two last chapters have a place in any Chomskyan discussion.


 * As for the very telling removal of this by Mona, which was placed last after quite a lot of unprofessional right wing lunatic bashing she apparently does not want to take up an issue, except she has a handbook of quotation and the opponent has nothing. She just deletes as it strikes her, never mind that her (now imagined by her) „secret army“ turns up to release her and take turns in undoing edits.


 * But as I am so isolated as Mona suggests, it would be the easiest thing in the world to strike me for the sake of the remember ship.


 * And I will look at left-wing lunatics. I have rather diverse interests.


 * Still, if anybody wants to have „news“ (hardly news themselves, but scholars are always filing), from the world of Icelandic literature, do drop a line.


 * And, to satisfy Mona, I haven't got it and I don't want to have it. As for I-P, @FuzzyCat, I have just made one I-P edit for a long time, except one recent, which was meant to be sarcasm.


 * To repeat: I would like to be allowed to edit Chomsky without assuming that Mona has undone my last edit — a more charitable explanation will not be found anytime soon.


 * And finally, what is this supposed to mean: So, Sorte's POV will not go unrepresented.


 * If anyone wants a coop, I'd be glad. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * " I would like to be allowed to edit Chomsky" Chomsky is I-P related. It's why Horowitz, Dershowitz etc. hate Chomsky. He's very critical of Israel's human rights abuses and the U.S. alliance with Israel. ---Mona- (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, you could make up some ridiculous connection between Israel and half the articles on this wiki... Keith Olbermann for instance dislikes Robert Kraft who in turn is heavily involved in American Football in Israel... see, you can six degrees of Kevin Bacon Israel to everything...


 * (ec) :PS: For an idea about my interests, you might want to browse uncontroversial articles. Subtract Mona and there will be little left except Chomsky and Mona's need to namedrop and inserting her friends into articles, where they should be a footnote. And if you want an essay about some arcane — in the eyes of foreigners — subject, preferably a classic, feel free to state a wish. I'll have quite a lot of time to fill in this summer. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh! You can't criticize Chomsky withput getting sucked up in I-P? Dear girl, either the world is a cobweb with you, Chomsky and Greenwald together in the center or you really should start thinking. I mean thinking. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorte, please refrain from addressing me as "my dear" or as "dear girl," as you've done both of today. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

SS, unfortunately I must ask you to refrain from dearest Chomsky for two-three weeks. Your could always draft your revisions/additions in, say, User:Sorte Slyngel/Chomsky, and then there will be no edit warring, but you can apply your knowledge; perhaps if it's not IP related, Mona will assent to them. 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FCP, I'd suggest you just make it 3 weeks. Leaving it that non-specific could lead to problems.---Mona- (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not make it a year? 176.4.101.101 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fuzzy. I'll gladly refrain from editing Chomsky if Mona does the same. I may be a villain, but my morals are no worse than hers, and as for me, you can dig up any bit of my writing and I will not say, that I don't know what you're talking about. Also, if Mona has somehow swayed Moderator-opinion, then that is unacceptable given that the Moderators should have the full history, not just the latest Chomsky.. If she agrees, I agree. Otherwise, I'll have to take my chances. Now, I know you're being very polite here, but to dump all responsibly is simply not fair. If we can not be admonished to the same degree and Mona insists on editing while I take a deserved break, then that is playing favorites. I will have plenty to say about Chomsky, don't worry. But, and this is regrettable, unless Mona has a similar restraint, RW is for nought. What I have to say about Chomsky will not be published as an essay in any case. What I may or may not write belongs in the article. But you Fuzzy are apparently a man of some dignity, so I trust you weigh this a bit more carefully. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not apply to me. You haven't been given a choice.---Mona- (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just retitle the place "IsraelSuxopedia," and give Mona ultimate content powers? Also, written above are "she appears to have majority opinion," and "There are other editors here who do not agree with me on those topics and we generally work things out." These are counterfactual statements. Mona has driven off almost everyone who has disagreed with her about her unending vitriolic hatred for all things Israel. Don't Dox Me Bro (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "These are counterfactual statements." No. They are not. 1. Critics of Israel share different positions on what to criticize and who is a good source. Not all reject Zionism per se. 2. I succumb to evidence; if mine can be shot down, I give it up. If the other guy has strong, relevant evidence, I accept it. 3. How interesting that you blame me for Arisboch and Avenger's behavior that got them banned/binned. Sorte follows that same script, including for himself. Second only to Gamergaters, hardcore Zionists carry on like this all over the Internet, and then are shocked -- shcoked, I tell you! -- when others won't tolerate it.---Mona- (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that! I could not have said it better. I hope you will stick around and not be banned by the anti-Zionist faction over here... 188.226.214.36 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you've admitted that it's "anti-Zionist" rather than "anti-semitic" so I suppose there's hope for you yet Avengeboch. Pippa (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The boundaries seem to be very vague around here, Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well people who are a lot smarter than I am or this Avengeboch feller, have come up with a simple test. If you hear someone criticise Israel just ask yourself: "Is this person delegitimising Israel?" (e.g. by saying there should not be an Israeli state) "Is this person demonising Israel?" (e.g. by spreading old blood libel stories about the Israeli military) and finally "Is this person employing double standards?" (e.g. by judging Israels enemies not by their human rights abuses that they do accuse Israel of). I think you are all intelligent enough to know what's what. 95.85.44.204 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, BoN, you are unaware that altho that definition of antisemtism had been a "working definition" issued by the EU for a bit, they revoked it almost two years ago? In any event, I have had plenty to say, and with copious documentation, as to why Israel is "singled out" for attention by many Americans. The primary reason is one word: complicity. The U.S. has long been singling out Israel for very, very special treatment, and we think it's time for that to end. But this is not the proper place for that extended conversation, which we've already had here quite a few times.---Mona- (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know, why all this sweat is being wasted on my editing I-P. The only thing I've done recently in that area was a short, sarcastic See Also, which was quickly reverted. Mona herself approved of my sarcasm on the grounds that it would not be understood as such. The I-P discussion is lost, and I realized that quite a while ago. Isn't this called a Straw Man? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * From the talk page of Pbfreespace3:
 * FCP just told him to stay away from anything related to Israel-Palestine for the next few weeks. Maybe that will work to end this insanity.---Mona- (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy Cat asked politely. I was not blocked, banned nor thrown in the vandal bin. It seems Fuzzy Cat has a sense of proportion. For those in the audience who don't know, I gave him a personal promise not to meddle with Chomsky for three weeks. He accepted that. Enter Mona: „Sorte, stay out of Chomsky, Muslims, New Atheists who are aligned with pro-Israel people, e.g. Harris. Just back off. Those are my usual editing topics; they have not usually been yours.“


 * So, don't edit what Mona edits. I can't be the only one who finds this ridiculous.


 * Here endeth Pbfrespace3 and own speculations follow.


 * This is weird, to put it mildly. And I came across this looking at my own contributions. I saw that Pb's page had been changed and was curious. I was not following Mona — although she'll never admit to that possibility. I also suggested a new number in the spirit of Erdös and Bacon, the Mona number. The question is, how big must your Mona number be — i.e. how many degrees of separation must there be — to be allowed to edit anything. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
Both of you stop hating on each other for a little while. 18:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not hate him. He creeps me out. That's a huge difference. FCP, he is fucking abusive toward me, and then reverts to some super nice phase, and then gets all vicious again. And adds that I'm a liar whose facts can't be trusted so he won't acceopt ny of my documentation. On ad on with vicious bilge, all the time, about me. I Do. Not. Carry. On. Like. That. And I deeply resent any bullshit implied equivalency between that person and me.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't hate her. I hold her in deep contempt, but that is hardly newsworthy. She isn't man enough, or in this case woman enough to be an object of hate. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * “I Do. Not. Carry. On. Like. That.“ I'm afraid this would not stand up to historical scrutiny. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. And has. I made a case against you at the Saloon with copious direct quotes. You could not and did not do the same for me, because I do not behave as you do. End of. The only person I've called something along the lines of "stupid" was Avenger, and that was shortly before he got blocked for unhinged compulsions to edit war. But even vis- a-vis Avenger, I very seldom called him mean names. Where I am concerned, you do it promiscuously. The Saloon record stands.---Mona- (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One of your favorite words again, copious. Masses of drivel do not amount to more than just drivel. And you are a proven liar. End of story. Cheers darling Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples of „Persecution“
Mona accuses me freely and often about following her and popping up at every turn. I think I asked for a list of instances, but that has not been forthcoming. I'll provide two, which she seems to regard as personal persecution, when all I did was browsing subjects.


 * Mossad: I left a question about Mossad on the article's talk page. Mona thought that I'd been following her, but I took the time to write that train of thought down, and it went as follows. I recommended a book in Mathematics. That very readable book was a translation of a book published in the Soviet Union. That made me think about the Soviet Union and I ended up reading . That led to browsing about espionage and having read the Wikipedia-article about Mossad, I checked whether RW had an article about it. It did, and I left a question about a triviality on the talk page.
 * Josephus: When reading the Reverend Black Percy's talk page — I was hoping for an answer from him — I saw Mona engaging in an argument from her own authority, where she stated that she had majored in religious studies, which actually makes one wonder about the American education system. That bit of information was not from studying Mona.

I encourage each reader to provide examples about details I supposedly couldn't have known without researching Mona specifically. The truth is, she's not an interesting object of study. She does, however, write so much about herself, that it is difficult not to remember quite a number of things about her. Please, come up with other instances. The two above are those that came to me at once. There are bound to be more. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "which actually makes one wonder about the American education system" See? He simply cannot stop. I'm mentally ill., a wretched writer, everyone dislikes me, except I have too many followers due to my wily ways, I'm a constant liar & etc. And now, that I hold a degree in religious studies and am competent on topics it implicates, that is an indictment of the U.S. education system. How can I be expected to work constructively with this person?---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, dear girl, as usual. You major in religious studies and become a lawyer. Either your schooling took longer than usual, at least in a European perspective, or law school is very much shorter than other places. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "dear girl" I asked you very politely to stop with that sexist and demeaning, wholly inappropriate endearment. But, you simply cannot. Again.---Mona- (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How thin-skinned can one human being possibly be? You are a bit like Tom Brady: Likes to hit others, but so much as look at him the wrong way and he's crying for a flag to fly... 37.139.20.68 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You got a degree in religious studies and then went on to law school? Well, whatever floats your boat. At least I now know where your idealism/moralism generates from. Mine comes from computer science and information technology, myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find the sociolgy of religion, and the history of religion in the U.S., especially interesting. It's good degree for a civil libertarian as civil liberties are very frequently implicated in cases involving religious people. The examples are copious. But it was certain implicated in Dover. I read all the exhibits and testimony in that case with utter fascination.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just for the fun of it, the word law is a borrowing from Old Norse. Thank my ancestors the next time you think about law. And they actually brought law to England, albeit via some minor disagreements. Cheers my dear Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't claim that I'm a civil libertarian. In fact, I'm not liberal at all. But, I'm glad that it provided a basis for your work. If it works, it works. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec @Mona) I knew there was something I forgot to mention. You asked me not to call you „dear girl“ or other such things. It may have eluded your otherwise sharp intellect, that this is my talk page. You can easily stay away, but here I write what I want. You will not catch me faking history nor faking a nervous breakdown. That's your specialty. And now, my darling, off for now with a big virtual kiss and a heartfelt cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're deliberately egging. Don't do that, dude. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm at it, isn't there a phrase along the lines of being a glutton for punishment? That's the only reason I can find for Mona's fixation on this page. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Castaigne, she can easily stay away. If she lacks control, then that's her problem. Or she could provide a brilliant repartee. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea
Was to have you guys not fight for a little while. Please. 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, people seemed to flock. But I'll keep the conversation on the page. I am allowed to do that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples of „Persecution“ rescued from the Archive — this should be here, all it takes is a little restraint
Mona accuses me freely and often about following her and popping up at every turn. I think I asked for a list of instances, but that has not been forthcoming. I'll provide examples, which she seems to regard as personal persecution, when all I did was browsing subjects.


 * Mossad: I left a question about Mossad on the article's talk page. Mona thought that I'd been following her, but I took the time to write that train of thought down, and it went as follows. I recommended a book in Mathematics. That very readable book was a translation of a book published in the Soviet Union. That made me think about the Soviet Union and I ended up reading . That led to browsing about espionage and having read the Wikipedia-article about Mossad, I checked whether RW had an article about it. It did, and I left a question about a triviality on the talk page.
 * Josephus: When reading the Reverend Black Percy's talk page — I was hoping for an answer from him — I saw Mona engaging in an argument from her own authority, where she stated that she had majored in religious studies, which actually makes one wonder about the American education system. That bit of information was not from studying Mona.
 * Everything about Israel and the Middle East: Avenger was among the first to greet me here, so I took a look at Israel.
 * Apartheid: Apartheid really followed the previous topic. I thought and still think, that the Israeli part of it was ridiculously blown out of proportion.
 * Chomsky: I almost forgot the man himself. I had known about him decades before there was an RW. I took the time to familiarize myself with the nuances of the word detest and found out I was mistaken, as it seems to be synonymous with hatred. I'll just say that I hold him in such utter contempt that others are hard pressed to compete, although there are some.
 * Greenwald: He's collateral damage. He's a nobody where I live, but he was and is so overrepresented on Chomsky's page that I took a look. And he was described in almost religious terms like the sanitized Chomsky.
 * Steven Pinker: He's an afterthought, but just if anyone brings him up, I did not write that article and only added two counterpoints. Pinker himself is well represented by his own words and is more sensible than Chomsky. He has a better grasp of evolution at least.
 * Mona: Yes, the lady herself. She doesn't really belong in this category, as other items on the list are pages I apparently couldn't have known about unless I was stalking her. But I'd like to dismiss the stalking accusations — I have said this elsewhere, but just to keep it all together, here goes. I have „researched“ Mona exactly once. That was in the context of looking at the Fossil Record of some page or other and I was surprised to see the volume of her edits and the length of time she had spent there. So I took a look at her contributions that day and found out, that editing RW is apparently what she does. Mona herself has supplied other pieces of information just by saying so without any practical need.

I encourage each reader to provide examples about details I supposedly couldn't have known without researching Mona specifically. The truth is, she's not an interesting object of study. She does, however, write so much about herself, that it is difficult not to remember quite a number of things about her. Please, come up with other instances. The two above are those that came to me at once. There are bound to be more. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "which actually makes one wonder about the American education system" See? He simply cannot stop. I'm mentally ill., a wretched writer, everyone dislikes me, except I have too many followers due to my wily ways, I'm a constant liar & etc. And now, that I hold a degree in religious studies and am competent on topics it implicates, that is an indictment of the U.S. education system. How can I be expected to work constructively with this person?---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, dear girl, as usual. You major in religious studies and become a lawyer. Either your schooling took longer than usual, at least in a European perspective, or law school is very much shorter than other places. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "dear girl" I asked you very politely to stop with that sexist and demeaning, wholly inappropriate endearment. But, you simply cannot. Again.---Mona- (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How thin-skinned can one human being possibly be? You are a bit like Tom Brady: Likes to hit others, but so much as look at him the wrong way and he's crying for a flag to fly... 37.139.20.68 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You got a degree in religious studies and then went on to law school? Well, whatever floats your boat. At least I now know where your idealism/moralism generates from. Mine comes from computer science and information technology, myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find the sociolgy of religion, and the history of religion in the U.S., especially interesting. It's good degree for a civil libertarian as civil liberties are very frequently implicated in cases involving religious people. The examples are copious. But it was certain implicated in Dover. I read all the exhibits and testimony in that case with utter fascination.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just for the fun of it, the word law is a borrowing from Old Norse. Thank my ancestors the next time you think about law. And they actually brought law to England, albeit via some minor disagreements. Cheers my dear Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't claim that I'm a civil libertarian. In fact, I'm not liberal at all. But, I'm glad that it provided a basis for your work. If it works, it works. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec @Mona) I knew there was something I forgot to mention. You asked me not to call you „dear girl“ or other such things. It may have eluded your otherwise sharp intellect, that this is my talk page. You can easily stay away, but here I write what I want. You will not catch me faking history nor faking a nervous breakdown. That's your specialty. And now, my darling, off for now with a big virtual kiss and a heartfelt cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're deliberately egging. Don't do that, dude. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm at it, isn't there a phrase along the lines of being a glutton for punishment? That's the only reason I can find for Mona's fixation on this page. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Castaigne, she can easily stay away. If she lacks control, then that's her problem. Or she could provide a brilliant repartee. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There was only one sarcasm there. The rest is true. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The list above is not in chronological editing order, but it should be kept in one piece. I can't think of other points, but I will add as I remember. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly reviews, so to speak
Someone, whom I will not mention by name, gave me the following scholarly references, why a book, which must not be named either, is a total lie, beginning with the ISBN-number, to wit this Amazon review and, surprise, surprise another Amazon review. I'm not accusing anyone of selective quoting, but it might be mentioned that Amazon now has 146 user reviews of the same book, and the 5 star ratings (highest) and the 1 star ratings (lowest) are divided evenly with 42% each. I thought it might be of interest. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky
This slipped my notice. The idea is still that you can draft changes, but leave the mainspace alone for a while. Thanks. 01:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have given you my promise about leaving Chomsky alone. I will honor that. I hope you do not have such bad impression that you don't trust me to do that. The link you sent, and I'm assuming that you are referring to my contributions there, has my writings in red and as for the first one, that is absolutely true. The second was snark, although snark seems to have lost its attraction to those who don't understand it. In any case that was before I gave my promise. Just out of curiosity, does anyone around here trust promises? RW is in a dark place. But I still adhere to that. I'm going to repeat myself now: I do not lie, at least not here. I engage in white lies, when necessary, but that is in the world outside RW. You would actually do me a favor by pointing instances out to me. The other topic is that I will recognize what I've written. I stand by most of it, but as nobody can force me not to get wiser, I might have a different view now, but then I would also acknowledge that. In sum, as far as RW is concerned, I simply am what I have written. I will draft changes or I might change the subject. Now listen, if and when I write something substantial like an essay about one of my interests, say, rímur, Icelandic literature in general, the newest discoveries in Historical Linguistics — well the list could continue, I would like you to read it and add snark directed at me. Would you do that? It would please me. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you repeat to Mona, that she's actually required to do that? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Coop Case
A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. (I noticed they "forgot" to notify you, as is customary. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the gentle visitor's reading pleasure
Dick Ringler's Bard of Iceland is probably the best introduction to Icelandic metre available on the net. He explains the rules of alliteration fairly well. For maximum pleasure, you might want to get the book, but if you're only curious about the technical details, this will do, and Ringler does give 50 poems in the original and translation. Enjoy Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sígilt og á sérstaklega við þetta samsafn
Gáttir allar, áðr gangi fram, of skoðask skyli, of skyggnask skyli, því at óvíst es at vita hvar óvinir sitja á fleti fyrir.

Til uppflettingar — Ringler
Almennt

„Strófur“

„Stönsur“

Hrynjandi

Ljóðstafir

Hugtök
wingnut, moonbat, crank

=Additions 03.03.2016=

This is quite interesting
For those who can view the article, and I believe The Economist allows three articles a week, this is interesting. What's the good of doing anything at all? According to Jim Inhofe nothing.

Snow Blindness.

Enjoy Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that point was already in RW. Still, as The Economist is probably not regarded too favorably by many, it does say something that it publishes this. And, as usual, it's enjoyable reading. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Still reading The Economist. For those interested in trivia:


 * Oxford University admitted its first known international student, Emo of Friesland, in 1190. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Rímur
I have been toying with the idea of writing something educational about, but that would take long and I came across this:

The Icelandic rímur (and why you should care about them more thatn you do)

The format is PowerPoint, 23 slides in English, and probably contains all any foreigner could wish to know. Links to websites are liberally scattered in the text albeit in Icelandic. This is the author's home page although there's not much to be seen, but browsing that leads to the publications of The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies in English. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2-level notations
Metrical scansion explicitly requires a 2-level notation. Because of the variety of stress levels in language, 2-level notation is not adequate for a rhythmic scansion of any sensitivity. Yet, because of the confusion between rhythm and meter, the number of levels used is no sure indication of a prosodist's intent.

Classical: This notation simply retains the classical symbols for "long" and "short" syllables (the macron and breve) and repurposes them for "ictic" and "nonictic" (or "stressed" and "unstressed"). Because it quite literally doesn't mean what it says, it is generally out of favor with metrists. This notation has been used by George Saintsbury and Edgar Allan Poe.

Slash & breve: This notation replaces the macron with a slash (or the graphically similar acute accent), the more common symbol for either ictus or stress. Though the classical breve is still present, its pairing with slash indicates that it has been relieved it of its original "short" meaning. This notation has the advantage that its symbols can be incorporated into words as diacritics ("áccĕntĕd sýllăblĕ"). But strictly speaking it can be seen as sending the mixed message that syllables are being marked as stressed or short which would be a nonsensical scansion. This notation has been used by Paul Fussell and Miller Williams.

Slash & x: This notation is unambiguous (apart from the question of whether "/" indicates stress or ictus), easy to type, and frequently used. This is the notation preferred by the Poetry WikiProject for Wikipedia articles displaying scansion. It cannot be utilized as diacritics, and therefore always requires 2 lines (1 for the verse, and 1 for the scansion). This notation has been used by James McAuley, Timothy Steele, Robert B. Shaw, and the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics; and as a secondary method by Derek Attridge.

× / ×     /      ×    /      ×    /      ×    / When Ajax strives, some rock's vast weight to throw, × /    ×   / ×     /     ×  /     ×     / The line too labours, and the words move slow;

This metrical scansion does not attempt to show the various rhythmic features that would occur in a competent reading. Nor does it imply that the line should be read monotonously in only 2 registers ("when Ajax STRIVES some ROCK'S vast WEIGHT to THROW"). Its simple function is to show how these lines relate to other lines of verse by marking whether syllables fill ictic or nonictic positions in the line.

3-level notations
Although both lines of Pope quoted above are metrically identical regular pentameters, they create that same basic metrical pattern in very different ways. To show this, one must note the rhythm, not just the meter, of the lines, and recourse must be had to additional levels of notation. In the instance below, the third symbol (\) designates stressed but demoted syllables:

× / ×     /      \    /      \    /      ×    / When Ajax strives, some rock's vast weight to throw, × /    \   / ×     ×     ×  /     \     / The line too labours, and the words move slow;

If the meanings of all 3 symbols are defined and used strictly enough, a 3-level scansion can be both metrical and rhythmic; however, typically it will gravitate toward the rhythmic, as this scansion does. In the second line, "and" is both unstressed and ictic, but the scansion marks it only as unstressed. Although this is now a better representation of the rhythm of the line, Brogan's chickens have come home to roost: the first line's 3-level scansion may tend to obscure the basic metrical pattern, but the second line's scansion actually falsifies it. (Does the second line comprise 4 or 6 metrical prominences? The answer is, still, 5, but that could not be deduced from this rhythmic scansion.)

Have a look at this
Have you seen this? How accurate is this? And is it whitewashing some parts? I think you might know quite a bit on the subject, don't you? 107.178.104.62 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This does seem do be a copy-paste job from I don't know where. As it is 22:30 my time, I'll have a closer look tomorrow if time permits, but at a first glance it seems to be unreliable and in any case too superficial to be of any use. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the historical period does not begin about 1000 AD. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having read this again, less sleepy than yesterday, I don't see any particular errors except for dating the beginning of history at around 1.000 AD. There is not any real whitewashing in the sense that there's lying. On the other hand this page is very simplistic and less than flattering facts can be found with a minimum of googling. I hope this answers part of your question. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * History is written sources only, right? The other thing is prehistory? Right? 5.254.97.107 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but there's quite a lot written about the Norse from ca. 800-1000, just not by themselves. Additionally, there's somewhat of a conensus that extant poetry is historical material. That has to be evaluated in each case. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, writing does not have to be contemporary. Later historical works are sources too. This pretty much applies to every subject of history. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just add some examples. Most of the poetry in Egils saga is believed to be correctly ascribed to him. Gísla saga has a number of stanzas attributed to him, but the consensus seems to be that they were composed by the author of the saga. Íslendingabók is considered reliable. Ari fróði, the author carefully explains who his sources were. A comparison with the king lists of the Middle East is not out of place here. There's some agreement that they are fairly accurate, at least according to the compilers' ability, but the date of composition has a very wide margin of error. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Which part of the text below is unclear?

 * RETIRED
 * This user has requested that their pages be archived and left untouched.
 * This is due to a private decision to leave RationalWiki and never come back.
 * Please honor their request. (Inquiries here)

Just out of curiosity. There was great drama about a month ago, and then the hysterics didn't turn out to have been much of anything. Just my musing and cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Update 05.03.2016
Feel free to leave a note. If it's about RW-procedure, click here.

Everything else belongs on this page.

If you're intentions are good, welcome. If not try running „éttu það sem úti frýs“ through Google Translate. The translation isn't quite up to scratch, but the meaning is clear enough. :-)

Are you aware that there is a fork?
Just fyi, here is a link. It seems you are unhappy here. Pizzameister (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just had a look. This is apparently in its infancy, but merits further research.


 * No, I'm not particularly fond of RW as is. The plebs is never a good judge and if you were to sum up the users with one word - each individually of course - the word covering more users than any other is hypocrite. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)