User talk:Weaseloid

A R C H I VE

You know
User:Archivist can handle this page, too... 01:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with how I'm handling it? 01:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing, nothing. 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to mention it again
You never replied to my request for a comment by you. Now that has been archived. I'd still like to remind you of your moral duty to give your comments, positive or negative. Refusing to comment is as much of an abuse of power, if the person asked to give an opinion is a moderator, as is frivolously juggling user's rights and all the more abusive is groundless vandal binning, just because you were sour. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I... Don't think you know what mods are. Weasel has no moral duty to give comments.  StickySock (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not all that grounded in the regulations, but he's moral bound, if he has one. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you yet cowering?
You owe an explanation. It's as simple as that. If not, then you're worthy of being a moderator. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Explanation of what? 20:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your abuse of power. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any. I gave you a warning as the result of a Chicken Coop case.  You didn't keep to the terms.  08:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted silly reverts by you. Nobody has a special right to start and continue an edit war, so this is your responsibility. But you just took the first opportunity to take revenge, for whatever your motives can be. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative medicine
Why did you nuke those sections? --Ymir (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they don't belong there. See patent medicine. 09:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, didn't notice that. --Ymir (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine detractors
Why remove? 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't exist, contained only three or four pages & doesn't mean very much. 22:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mm. It was just there to separate those folks from the spew of pro-altmed people. I can create the category page if it means anything. 01:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just stop.
There's no reason for you to revert any of that -- and if it puts someone at ease, why do you fucking care? It's easy to re-do, and I will, unless you've got some reason why someone's name must be preserved. 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you need to stop doing weird unprecedented things without seeking community support in advance. Especially things which other admins have refused to do & which make nonsense out of coop case proceedings & other records.  12:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weasel; you forget that FCP is a wanker! Pippa (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we put it to a vote then, gents? (The name changing, not whether FCP is a wanker). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Spoil sport! Mind you, it is obvious that FCP is a wanker so no need for vote. Pippa (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't quote myself
AgingHipie added that originally. I think I eventually took it out. Just showing Sandflapjack how "bad" it can get.---Mona- (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Founding principles
I'm not around very much these days but I'm glad to see that there is somebody who remembers some of our founding principles. Cheers. Well done.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said. Pippa (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. Not sure what this relates to specifically, but yeah I'm trying to keep the spirit alive.  12:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Various things. I don't want to make too explicit in order to not turn it into a debate. :-)--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ain't the founding principles of RW trolling Conservapedia and hunting pseudoscience?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, n00b. 23:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Troublemaker
Weasel causes LHC breakdown. Flannan Isle (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Poor little weasel. 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit/move lock bug

 * 22:03, 6 January 2016 Typhoon protected "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"‎ ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (High traffic page)
 * 18:53, 6 January 2016 Typhoon removed protection from "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"
 * 18:34, 6 January 2016 -Mona- changed protection level for "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"‎ ‎[move=moderator] (indefinite)
 * 18:31, 29 December 2015 David Gerard changed protection level for "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=moderator] (indefinite) (this page is not a place for drivebys)
 * 16:14, 8 December 2015 Paravant changed protection level for "RationalWiki:Chicken coop"‎ ‎[edit=moderator] (expires 16:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)) ‎[move=moderator] (indefinite) (Go Away, RW conflict resolution is on holiday.)

The bug happened when David removed the mod lock on "edit", while leaving it on "move". Mona then removed it entirely and now anyone could change the move lock, but only downwards from mod. I tried to restore the move lock back to mod, but couldn't, as sysop lock was the highest allowed to me. The thing is that the edit lock applies to editing the protection status of the page too. When there's only a mod lock on "moving", it of course prevents non-mods from moving the page, but not from editing the page including editing the protection. Typhoon (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like a stupid bug. Should be removed ASAP.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about when you locked a page at moderator level? 11:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He's Tech. Owlman is too, which is why he could ignore mod locks. This is a problem with what the Tech permissions allow. Typhoon (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently, trying to prevent an edit war is bad.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's how the software works. If mods don't want people mess with the page protection, they need to lock editing. A lone move lock has no effect on blocking editing. Typhoon (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Demographics survey
If you care: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aQiuBQOhv6ZjGjnbDbVCrpaycRCiM-rjCYMOaRzEAZw/htmlview

You can apply the same problems to that one as the 2016 missional survey. 21:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sysop rights?
Quoting from rights, "based on your edits and time on the wiki, you've been given [...] sysop status". Would you care to explain why "insulting people and edit warring" counts as edits that merit a sysopship?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. 22:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "why the fuck did you give an obvious troll sysop rights"?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I ask this disinterestedly: if Conscience wasn't a defender of the "old" ways, who dislikes what I do and supports what you do, do you think you would have sysopped them? (Don't take this as an attack, just want to know what you think that you think.) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. This McCarthyite bullshit needs to end.  As long as I see users being blocked or vandal binned on ideological grounds or because of idle conjectures about their identity or motives, I will stand up against it.  00:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What "ideological grounds" were involved?--JorisEnter (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] That's fair. Thanks! 00:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

They're mad bullies
Weaseloid. The Bernie article was vandalized by a crazy Sandroid. Mona removed much of the critical stuff without any talk and filled it with puff pieces. On her talkpage she just insulted me continuously. There's no point in talking with a crazy zealot, she won't listen to anything, especially not from someone whom she calls a Vagina. She even robbed me of my mop after I tried to stop her vandalism. Why are you allowing this harassment? Typhoon (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Hillary article she erased a source from politifact just because it wasn't shitting on Hillary. She keeps insisting I'm voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. This is absurd. Typhoon (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um. I gave many good faith reasons in a string of edit summaries, as is standard practice. And I did not call her a vagina!---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) I've restored your mop, Typhoon. "There's no point in talking" isn't a good reason not to use the article talk pages. You both need to make your case there re the article changes & see what response you get. Try to stay focused on the articles, not personal enmities. 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. She's persuaded that I'm part of Hillary's campaign. I've already mentioned many times before that she's whitewashing the Bernie article while erasing sourced stuff from the Hillary article. She's nuts. I can't talk with a bully. Typhoon (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My, but you are persistent in impugning my mental health, and also Pb3's. Look, I gave reasons in edit summaries for my edits. I asked you to take it to the talk page. I initiated a talk page discussion which you ignored. On the article talk pages I stick to business and do not state my low opinion of you. I expect you to also substantively discuss edits on the talk pages, and to give good faith reasons for your edits, as well as your objections to mine. This is not difficult or special, Typhoon. It's standard operating procedure here.---Mona- (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your torrent of gendered insults was not normal behavior. Typhoon (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've stated my case on the talkpage of both articles. Mona is in no hurry so far to defend her edits. Instead, she and PBF are throwing another round of insults at people they hate. Why are you enabling these bullies? Typhoon (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, I just posted an extensive answer on the Sanders talk page. Really, your whining and hysteria should simply be ignored. this site doesn't run by a timetable you set. And none of us are required to meet your deadlines, Do get over yourself!---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I posted this before you wrote that, AND you're not defending your conduct at the Hillary article at all. I've repeatedly stated that you removed properly sourced stuff. Typhoon (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Request
Mona is not responding on the talk page, nor is she active at all. Since there won't be anymore edit warring with her, I'm politely requesting to remove the protection from both pages. Typhoon (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's stopped raining, should I throw away my umbrella? Bicycle  wheel Toxic mowse.gif 08:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't think one day's absence from the site is long enough to consider somebody "not active at all". & Since (as far as I can see) there's no appearance of consensus about the disputed edits on the talk pages, there's every likelihood that edit warring will resume again shortly.  I suggest allowing at least a couple more days & working towards some kind of compromise.  08:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How am I supposed to reach a compromise with a person that is MIA? She hasn't returned since David removed her sysop. Typhoon (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I support Weaseloid's moderator decision to keep those pages locked for just a bit longer, while precisely everyone involved in editing them can simmer down just a tad. But what do I know. *shrugs* All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Give us a kiss then
Check it, out a thingy! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please re-mop me
I didn't realize David Gerard had de-mopped me until yesterday. FCP seems to think only a mod can re-mop me. You didn't have a problem with my brief de-mopping of Typhoon when she was constantly blocking both me and Pb3 as her ploy to win an edit war -- I asked you to re-mop her as soon as you, a mod, made an appearance to make her stop it. As I recall, you also told Typhoon her attempt to coop me over this was nonsense and that coop case went nowhere. Why David interfered and got involved after everything had been resolved, I don't understand.

I can't communicate with others using the friendly blockfeature, and wish to be able to do so. Especially given that I did nothing wrong other than to force another editor to stop unjustifiably blocking me some 8-10 times (me and Pb3 both), and asked you to give her her mop back as soon as that was no longer my only recourse for making her stop it (because you were present to make her stop it), I simply did not do anything wrong.---Mona- (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Big Dave's comment was "I strongly suggest she not be remopped without clear consensus to do so". You're gonna need to take it up with him directly or else settle it in the coop.
 * As for friendly block messages, they're a blight that fills the block log with nonsense & makes it difficult to view what a user's history of actually blocking other users or being blocked by them is - stuff that's often important to know when dealing with coop cases & the like. 14:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "You're gonna need to take it up with him directly or else settle it in the coop." I see. So, altho you are also a mod, and altho you saw nothing wrong in what I did, you lack the balls to do other than abide by Daivd's caprice. Well, I'm not going to run a high-drama popularity contest in the cesspool that is the coop; I'd rather drink bleach. He won't tell me what else I was supposed to do, and no one else has either. She was abusing her sysop tools -- he didn't take her mop away, now did he?


 * And whether you think friendly-block messages are good or not, I've always found it useful to communicate that way. I'm leaving now. This place is sick and insane. Fortunately for the world, its stats are constantly falling and it is in its death-throes. Bye.---Mona- (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Too bad. I'm tired of seeing you trying to browbeat moderators & turn us against each other rather than seek community approval for anything.  00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the... fourth? time you've "left" this year.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were you I would not do that just yet. There are other moderators out there. Granted, not all of them are active. But you would miss all of the shots you don't take... Nerd (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I check in about once a month and what do I find? Mona crying her eyes out about her mop, which she wields so mightily. A once a month check is apparently enough. Everything stays the same. A disappointed Uppivindinn (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, we should not allow Mona to ever have a position of any authority again.99.112.111.41 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for RationalMedia board election
18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Today is the last day to accept your nomination. 13:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?
We have an "Articles for deletion" section. Do we have a similar place for image files? Typhoon (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just make an AfD request for an image and see, how it is received.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is this conversation on my talk page? 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Protecting Conscience's page
Sorry about that.

Conscience & JorisEnter had been fighting about some inane comment.

01:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot mode
Any particular reason why you're explicitly not hiding the spam?--JorisEnter (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "The spam" is me cleaning up after your unnecessary formatting changes, something I asked you do yourself. It's nice that you would like to hide this.  The next time I see you making unilateral changes to my or anybody else's user rights, I will take yours away from you.  12:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid, that's really paranoid. There's no reason JE would be embarrassed about resizing pictures, so it's hard to think they want to "hide" it. Yet the changes are clogging recent changes. Assume a little good faith -- not everything JE does is trying to unilaterally destroy your wiki. 12:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * [EC] Yes, evidently the only reason why I don't want RC to get clogged up with "Weaseloid removed 6 bytes from page X" is that it shows that I give a damn about how an image looks. Also, most people who are given mops haven't asked for that - so I suppose giving someone sysop (or autopatrolled) status warrants removing all rights as well?--JorisEnter (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're till going, would you mind going bot? 12:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Main page template revert
So what is with the revert of my edit? This change was discussed on the talk page. PB3 concurred. So.....why....

Talk?
Would you be at all interested in talking about my change of wording in the Thunderf00t article? Maybe we could reach a compromise. 20:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. Thunderf00t has consistently & explicitly attacked feminism.  I'm not interested in inserting bullshit qualifiers to pretend like he hasn't really.  21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What in Jesus name
Is going on in the vandal- and user rights log, I don't know. But I hope and pray that you're on top of things. As you know, you have a full mandate to break up any fights people won't bring to the coop. I just plead with the spirits that you won't doze off for a bit... Regardless: Dog speed, moderator man. You're doing Dog's work. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reverend Black Percy here. Please take a look at this and take some actions at your discretion before this gets out of hand. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, nothing worth fighting over for now. 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I DEMAND ACTION
...by which I mean, please check this out. I believe it to be relevant to your interests. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Very cute. Thanks Rev.  21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All yours buddy Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't help it
I know you know this, but I can't get past the fact that the Greek version of your sig is completely misusing all of the characters in it except omega. The smug asshole in me wouldn't let it go by. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Adultism
I'm disappointed that you moved my article into Essay space - I don't think that there was enough time for a full discussion, and while I accept that I may have taken adultism beyond what most people on RW think, there are definitely some forms of youth rights which people on RW may support, for example opposition to corporal punishment, or lowering the voting age to 16 (as Austria did). Thoughts? Totallynotharambe (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No reason to start out from mainspace. Kick some ass with that essay (treat it like a sandbox page) and then we'll consider moving it to mainspace. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Coop Case
There is an ongoing coop case regarding wether or not Laurogeita Hamabost is a sockpuppet of AvengeroftheBoN. If you have any commentary or relevant evidence you'd like to bring to the table, it is welcomed. 03:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Taking a great steaming dump over the standards you're supposed to be upholding
Smooth move, son. Bound to end well. Robledo (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Cute ferret
What a lovely animal you own :).--WMS (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to steal your ferret and claim it as my own;)- 00:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks WMS. 08:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

An olive branch and if need be the whole tree
Hello Weaseloid. It appears to me that besides and beyond the current issue before the coop, there seems to be some bad blood between me and you generally. I would really like to know what it is, as I am genuinely interested in reconciliation and mending fences. So this here is me extending an olive branch and if it should be necessary the whole tree to you. I hope we can find some way to bury the hatchet and if that is not possible at least stay out of each others way. It might help for you to air your grievances. My grievances are short and I have mentioned them before, so I won't reiterate them here unless asked. I hope we can find some basis to go back to working on this wiki we both care for. Sincerely - I am not the Ombud's man 21:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can summarize this succinctly, you dishonest cunt. You're Avenger, a person who helped drag this website down through a monthslong edit war with another user that ended up with multiple users doxxed and many key editors leaving. After you were punished by the moderators, you couldn't stand not having total authority, so you created multiple sockpuppet accounts just so you could keep editing and stirring shit. Now you continue to start conflicts with people needlessly, and are treating the community apart. You're a lying, deceitful cunt who should've been banned long ago. I'm going to do the courageous thing that no one else has done yet. 02:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop foaming at the mouth and swinging your e-penis around, you're not a mod. Only mods (hello, Weaseloid) can apparently ban or bin people just for the fuck of it without consequences.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 20:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or manipulate Coop votes they don't like.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would really like to hear a reply from you, Weaseloid, whatever it may be. Even if you do not think reconciliation possible or if you think I deserve punishment, I would very much want to talk this over with you, for both our benefits. I am not the Ombud's man 17:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "the whole tree" entail?
 * I can't take anything you say as sincere while you're sockpuppeteering so obviously & still denying it. 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What would you want it to entail? I am not the Ombud's man 22:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgement of your sockpuppetry & edit warring & trying to force made-up policies on the community + commitment not to do these things any more. 07:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will continue to try to avoid edit wars - including by asking other people to arbitrate, including via the saloon bar. I never - to my knowledge - tried to "force made up policies on the community" I may have on occasion asked for clarifications of existing policy on certain detail questions, which I admit may come off as obnoxious, however, I think clarity in policy serves to ward of conflict before it happens. I am willing to follow all policies if and when they are pointed out to me, and will continue to try to get clarification on unclear policy. If my conduct while granted sysop rights was lacking, I would like this to be pointed out to me more as I am sure we can all learn a bit and better our conduct and if I am too rigid in enforcing agreed upon policy, I will take a step back on that issue. I am of the firm belief that all things can be talked about and talking rarely ever does harm, while rash action often does. I will admit that sometimes I have been prone to rash action and will try to tone that down as well. I wish to reiterate once more that I will follow all clear policies as far as they are clear and will point out inclarities for them to be resolved by consensus and not unilateral action by any one individual. Should I have been rash or overstepping bounds in moving in grey-zones where policy had not yet been clarified or while I was trying to find a solution to unclear policies, I apologize for the harm that arose from that. I must say, I wish you no harm and would very much like to constructively work with you in the future. As for sockpuppets.. Well of course, hundreds, just like all around awesome guy Trent Tolouse. I am not the Ombud's man 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're not actually offering anything at all. 23:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Super long explanation full of fake apologies and vague promises I won't keep. Oh, am I a sockpuppet? Well, uh. Hmm." - Avengeroft Laurogeita Hama Ombudsma - I keep changing my fucking signature so no one knows who I am (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Man I wish I was this popular. I've been here for years now and most people don't even seem to know I exist. Is the site actually in that bad of shape though? It seems OK to me. ClothCoat (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's any comfort, you're a hero to me for having the brass balls to stand up to that darn tankie (troll or no)! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to vote!
You should vote for the vandalbin option in the coop, since that option is losing right now. With a couple more votes, we might be able to turn it around. That is, if you don't just exercise moderator fiat and just keep him binned yourself. Your choice. 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay, canvass more votes so that Weaseloid has a pretext besides just "I'm a mod and therefore the godemperor of RationalWiki".--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay, watch my edits like a hawk because you hate me. Also, show me the rule where canvassing is wrong. 19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't watch your edits (as in looking at your user contributions regularly), I saw you trying to help Weaseloid help legalize his blatant rulebreaking.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Archiving the bar
Apologies for that, Archivist was apparently being unruly and refusing to run. 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I decided to take your advice
...and I believe it credits us both to have participated in a healthy discussion on the topic. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What types of foods do your weasel(s) like?
My birdbrained cat (whom I love) hates tuna, cream, chicken, shrimp, milk... Won't touch it. He loves — I shit you not — potato chips. Especially caliénte, like BBQ chipotle flavor! He doesn't get to eat those, though. But he tries to sneak some all the time... Sadly, he has kidney problems. Thankfully, he happens to love his disgusting, dried medicinal urinary-support pellets. What do Weasels eat? Any quirks? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I feed Fidget dry ferret food which is like cat biscuits but formulated for ferrets. Lactose-free milk (made for cats) is his daily treat & he sometimes gets a little raw egg as an occasional treat.  I've also got some oil & some malt paste which are made as ferret treats (with taurine & vitamins).  Very occasionally I try giving him a little meat or fish if I'm cooking something suitable, but most of the time I don't & he's not bothered about it when I do.  In terms of what ferrets like they'll eat pretty much anything if they can get at it, but most things are very bad for them as they can't digest salt, sugar or lactose very well.  20:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * D'aaw — Fidget is a sweet name for a weasel. Catman (which is just a nickname I use for him) is actually named Ozzy; a choice of name which is extra unoriginal in his case, considering he's a (relatively rare) . Ocelot, Ozzy. Yeah. They really are the dogs of cat breeds though, like TOW basically claims. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ocicats look pretty cool. You got any photos to share?  11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! He's basically my SO at this point. Dunno if you read about the Ocicat temperament, but it really is highly peculiar. I wanted to add a picture for our cat article anyways. I have ADHD so it could be a while, but I'd love to show you some neat pictures of the guy at some point Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you train him like a dog? 11:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So far, he's gotten me to feed him at the ring of a bell. That's about it. Once I got him to sit contentedly in the tub, though. That was pretty neat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just an update
I bought a 700W radiator for the upcoming winter months (being Swedish and all only sweetens the deal), and Ozzy has made it his favorite spot in the whole world (my apartment being his world). Right now, he's lying tucked in behind it — like a comatose loaf of bread enjoying a dry sauna — face right up to the hottest portion, snoozing. ADHD or not, I'll get you some pictures one day. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unbin request
It has been 3 weeks since I was vandal-binned, and I have done nothing but make helpful contributions to the wiki ever since. I have not inflamed or started any arguments. If I am unbinned, I promise to only help the wiki and not hurt it, and I will avoid starting time-consuming arguments. Thank you for your time. 00:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try asking in the Saloon Bar or Chicken Coop. 00:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think? I'd be willing to unblock him with the proviso he run up the edit count in mainspace and not in the Coop or pointless talk page arguments (sort of RW 90/10 rule). If he fucks up, he's got no more sympathy or goodwill from the mob. nobs 18:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Game Theory
Re "If, as one is quoted as saying, the aim is "do everything I could to keep Donald Trump out of office", wouldn't they be better standing firm behind Clinton while the Republican electors become split between Trump & alternative candidate(s)?"

Probably not. If no candidate gets 270 EC votes, than the vote falls to the House to pick. It's not clear that the house would pick Trump, but I can promise you they would not pick Hillary. That's why the pitch is "vote for someone else, so it goes to the house," not "vote for Hillary, so she wins!"

See https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html - "What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?"

Also, please don't let idiot Gamergators drive you from things. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight. I still find it kind of puzzling.  If there was a clear alternative candidate put forward, I could see the value in faithless electors from both sides rallying round them but for now it seems pretty vague who they will actually vote for.  23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your interests

 * Are they limited to weasels, or do they extend to otters as well? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all mustelids. Otters eating are always cute. Thanks.
 * Sadly my ferret passed away last week. Died in his sleep of unknown causes.  23:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh... :C I'm terribly sorry to hear that! Please accept my deepest condolences. And I do mean that. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rev, appreciated. 09:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Unable to understand "Use of prejudice plus power definition of sexism" section in Anita Sarkeesian's Page
Hello,

I see that you have reverted my recent edit to Anita Sarkeesian's page without commenting to my post on the talk page. Quiet honestly, I do not really understand what we are talking about here.

Is she wrong when she says, "Use of prejudice plus power definition of sexism"? Or is she correct? Kindly note that there is page dedicated to the concept: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power which criticizes the concept.

In my opinion, we should have a "Legitimate Criticism" and "Illegitimate Criticism" sections on all pages. We can also include "Unresolved Criticism" section for criticisms whose legitimacy is not established by the community here. What do you think? Rational1 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What criteria are you using for "legitimate" & "illegitimate" criticism? Is it anything deeper than "criticisms I do/don't agree with"?  18:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, obviously the community has to decide that.
 * If you are talking about my recent edit on Anita's page, that's just because I remember there being a "Legitimate Criticism" section under which "prejudice plus power" was mentioned.
 * If the community is really unable to decide if a criticism is legitimate or not, we can place it under "Remaining Criticism" section - where the best points from both the sides can be mentioned.
 * If we have these divisions, it would be easier for readers. Rational1 (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, what criteria are you using for "legitimate" & "illegitimate"? & How would this be easier for readers?  15:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If a statement against someone is determined to be true or logical, it's to be placed under "legitimate" with supporting explanation written. If a statement against some is debunked to be untrue or illogical or only partly true, it can be placed under "illegitimate" with supporting explanation written. If the community is unable to decide, or if the statements are of "opinion" nature and can't be resolved we can place it under "remaining" with supporting points from both sides of the argument included as explanation.
 * How it will help readers? For example, if I read an article that's critical of Anita, I can make a mental note of the points raised by the article and simply see under which category they are placed in her RationalWiki page.
 * Does that makes sense? Rational1 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you bin me?
It has come to my attention that people accused of being Avenger should be open and honest about their identity and intentions and they won't be blocked. So now here I am, I am Avenger and I am open and straightforward - read my user page and you will see that I am straightforward. So why was I binned? Or were you unaware of this promise? Also, your given reason of "spam" is a bit questionable given I only made one single edit and that was to create my own user page. So would you please reconsider? AvengerSock (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Either you are indeed Avengerofthe BoN, a disruptive user who has repeatedly been vandal binned on multiple accounts, or else you're somebody else impersonating him for shits & giggles.  That doesn't bode well either way.   00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably for the following reasons:
 * You are an attention seeking user who doesn't plan on being productive because of the username.
 * You are a sockpuppet of an attention seeking user who doesn't plan on being productive.
 * Either way, not so good. If you are really Avengerofthe BoN, I do not see why you cannot use your main account. 04:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, not so good. If you are really Avengerofthe BoN, I do not see why you cannot use your main account. 04:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator
04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW
Nice. I didn't realize it used to be better. B) talk 18:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. It could probably do with some improving & updating, but not the whitewashing that's happened to it recently.  18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

MA!!
THEY'RE POSTING WEIRD SHIT AGAIN! (please don your mod hat and dig this). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've rollbacked again for the umpteenth time, but I'm not gonna do moderator stuff over a dispute I'm involved in. Talk to one of the others if you think it needs mod intervention.  18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rolled him back for the umpteenth time? As have ClothCoat (several times) and I done on the Majid Nawaz page, too. It's 2-1 there as well. Disregarding the mod hat — just as an editor-to-editor, then: at which point do drama-laden mainspace edits like these step over into the realm of overt ED-type shitposting? Notice that he's confident enough in winning both of his current edit wars that he thought it reasonable to non-permalink to WIGC in an unrelated mainspace article. One would almost think he intends to sticky his pet WIGB topics to the top of the WIGO feed at this rate? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following the Maajid Nawaz thing, but suggest discussing it on the talk page if it hasn't already been discussed somewhere else. It looks like some of the stuff Ackerman is adding (e.g. Nawaz's views on Israel & the UN resolution) is worth covering but needs some trimming & editing.  I can at least understand why he's fighting over that article as he's added content which has been deleted; whereas his warring at WIGO:world seems to be driven by pure petulance.  If he persists in edit-warring, a few hours block &/or vandal-binning might be in order, although it would inevitably also require sysoprevoking, at least temporarily.  & If this ends up in the Chicken Coop, it's going to be a big waste of everybody's time.  20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sums up my view as well. And again, it's not the fact that he has a differing opinion that is the problem. The real problem is that he is being reverted by a majority, yet refusing to budge. It's not just one's duty to respect majority decisions when they align with the doing one's own bidding. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why have rules if you're not going to stick to them?
Per the 'RationalWiki:Blocking policy' page, "Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages..." "Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki." I submit that I have not been malicious in my editing and I strongly suspect you know this to be true. So, someone please explain to me how my actions contravened this rule. I at least deserve that. Per this rule, "Reverting the non-obviously-malicious edits of others without explanation or discussion on the talk page", the following users should be temporarily blocked: RBP, FCP, David Gerard, Cheeseburgerface, and several others who interjected in my "edit war", reverting my edits without explanation. My view is they simply took sides, assumed I was in the wrong and gave Weaseloid the benefit of the doubt. Also, was a case involving me even raised at the Chicken Coop before the decision to block me was taken? And did Weaseloid really need to publicise, via the Saloon, the fact that I was blocked. He could have informed me on my talk page. I would like some answers please. Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 06:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol. Trying to "no platform" me? I thought I was meant to be the 12 year-old?Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: FuzzyCatPotato just invited Avenger's latest sock to come vote on this page
I'm waiting for the juicy paragraph of faux-victimhood concern trolling. 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why
Why did you revert this? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Accidental revert while viewing recent changes on a mobile phone. But now that I look at it, I don't see the point of the edit I reverted.  11:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you enjoying being a moderator?
Are you enjoying being a moderator? Don't worry, I'll be gone again soon enough-- "Shut up, Brx." 07:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's OK. How's trx?  11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You hail from the isle, no?
Wanted: the dry wit of a Brit. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: Dawkin's weasel
The IDiots couldn't weasel out of this one. I link you to it, cause — weasel(s). Also, sorry for taking a million years to find you pictures of my (he's totes adorbz!). I'll bump it on my to-do list. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it
...if you checked this out. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers Rev, nice one. 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding SusanG
Who was she? I saw that we were supposed to toast her today, and I posted a "miss you" message on her talk page. Anyways,(raises glass) here's to Susan. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A female contributor that contributed a lot. She died from cancer. 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. I'm sorry. Was it OK for me to post on her talk page, or was I out of line?RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed your comment
Sorry, missed this question. Here's what 15 minutes of effort look like:

Unfortunately they always seem to look like squished worlds rather than flat earths. I figured a mushed UN logo was most likely to be recognized. Thoughts? 04:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My two cents: the original looks best by far. As in "no need to fix what isn't broken". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You've been nominated as moderator
19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

How’s tricks?
What’s up my man? How’s life? Acei9 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez
Michaeldsuarez emailed me via sock, asked you to change block so they can email users

19:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan
Hello! You have Taiwan an article in userspace. Are you going to finish it, or can i move it to Draftspace for anyone to work on? Avida Dollarsher again 17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

...
Hello--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cat on your ceiling has been reported by anonymous users
Every time I wanna edit a page, I see a cat looking at me (a picture of a cat on your ceiling) to annoy anonymous users. Listen, this is what anonymous users (like me) see when I edit:

According to the image, it was made on 4 February 2009 by this user weasel and the comment says "Small ceiling cat detail to intimidate anonymous editors.". Weaseloid, why you want this for anonymous editors?  --2001:56A:774D:8F00:681C:4EE4:4802:27C4 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC) There are two ways of running the world. Option A, optimizing happiness and benefit as much as possible. (Everyone wins.) Or Option B, Optimizing pain and suffering as much as possible. (Everyone loses.) Eventually, we must either choose one or have that choice be made in our absence. --2001:56A:774D:8F00:681C:4EE4:4802:27C4 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you linking to sites that my webscanner says could be trying to steal my information? 20:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because on my device they don’t steal my infomation there. <- I tricked you--2001:56A:774D:8F00:681C:4EE4:4802:27C4 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Tricked" implies intentional misdirection, not poor explanation. 20:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , your user page says:
 * My userpage says a lot of things, what exactly is your point? 20:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My question to all of this is... Why not? 20:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)