User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive5

Will this do?
Hi!

For the rationale, see my talk page, but do you thing it is enough to add King in front of every item? Cheers 16:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Works! 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: As for the trustees, I'm rather sure I'm not allowed to vote in this incarnation, but you could perhaps tell if I am. There are a couple of names on the list which I would gladly vote for. Cheers 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're an eligible user; you can vote if you register. 16:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've registered, but I'm not allowed to see Special/UserRights/Uppivindinn. Is this a mop thing or a technicality? Cheers 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mop thingy, but you are indeed eligible.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't miss the mop I had in my previous life, but it seems strange that you can't check yourself. Cheers 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Bannable?
"I am a legitimate pedophile" (as in; a practicing pedophile?). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pro-pedophilia activism is bannable, yes. 16:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to be what the user Roricon (as in "Lolicon") has been doing on the 8chan talkpage, aside from edit warring/whitewashing the actual article page, and now openly admitting to being a, quote, "legitimate pedophile". Will you do the honors? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the block log. I acted entirely based on our above exchange (though additional urgency was summoned by the fact that Roricon was yet again in the middle of another edit war). I hope this was fine. Now - should we revdel his talk page and either revdel or archive his nonsense the 8chan talkpage? Should we also hide revisions for his edits to the 8chan article? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Definitely don't need pedophilia apologists here.  Petey Plane (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to this when you get the chance, FCP. While you already gave green light for the ban, taking additional steps is best handled by an elected moderator, not a sysop like me. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for banning my account and IP on no basis what-so-ever and not giving me the chance to explain myself first. I'm not a practicing pedophile, and I haven't advocated for pedophilia once. You just made up all of that bullshit up for a cover story. Also there is nowhere in the rules that states that you simply can't be a pedophile, and its not exactly like I chose to be one anyway. Seemingly you simply can't handle someone hurting your sensitivities and having different opinions to you I guess. You can keep censoring this all you want Reverend Black Percy, I've got plenty of private proxies in the USA, Australia and Japan to use, if you don't provide an actual sound and valid reason for your original banning I'll be taking this to the chicken coop page. —49.189.128.224 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'm not a practicing pedophile" "I've got plenty of private proxies in the USA, Australia and Japan to use".  Ok, now i'm convinced Roricon has been a troll from the start.  Petey Plane (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no shit. The guy is a full-time sea lion and concern troll. Aside from being a "legitimate paedophile". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The ban seems fine. The person whitewashed 8chan's CP problems and cut too close to defending pedophilia. And ofc: rah rah censorship is good 17:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you actually check any of the sources that I added to the page at all? CP was never allowed, and borderline CP got purged by the new admin, they even installed a bot that can automatically delete the images. They all went to librechan.net, go see for yourself. How am I whitewashing the article by stating this? Also Reverend Black Percy, it would be nice if you didn't ban me every 2 minutes so I can actually explain myself rather than you acting cowardly by trying to hush this issue. —49.189.128.224 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's settled, then. Mind if I set your talkpage to autoconfirmed protection? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A grumpy-grumperson, isn't he? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump quote, "Please shoot me"
You added a great quote, lol. Hilarious. Trump seems like just the guy to have blurted out gems like that in the (relatively recent) past. Oh well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And now the Internet shall not forget. 17:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So the Donald supports euthanasia and and wants to be euthanized himself? Sounds like no one can stop the Apocalypse; the twilight of the gods is coming. Nerd (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

O great maker of navs
Does this pique your interest? I hope so! Something like the manosophere nav (with the fedora) but also katanas, throwing stars and the flexing arm from the bodybuilding woo nav? Something something complete? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. Personally, I'd just fit him into the politics navsidebar. 01:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on, pretty please, can't we get a machismo nav? We have the articles for it! :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've registered and endorsed but ...
... when is the election? I'm likely to overlook it, and I couldn't find a date. (True in all possible senses of the word. :-) Cheers 19:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Ask the Bar. 01:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Your help please!
Dear Mr. Moderator, please take a look at 1 2 and 3. Thank you and goat bless! Nerd (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem? Covert sexism, racism are allowed here, as long as the discussion is productive. 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been nothing malicious as far as I can see. But this was rather strange for me so I thought I should let you know. Thank you for replying promptly. Nerd (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange, yes. Bannable, no. 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all
Drafted. I'm probably not going to be too useful at writing this one. 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No endorsements and all goat makes Percy a dull boy
Hey there, old timer! Just wanted to gently poke you - as the staple of the community and moderator that you are - to endorse/anti-endorse/goat candidates that are currently running in the campaign. I hate the idea of canvassing support (or spite) for or against any particular editor, and it is with pride I say that I've yet to see any single candidate "ask" anyone for specific endorsements or anti-endorsements sitewide (myself included, obviously). Still, as living memes RW institutions, and with the intercom notice directing all dedicated contributors to make their voice heard on the campaigning page still flying high, I think that the message it seeks to convey should go doubly for elected officials like yourself and Gerard. So, I'm dropping both of you lovely gents this little note, in order that you may consider doing so, in regards to any and all candidates you find relevant. You doing so will also help people direct their votes (including me), which helps. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * m'tired 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just get around to it before August 1th if possible, will ya, ya big lug? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pssst. It's July 31st now. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pssst. It's August 1st now. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just War
That's a strong claim. Where's the evidence that every war is declared with greedy motives? And, moreover, where's the evidence that war can never cause consequences that are good and outweigh the negative effects of the war? — FuzzyCatPotato!™ The best reasons to enter a war for good reasons was against the Third Reich. If you couldn't bring yourself to fight that evil, no lesser reason would do it. Yet, nobody did until their hands were forced. When the Germans attacked eastern states, nobody gave a hoot. The Brits were happy in their Splendid Isolation in Europe and were busy exploiting somewhere else (also known as British Empire). Looking at things from very high level, they only cared when the delicate balance in Europe went off kilter and threatended them. Aside of many Hitler-admirers in the US, they couldn't be bothered to intervene directly for a long time, either. US corporotations happily worked with Nazi Germany and of course supported the Brits, too. For dollars and influence, of course. Or how do you think the US got over the difficult times everyone else struggled with? War created jobs and other people died. Good for the USA, on balance. But when it looked like a hostile nation could possibly control Europe, first the Third Reich, then the Russians, the Good Americans found reasons to intervene. In other words, interests all the way down. In many diplomatic talks, the Russians urged the Western allies to help them, but they did little. The Normandy invasion was a pure vulture's move to scoop up as much as possible at the last minute, while the Red Army marched towards Berlin. Overall, the Russians had about 20 million casualities, while about 200k US Americans lost their lives in the European theatre. I know it sounds tactless, but that's histories best bargain, ever. The US first profited from elite refugees, but did not want the ordinary jews. Look it up, it's true. This only changed in 1944. The United States came for know-how, science and more (e.g. NASA, stealth and jet technology, chemical industry etc. and patents worth billions). The USA also got automatical rights to Germany's post-war patents even well after the war, and of course, later simply stole what they wanted through instrustrial espionage. The US also wanted to have the results of the japanese human-experiments, and were willing to treat the human-experimenters leniently. Of course, what one does, when principles are nothing but a PR asset. For instance, Japan already collapsed and was willing to declare defeat, but wanted to keep their monarchy — Japanese and their traditions and pride. The US refused that, and was happy with it, since this gave them permission to drop two different nuke designs and test the effects, and of course, mark the territory for the Cold War strategy of deterrence. You need to show off once to tell the Russians that you're serious. They could do it, as they knew how to sell that to the public as allegedly without alternative to save lives. Incidentially, the US has taken over more "good ideas" from the Third Reich. For example, exporting wars to fuel the nation, and kindling Reichstagsfires (either setting them, or using opportunities). The US billed itself as the world police, but in reality selfishly guarded it's own best profitable interests in all cases. Did the USA had a problem with the many fascists in Europe, like Franco in Spain? Of course not. They were perfectly fine with such individuals and their brutal methods if useful. Saddam Hussein was America's man of choice, too, after all. How about the humanitarian crises in Africa, like the Rwandan genocide? The world watched, did little. I did and do not make this claim: "war can never cause consequences that are good and outweigh the negative effects of the war". Obviously, the world is infinitely better without the Third Reich. ~ Aneris 02:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just two framing issues:
 * First, the question is "why can't a just war exist?" Your response is to note that many wars and many actions in war may have been caused by greed. I think many of your examples are contestable. However, even if we accept every single one of them, this merely means that many wars are greed-caused, not that all wars are greed caused.
 * Second, agency. You shift between discussing corporations, politicians, and military leaders -- only discussing the greediest examples of each. It's unrealistic to talk about WWII and ignore, for example, FDR's desire to go to war early (which many of your USA-related points). Or that many military leaders did not know how close or far Japan was surrender when they made their nuclear assessments. And so on. You ignore both (1) genuine desires for a just war, looking only at greed, and (2) the ignorance of leaders, which you instead attribute to greed.  15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Page move thing
You moving that page caused the purge fuction to bork, and now I can't get it back again, even though I fixed the link. Mind lending a hand? 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My Kent Hovind reformat
Hi Fuzzy,

Saw you checked into my Kent Hovind reformat sketch page. and I saw you already nuked the CSE page, replacing it with a nice fork to both Kent and Eric Hovind - good work! Seeing as you've already removed the CSE page, I'll replace the current Kent Hovind page with my reformatted version immediately. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep yep. 15:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be seated
Good evening, Sir. I'll be your waiter this evening. Tonight's specials include; I'll be taking your order shortly. Just don't fill up on bread! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A starter consisting of a few newly whipped-up navs?
 * A full-sized WLC buffét, done with the recent new recipe developed for our now-delectable Ken Hovind?
 * Finishing off with a light Freeman-inspired dessert from Georgia?
 * Bring out the trained herbivores! Ále, ále, ále! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading only 10%! Hah. ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just the wind
...Give reading it another gooo, woOoOoOo... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...shhh... just some reading music to convey the right science-y mood... shhh... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking
On The Daily Stormer page "Slavic untermensch glorious leader" appears both in the first paragraph and under Pro-Russia. I noticed you reverted my edit getting rid of the second one. Do we really want the verbatim repetition? B) talk 21:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * nah u'r right 22:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ok fixed. thought I might be missing some very subtle humor. B) talk 22:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies -- a 4th dimensional chess move that you wouldn't understand. 02:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DiamondDisc1/The world as a RW talk page
Thanks for suggesting the page should become a fun page. :-) The page could use some help, wanna give it a shot?- 01:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like you folks are doing a fine job. 02:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we are. But seriously, a little help is needed.- 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind changing an icon?
Hey buddy! I noticed that the current "WIGE" feed uses the same green globe icon as "WIGO" does. Don't you think it would be better if we changed the Elections feed to use instead? I think it would be helpful, and I don't know how to change the icon. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For reference, I'm the guy that initially added WIGOE to WIGO NAV, but I had no clue how to change the icon.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should've expected you not to miss this question, hah. That being said; if you don't know, maybe FCP does? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And considering the actual feed already uses the right icon, we need to change the little WIGE feed icon for this to make sense. It's officially a bugfix, not a suggestion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The problem is that the code uses some sort of  thingy (, to be exact) which I don't know how to work with - I've simply copied the code from the other WIGO items and replaced the appropriate bits with "election" and the like. Apparently it defaults to the WIGO world icon.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Because of how we did it, it requires editing MediaWiki:Common.css and I hate that. 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm way too tired to figure out how this works. Alternative: scrap the mouse-over buttons and just import the files directly into WIGONAV 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Coop archiving
Settled in 14 hours? Really? -- 17:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The user who was questioned conceded that people can second guess him and thus the whole issue ceased to be of any importance, so, yes. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick question
I noticed you made this edit. I was gone. How exactly was this resolved? Was there some deal made that I'm not aware of? 02:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He agreed with the idea of a review, and then people voted on whether Plutoniumboss was sane. 14:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Congrats!
20:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A toast!

 * Congratulations, my friend! We made it. You made it!


 * *Sniffle * You may now kiss the goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mail call!
My dude,

I tried to email you via the site's email this user-form. I suppose nothing arrived? Or it went south some other way? Let's get a comlink up and running, stat. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Search your inbox for "Welcome one and all to the Cabal!" 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote Anakin in Ep 1, "It's working; IT'S WORKING!". And to quote Palpatine in Ep 6, "It's great if when you email me you could maybe also notify me on my talkpage that I've been emailed on that adress, prompting me to check it out? I have ADHD; help me help you." All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'd recommend just turning on Gmail's forwarding feature and have all emails be copied to your main inbox (so you know when everyone else is freaking out), at which point you can change accounts and use this one. 00:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

John Gabriel
What was that about?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Pseudomathematics 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

O master of stats and graphs
This segment of our introductory article is looking very dismal, and for no good reason. Stats from 2012 and so on. Let's make this part more up-to-date and impressive, shall we? Boast some fresh, optimistic numbers and all that? I've already begun going through and expanding the entire RW:Mentions page, myself. All part of Goat's work. All the best, Skip Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem: after 2012, we don't know how mNy unoque visitors we get (RW server changed such thatit is impossible; see Forum:RationalWiki Viewership for best estimates). 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we should be able to do some typ of rewrite of the text that isn't so depressing, regardless of the stats. Even mentioning stats from 2012 seems like a bad idea if you ask me. Also, we should be able to mention SOMETHING, like Alexa rank or whatever, right? C'mon, you make the monthly stats. You got a way better idea than me. The point is, what's there right now is so tame that there's no way it can't be improved. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 19:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Fuzzy! I wrote a bit as well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Email dued
Tossed you one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology
Is there a reason for removing all those links from the Scientology page? Were they bad/dead links? That seems to be a pretty major revision with no mention of the reason for it. Arawn Emrys (talk)
 * Not removed, updated. 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, just saw a bunch of red, saw links vanishing and got curious. Thanks for responding Arawn Emrys (talk)

Gawker bot
nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It led to some nastiness like this because I wasn't willing to finesse the regex. On the bright side, if Gawker.com ever goes down, and there are archives of its posts, we'll have 'em. If for any reason someone would want Gawker archives ;p 15:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A small suggestion
Now that you're a Board member, I think it'd be appropriate for you to say so at the top of your user page, along with maybe a disclaimer that what you say on-site isn't necessarily the official position of the Foundation. I also suggest, once DavidGerard gives you your fancy Foundation email address, linking that on your userpage, with an open invitation for questions.

(I mean, that's what I did. Though odds are you won't actually get questions.  I had mine up for three years and I don't recall anybody ever asking me anything.  It's more about letting people know you're open to questions in the first place.)   19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Time to pester DG. 19:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That new thing the cool kids are into...
...seems to be shooing away clowns by waving gigant turkey legs at them. Shoo clown, shoo! What ever will they think of next? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, that's a torch. Can't win'em all! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"What do you have to lose?"
Do you think this merits a new fallacy page? It seems to be similar to the "not as bad as" fallacy, but I think different enough for a new page the way that Trump is using it. Bongolian (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the harm 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fuzzy! Bongolian (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pathos Gambit
Looking for some elaboration or explanation. ~ Aneris 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you elaborate how does it relate to Bulverism?
 * 2) In what way is it a gambit?
 * 1: It asserts that [X emotion] is the reason you believe in [Y belief]. Bulverism asserts that [X ideology] etc.
 * 2: It's a gambit in the same sense as the Galileo Gambit. If done successfully, it poisons the well -- if not, the gambiter (?) loses face. 19:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Check your inbox
Essay, HOO! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request
I would like to request your commentary in the Chicken Coop. 00:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Templates
I see you added an invalid template on a page. Check out the template category for valid ones. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 18:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

invitation
This user invites in essay http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:The_primary_problem_of_rationalwiki_as_seen_by_this_user here. as this user is vandal binned as of the time of this post, this user has invited the user most likely to participate and invite others.FAMAS (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This user just has to say that: the essay that that user just linked to the other user (above this user's comment) — in the hope of that user that the other user would be able to recruit other users to that user's essay — isn't much of an essay to begin with. To this user, it looks more like a solitary talk post from that user. This user's two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What does the Senator from Timbuktu have to say to that? I am not the Ombud's man 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * in reply to user, the pronoun "that user" is ambiguous as to which user is being referred and in the format of third persons with verbosities, the less ambiguous form of expression is to refer as "user username". this user suggests all to shift the location of the discussion towards the talk page of the essay and for more users to join it.FAMAS (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet you're still using those third person verbosities yourself. 08:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This user uselessly understands that "user username" usually uses "that user" unusually unequivocally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * to both of you.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There's being right...
...and there's being nice. See the block log, you handsome devil. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinion on anti-feminists on YouTube
Hey mate, if it isn't too much to ask, would you be able to give me your general opinion on anti-feminists on YouTube? (like Sargon of Akkad, Bearing, thunderf00t etc.) I'm just curious to hear your opinion on this amigo :). Thank you in advance.--WMS (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They fail to engage in real criticism of actual feminist ideas or literature (and choose instead to attack the Trigglypuffs of the world) and often misinterpret science (see, as a single example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU). 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright I see and I agree with you. Thanks for throwing your two cents :).--WMS (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Maestro?
If you please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish
Hello, I have a trustworthy friend who may be interested in translating many RW articles, especially counter-apologetics, into Turkish. How could we go about this? Thanks Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend they first start by adding articles (w/ Turkish title) to another category like . 03:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Might wanna ask the Bar first, though. :) 03:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You have an impersonator on some mysterious website
Heads up again lol

https:// some mysterious website /members/fcuckycuckpocucko.12712/
 * Can I just say that I love that name? It's like the alt right robot personified. Also, obligatorily banned, face the harsh boot of mine oppression on thine throat, etc. etc. 04:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

r/CCJ2 and r/China
User 10101 is the one vandalizing our edits. Not to mention he posted a completely false and hateful narrative http://imgur.com/a/XXkmY

CCJ2 and r/China are very alt-right hate subs. Even CCJ(1) got banned by the admins. One look at their main page shows how racist they are
 * Sysops literally have no more control over anything than an average user unless it has something to do with blatant vandalism or blatant trolling, which is not the case here. Take it to the chicken coop. 19:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy Cat
Hey, I just needed to notify you of this because I found it quite weirdly funny. I was on YouTube, I posted a comment on a gaming video and I got a reply. The reply was from a user 'Fuzzy Cat'. Not knowing if this was you I decided to hint at 'potatoes' and 'RW'. However, they didn't get the references so I concluded it couldn't be you. The thing is, after that situation, I decided to look at their channel and I found videos tied to a lot of anti-feminists (Sargon of Akkad, amazing atheist, Thunderf00t etc.) and a lot of videos tied to (for the lack of a better word) harsh atheists. I found that quite bizarre because the strong anti-feminist part is (from what you told me and from what I pieced together) quite the contrast of what your ideologies are I think. Maybe it was a distant cousin, haha (kidding :P).--WMS (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny. :) 13:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

JorisSpam
So... I've got a thought on the accounts being created to harass JorisEnter: a new edit filter that blocks mostly-nonascii names from posting "Joris"? How's that strike you? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try it out. :) 13:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Election polling
I decided to hold off on talking about this because I didn't want to look smug. As someone who is probably better at understanding stats, why do you think the polls were so wrong? Also, why did you always dismiss the idea that the turnout would be low?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody is really sure right now. It might take months for pollsters to examine their internal data.


 * 1) I'm very, very confused myself. Trump underperfomred his polls in the primary by 1.1 points. According to 538's data on Nov 08 (I haven't checked again, sue me), Trump overperformed his polls by 3.1 points in swing states in the general. That's a span of 4.2 points.
 * MOE: Polls do have a margin of error. Groups of polls have smaller margins of error, but they still exist. It's possible that polls just happened to sample Clinton voters. This is unsatisfying and doesn't help us fix problems.
 * 1) Response Bias: Poll response bias could be a factor. Maybe Trump supporters stopped responding to pollsters -- ie, they were low enthusiasm voters but still voters. Maybe Clinton supporters were overenthusiastic in responding to pollsters. (One problem with this hypothesis: Hispanics also are very hard to poll, because they have very low response rates. So this Trump voter non-response would have to be pretty substantial to overcome the nonresponse of Hispanic pro-Hillary voters.)
 * 2) Ground Game: Conventional wisdom held that Clinton's ground game would increase her voter turnout by +0.5-+1.5%. If it did, that wasn't enough. Nate Silver thinks that ground game-influenced voters -- people who've been knocked, mailed, called -- will also respond to polls as supporting their candidate, rather than being some hidden cache of voters. (AFAIK he doesn't have very substantial evidence to support this, but it's a sane assumption.) Most people thought Clinton would overperform her polls because they didn't take into account her ground game. If they did, that makes this loss less unlikely. (I'll love to read the polsci publications on this, using Trump as an example.)
 * 3) Herding: Conventional wisdom held that Clinton was going to win by 2-4 points. It's possible that pollsters released data that supported that, rather than the real numbers. This has demonstrably happened in the past, but it's less likely in 2016 -- AFAIR, 2016 had more pollsters and a wider variety of polling results than 2012, which would suggest against herding.
 * 4) "Complacency": Conventional wisdom held Clinton would win. It's possible her voters stayed home. However, in an election this divisive, I'm not sure I buy that.
 * 5) Enthusiasm Gap: Combined with "complacency": Perhaps Clinton's supporters thought, "she'll probably win, and I don't really like her, so I just won't vote". This might help to explain how Trump carried more Hispanics than Romney and why Clinton severely underperformed in Detroit & other cities -- Clinton-side Hispanics and Blacks might not have been fired up to support her, and thought she'd surely win.
 * Unfortunately, ideas 6 & 7 and 3 are entirely at odds with each other -- even though both might be the strongest explanations. Honestly, the only thing I'm sure of is that I hope we start dividing nonWhite races into "college educated" and "not", just like Whites. I also hope to see Asians, Muslims, and nontheists mentioned as categories of voters. 05:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) Everyone keeps saying the polls were so wrong, but were they? A small lead close to the margin of error just means it's gonna be a tight race, which is exactly what happened in most states, meaning the overall result is basically a toss-up (because it's winner-takes-all in most states). Though there's also the fact every time you publish a poll you're making that poll outdated because you're influencing the electorate and pretty much everyone kept interpreting them wrong, assuming Hillary would win because she'd been consistently in the lead. With polls and elections there's also the problem that the two have a different methodology; in the former people come to you and ask who you'd vote for while in the latter you have to come to a polling station and often wait for hours before you can cast your vote. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the analysis, it is certainly better than what I could come up with. I have tended to believe that it was complacency with conventional wisdom and enthusiasm; herding orginally seemed likely but if you are right about the increase in polls then it is unlikely. The MOE also works but she lost in far more states than expected in such a close race and the Dems failed to take the Senate which seemed heavily likely, AFAIR. Another reason I think the polling was wrong (somewhat related to the complacency) was that the pollsters, as well as the pundits, didn't go into the field to actually study the average voter's thoughts. On an unrelated note, I hate that Nate Silver and 538 will now likely lose their luster to the mainstream and been seen as hacks by the common man despite them at least raising Trumps chances to 35% a week before the election; Nate did admit he acted more like a VSP pundit during the primaries.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re #3, I'd say there's a bunch of potential reasons why Trump voters might not've responded or identified themselves as being such beyond lack of enthusiasm. It could be as simple as Trump voters being statistically less prone to sharing their feelings on an issue with a random stranger compared to Hillary voters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It's just odd that they'd accurately-ish report their views during the primaries but not the general. 12:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

this user calls user fuzzycatpotato to look at the chicken coop
in the event it becomes possible and feasible, bring others into the issue.this user is being deterred from participation in talk and forum pages by the issue.FAMAS (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Would this be fallacious?
I don't know if you remember, but I had trouble understanding argument from ignorance. I do understand it better now (thanks to you and RBP) but I do sometimes still have a small bit of trouble understanding it. So, would this statement be considered fallacious: "There is no evidence/proof that green, gigantic unicorn goblins are living in my cupboard, therefore green, gigantic unicorn goblins are not living in my cupboard." Examples like this have been used on the Internet (well, not specifically goblin unicorns, it always uses God or something). So would that statement be considered argument from ignorance? And why/why not? Thank you in advance :).--WMS (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That relates more to absence of evidence. If you have conducted an exhaustive review of the evidence (ie, looked in your cupboard) and found no evidence whatsoever for the existence of something (ie, goblin unicorns), then it's reasonable to conclude that no such unicorn goblins exist. This argument is fallacious if you didn't do either of those tow actions -- review all the evidence and find no evidence. In other words: You can probably say there's no goblin unicorn in your cupboard -- but you cannot say that no goblin unicorns exist in the universe, because you have not reviewed the entirety of the universe.
 * God is a bit different, since it's usually said that it exists "outside" the universe -- meaning that there is 0 evidence inside the universe that a god would exist. If so, then the only reason to believe that a god exists would be some logical argument -- such as the cosmological argument. And if all of those arguments fail, it's just like looking inside your cupboard and finding no goblins -- there's no reason to believe that a god exists.
 * I hope that made sense. :) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, don't forget the essential importance of understanding the burden of proof in this context. Even if you've seen this video prior, please re-watch it anyways (as repetition is the mother of all knowledge):


 * Hope this helps as well! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you two for helping me with this again. I do understand this fallacy more clearly now, thanks! :) --WMS (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, as always. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that I think I understand the fallacy I'll try to explain it to see if I'm getting it right.


 * -The fallacy would be-
 * Me making a claim that there is no evidence for Yeti living in Antarctica, therefore Yeti doesn't live in Antarctica
 * Instead of giving evidence for my claim, I just expected my opontent to prove me wrong. That would be fallacious


 * -Evidence of absence would be-
 * Me making a claim that there is no evidence for Yeti living in Antarctica, therefore Yeti doesn't live in Antarctica
 * But this time, I actually went to Antarctica, had a good look around and found no sign of Yeti ever living in Antarctica (this seems to relate to emeprcism)
 * Or
 * (Assuming that I understood biology, evolution and anything related to that) This time I gave a full on coherent explanation why such creature would not be able to live in Antarctica and why it's illogical to say that there's any chance of it living there (this seems to be related to rationalism).
 * Those examples would be considered as evidence of absences and not argument from ignorance because I actually did provide valid evidence for my stance. Because I gave good evidence, the burden of proof would move to the opponent to (coherently) disprove my evidence. And, I imagine, it has to be logical because if they tried to disprove it by saying something like "The Yeti was invisible that day" or "The yeti is not like regular earth animals because it's from Venus" they'd have to provide evidence for the rebuttal and if they couldn't (considering that those claims are pretty much impossible to prove) they wouldn't have a case. This would make my stance of "There is no evidence for Yeti living in Antarctica, therefore Yeti doesn't live in Antarctica" a valid and true argument.


 * Do you reckon I understand this now more or less? :)--WMS (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * in reply to user User:WeakMindedSkeptic, this user asserts that the user User:WeakMindedSkeptic has displayed understanding of the facts regarding the fallacies mentioned in the post.FAMAS (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 18:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aweome :D!--WMS (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

change of design enquiry and sitewide policy enforcement poll
this user enquires for the method using which, this user will be able to convert the talkpage and fossil record of this user into forum thread system, similar to that of user:Tmotoulouse. additionally, this user is requesting participation of others in the poll that has been presented in the saloon bar by this user.FAMAS (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Liquid Threads is horrible and nobody should use it. You're free to fiddle with it yourself; I've never cared to learn it. 18:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this user is awaiting participation of users and sysops in the poll regarding the issue stated in the saloon bar by this user.FAMAS (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Crying Wolf
Here's another piece getting shared around on Mr Trump. It's by Scott Alexander, and sums up criticism I've seen several times agaist the CTRL Left faction. It's also notable that “crying wolf” is now a recurring pattern, which was pointed out years ago in atheism-skepticism (but with a different context). In short: there is reason to believe that CTRL Leftists are fear mongers extraordinaire who incidentially offer Safe Spaces as a solution. ~ Aneris 08:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Scott gives Trump far too much leeway. As but one example: Scott ignorees the impact of voter ID laws on minority/youth/less-wealthy turnout and party affiliation. 13:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me how this negates the thesis. It seems to have no effect at all. It might have allowed Clinton to win, but does nothing (as I see it) on the supposed "cry wolf" problem. ~ Aneris 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Scott argues that people have become immune to claims of "racist!" etc. His evidence for this, en large, only comes from turnout. He argues that, because Trump did better among select groups than Romney, this means that "racist!" didn't work against Trump. If voter ID laws skewed the voting populace to be pro-Trump (which there is substantial evidence to believe) even within these select groups, then his thesis (en large) falls apart. Until he can prove that Trump genuinely garnered greater support among these select groups, he's got no evidence for a societal-level shift. 16:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. So even though you have the numbers, you have pointers (twice), you "see" some tangent only, and that somehow settles it? According to the New York Times, the numbers say +7 Blacks, +8 Hispanic/Latino, +11 Asians but only +1 White. "Asianlash" sounds more correct, doesn't it? Fear the Asians! Run for cover! (this doesn't quite work, because they are "minority" according to the idiotic Regressives). Even when we assume that the "counterweight" was suppressed, the data won't quite paint the clear picture Regressive media wants to paint. And of course, there is also likely a regress to the mean going on, since the previous candidate was Obama who certainly drew minority vote to himself, and which now moved back once his gravitational pull is removed. This is also not casting doubt on Trump's track record as an Alt Right candidate (which solidifies itself each day with his nominations). But is the Red Scare warranted? What the Regressives are doing looks like what the spruce gentlemen of stereotypically Italian descent did in the 1930, who come by and give a "fair warning" that "it would be unfortunate, if something happened to this fine establishment", then they offer Safe Spaces where you can find protection, for a small fee of accepting Intersectionality ideology, of course. The only innovation of this scheme is that modern day Regressives make use of rich data and confirmation bias. You make a hashtag (or find one), and then in verificationist manner simply collect examples and keep fearmongering in the media. You understand why this approach is flawed? ~ Aneris 02:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Aneris can you just fucking interact with what I say and not with whatever is running through your head?

Exit polls were very inaccurate this election -- they showed a Clinton landslide. Factor that in when evaluating their evidentiary value. 14:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's doing that thing again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "thing", telling you about finally recognizing identity politics instead of accepting its narrative uncritically, which I see you doing. I mean, news are full of it for a long time now, South Park makes the second season also about that (19th & 20th), even the New York Times gets it now, read it. And on top of this massive Told You So, you have now a Loose Cannon President-elect who appoints racists and white nationalists. A few people return to their senses, even Glenn Greenwald makes sense recently (of course real leftists, like Chomsky Told You So a decade earlier). When do you? ~ Aneris 16:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoooah, down boy! Time out, time out. What's suddenly all this about me "accepting the narrative of identity politics uncritically" coming from?


 * You realize, of course, that I haven't said a word about identity politics in this discussion, nor in the discussion I linked?


 * Also, you claim that I now have a loose cannon president-elect. The fact of the matter is, he's not my president. For the simple reason that I'm not a US citizen — I live in Sweden, you know.


 * Crucially, however — speaking of the discussion I linked — you just did this again:


 * Thanks for the New York Times link, anyways. I'll be reading it shortly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Look. I'm not talking about identity politics. That wasn't the purpose of this discussion. Only you are talking about identity politics.

I'm talking about the blogpost you linked, which relies on bad stats to make a case against what you interpret as identity politics. I wouldn't want to prefer some "news" article fee-fees over anti-regressive hard statistics, now would I? I should avoid being postmodern in its defense, aye? 16:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ♫ Don't stop him now! He's having such a good time — he's having a ball! Don't stop him now! (If you wanna have a good time, just give him a call!) ♫ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * “you interpret as identity politics”, and basically everyone else does, by now. Nevermind then. A rationally functional person would go about this, for example “yep, identity politics, but I disagree in this case yada reasons”. You behaviour is always complete denial, and even if you'd at one point recognize “it” you'd made clear that it's worthless as you just return to bot-mode, including preprogrammed template-fied thought terminating clichés (which you even think is a strenght and then, cherry on top, come with splitting, which is exactly what you do with such behaviour). It doesn't even give you pause that my responses, though superficially similar are always with additional, new, sources i.e. evidence, whereas you think — genuinely — that your standard copy/paste is somehow superior. It shows just how neuronally challenged you are. No source ever seems to make a dent. Literally, you've had this stance half a year ago, a year ago, and it's still your line, expect that I know for sure you've been exposed to a ton of sources. Does your thinking evolve at all? I have to wonder. ~ Aneris 19:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear — what do you contend Fuzzy's position is, exactly? The one you claim he's held for a year or more. I lack the context to infer it on my own. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, you cannot claim to be more rational when you refuse to engage with interpretations of statistics. This is the same problem as when I asked you for statistics on the prevalence of SJWs -- you refused to provide any statistics on the specific issue or any interpretation of related statistics. Sociology and politics should be statistics, not links to analytical blogs. May empirics reign supreme over your petty analyses. 22:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yawn, that's not even wrong. You're in a cult, Fuzzy. I know, you want stats now, and next it must be stated in one short sentence (true story!) and after that every second word must rhyme, and after that you want the whole in binary, danced in fresh snow and so on. How many trolls exist, Fuzzy? Since I'm certain no adequate, universially agreed stat exists, trolls don't exist, I assume? And didn't you eagerly, hook-line-sinker accept the conception of an Alt Right five minutes after Buzzfeed proposed it in July? Care to show your stats? But no source, academic tradition, paper, video, wikipedia, south park, swearing to myself, argument, or news I brought up left any noticeable impression, I don't have hopes these three do anything, but for the benefit of non-cultists:


 * 1) How about How the Left's Racial Politics Backfired.
 * 2) How about Why social media is terrible for multiethnic democracies (feat. Jon Haidt)
 * 3) How about an identity politics style piece itself Stop Asking Me to Empathize with the White Working Class
 * Or how about a trend graph with three typical terms, that show they exploded onto the scene at the same time. ~ Aneris 05:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, I ask for stats and concise explanations because you consistently lack both. I read your posts; they lack empirical depth. Your evidentiary drive appears to be sated by counter-mainstream blogs alone, without respect for statistical posts.

You ask for evidence for the alt right? Here's Alexa on Stormfront, on DailyStormer, on TRS.biz, on MPC.com. Here's /r/altright; older incarnations included /r/PHC & others. Let's not even discuss the alt-right or alt-right-adjacent YouTube videomakers. Each of these have in common a multi-thousand active-poster userbase. Each of these garners hundreds of thousands of views (if Alexa is correct, the summed unique views are perhaps 4 million/month across 4 sites). The altright is a semi-cohesive identity that aggregates itself into communities.

I'm almost certain you can find comparable statistics for your ctrlleft. Here's an easy one. Why you refuse to do so boggles me. 07:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I add to your Google Trends? How interesting. 07:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I find such “stats” flawed to establish anything. They can be useful to quantify something you know well (where to look, what sites to count) and may give you a rough idea, as Scott Alexander does in the piece above already (that was established before we started). Problems:
 * How about your methodology on trolls? How to count them? Trolls don't have a site you can track, and if there was one, you'd run into problems of induction (do you have all places where trolls congregate, does your finding reflect how things are, or are your own definitions, garbage in/out, thrown back on you)?
 * How does your method establish which sites count?
 * How do you separate use-mention problems? For example the popularity of a term tells you about interest in the term itself, not necessary what it means. Simple example: if people quote someone often, they mention it, without using it. Maybe the quotation is popular? People can discuss a term itself, without dealing with what it means.
 * How do you solve knowing-naming problems: people can use different terms to mean one phenomenon, or may not know a term e.g. people can face trolling, see it as such (correct phenomenon) but describe it as “prank”, “harassment” and so on.
 * You dismiss academical papers, established ideas history, horse's mouth, commentators and journalists of repute and so on for what looks like a wonky methodology. Here's yet another article, by Nick Cohen. ~ Aneris  13:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a direct reply to any of the above — nor am I setting out here to make points that are anything but trivial in a sense — but just to stir the pot; while it's certainly true that the Alt-right is on the rise in a most disturbing way (and let's be frank — they're complete assholes) and are growing in force to an extent that warrants uniquely seeing them as a greater threat than other comparable opponents (especially compared to any "SJW camp"), that still doesn't change the fact that Nick Cohen is absolutely right in the above linked op-ed piece (without commenting on the other links, especially the one from the ). While the issues intersect (pun intended), they're not exactly the same. The left needs to change. The Alt-right needs to simply be stopped. How, I don't know — but the left changing is hopefully a start, and might even be enough to take the steam away from the Alt-right if the change is sufficiently great. And by "change", I don't mean that the left should "betray its ideals". On the contrary — in the context of the Zarnas of the world — I actually mean the left needs to purge themselves of views and behaviour like hers, and instead start actually living up to their ideals. Ideals which are, for the record, patently better than those of the Alt-right in every sense of the word "better". Also Aneris, I'd appreciate a reply to these two posts, if you don't mind. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We probably agree for the most part, all things considered, but you use a vastly different conception of how things are. In my view, Alt Right and Ctrl Left are like image and negative image, the same but inverted (i.e. structurally the same one step abstracted). If it weren't such serious, it would be hilarious just how close they are. Each is best described by a family resemblance categorisation. And yet, there is an element of deception and propaganda at work: a far right movement, paleolibertarian, crosses into fascism, nativist, nationalist, secular, racists with international ties — yes, that exists (motte). So when this is meant by “Alt Right”, then it exists and received a hip new name. These are the forces behind Trump, and they are at work in Europe, too, UKIP, Pegida, Wilders, Farage. Also, obvious, see Breitbart and Bannon. They are scary, to put it mildly. They are real wolves. However, they are also populist elites, whereas by far their masses, trolls or workers, ordinary Republicans and followers are not like them. This is where the Cry Wolf part comes in, and it's exactly (!) the Hugh Mungus situation, which I have seen such often that I didn't even collect examples. That's the bailey part of the motte-and-bailey doctrine, a favourite of the CTRL Left. Set 1 {sexual harassers, rapists ...} and Set 2 {Set 1, Hugh Mungus ...}. FTB and Atheism Plus have created armies of Hughs, to stage their own histrionic cry bully selfie activism. I also don't think supporters of Trump sneak to left liberal lion's dens to write Trump-Swatiska with crayon to a wall. This is probably trolling and false flag hoaxes for the most part. Cui bono? The SJW can fake activism in the daylight on social media against invisible brownshirts that sneak around at night. Convenient. Ninja Hugh Mungus, so to speak. Anti SJWs half seriously call this reichtagsfires since forever. That's what Campus activism is about for the most part. Who's more dangerous? The real fascists of course, i.e. Alt Right narrowly construed, but followed by the whole camp of CTRL Left who on average may not beat real fascists, but score far above any other group in fascism including even the Right Wing. Their intellectual elites say they want “whites” to recognize their “whiteness” for privilege checking. In other words, they want “whites” to conceptualize themselves as a human race. They want “whites” to leave other cultures alone (cf cultural appropriation),  which is just another path to racial purity. And unlike fascists, more and more well-intentioned progressives accept this and human races are slowly being normalized even in countries where this is unthinkable otherwise. They are also anti-pluralistic, no-platformers, obsessed with regulating art, doing degernate art shows, anti-semitic (more hate crimes against jews, yet the CTRL left is constantly defending islamofascism etc) and more. Chery on top is their writing connections to media and blogs, which comes from their origins in the “studies” of so-called Left Academia, giving them a bit of Goebbels. They even are unwittingly Putting up the Reich (I know, it's Jackson's jacket, but context, slogan and all that...).
 * PS: I don't want to explain what I think Fuzzy thinks, when we can skip this step and he can explain himself. I see the meta-discourse of “you people” and am acutely aware of Games People Play, and typically try to break out from it (or play against the rules). Also, you don't get very far when you lock yourself into echo chambers with sources you like. ~ Aneris 03:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

the issue of 🇱🇮
this user enquires to user the reason for undoing the addition of the old meme in the 🇱🇮 template. the source of the meme was a rebuttal PSA against axis faction propaganda.FAMAS (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

More that should be removed
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=suppress&page=Anthroscape

The crap that you deleted from the Anthroscape article is also in the Bonesandbehaviours article. Can you please delete that crap from the Bonesandbehaviours article as well? Actually, that bullshit is so ingrained in the Bonesandbehaviours article that you might as well delete the whole thing. --216.244.82.20 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you are, but thanks for pointing that out. I've minimized the assertions made by that citation. 03:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks. --207.244.79.153 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 207.244.79.153 is a sock IP of blocked troll Michaeldsuarez (evidence here: http://archive.is/lIa6g) No "crap" was posted but reliable sources; the moderator of Anthroscape posted what was quoted. How is quoting the moderator who confirmed everything about Faintsmile1992 "crap" or a mere "assertion"? Bizarre. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ FuzzyCatPotato, Michaeldsuarez wrote my Encylopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms articles filled with lies and smears; google.uk has blocked both these pages for defamation. Suarez works with Rome Viharo, for example Viharo's website uses Michaeldsuarez as a source of misinformation about me. Both Suarez and Viharo recently slandered me at Wikipediocracy, but I got their attack thread deleted. Their new harassment tactic is trying to get my old edits on wikis deleted, hence Michael appearing here requesting you delete the whole Bonesandbehaviours article ("you might as well delete the whole thing"...).86.14.2.77 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I've succeeded in luring back out of hiding" -- Michaeldsuarez (kiwi farms), eh Michael i'm not hiding i'm on Wikipedocracy http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8122. I can perhaps have a sensible discussion there free from your and Viharo's nonsense. I presume you are the one upset with your attack thread there deleted, so you've come here to try to get my stuff deleted to anger me. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "[My] attack thread"? You're as delusional as ever. The record clearly shows that of the three main participants (Viharo [WWHP], you [Ogygia], and me), I was the last to enter the discussion. It was never "my" thread, and since you posted before me, my posts constitute a defense / response, not an "attack". ~Michaeldsuarez
 * Your responses in that thread were just spamming smears and lies about me, hence an attack. You also show up in another thread at "Wikipedia Sucks" with Viharo posting the same misinformation. Wherever Viharo shows up to attack me, so do you and his website is a copy & paste of the lies you wrote about me at Encylopedia Dramatica. Was it Viharo's idea for you to join here and try to remove my edits or yours? You're focusing on old edits from an anthropology forum virtually no one cares about but then are going to Kiwi Farms to boast as some sort of success you manipulated Fuzzycatpotato into removing content. You really have no life at all. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What fallacy would this be?
I'm sure this is a fallacy but I don't know which one. If you don't mind, would you be able to tell me?
 * 1) Nate Silver predicted stuff
 * 2) Nate Silver's predictions were correct
 * 3) Nostradamus predicted stuff
 * 4) Therefore, Nostradamus' predictions are correct

Or (if this is any different)


 * 1) Nate silver said that X is more probable than Y
 * 2) X was correct
 * 3) Somone else said that Z is more probable than C
 * 4) Therefore, Z must be correct.

I hope you don't mind me asking for help (again). Thank you in advance :)--WMS (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd settle for false analogy. Nate Silver is not analogous to (very similar to) Nostradamus, so it does not follow that, if NS is right, then Nostradamus is right. 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you :).--WMS (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Scope section partially completed.
Remember this? Well, the bit that you and someone else asked for has been started. o vo TheMyon (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth apage?
I don't know if you remember, but once I was freaked out by Dr. Sal who said some horse feathers about a polar shift. Recently, i stumbled across his video again. Then, I thought about making a page on good ol' Doctor on RW. However, I don't know if it's worth it. I think it's missional (woo-meister, pseudoscience, end of the world, aliens) but I'm not too sure if such a page about him is needed/necessary. What would you say FCP?--WMS (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone is a default search option in YouTube, they're probably worth debunking. Good luck! Tip: video could be very useful. 00:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :)--WMS (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you unbin me?
Please? I did nothing wrong. Worzelpete (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 01:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For now the issue has been resolved, but I would like to know for future reference how I should behave should some other user decide to unilaterally bin me again. Worzelpete (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sysopping Lord Nox
The guy asked for it, and I just wanted to clear it with a mod before I demoted him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What's your opinion on free will?
If you don't mind me asking (if you do that's totally ok) what is your stance on free will? In other words, are you a compatibilist, determinist, libertarian, intercompablist or anything other? If you could also explain why you choose that stance that'd be appreciated. Thank you in advance :).--WMS (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Free will probably doesn't exist, since we live in a deterministic world, and there's no reason to believe humans are special. That said, it's hard for us humans to envision a world without it. Usually, I treat people (and think we should treat people) as if they had free will, because they (and I) will ultimately believe that we do. 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to WMS — we don't know that we live in a deterministic world. The issue is very much not settled. Bad kitty, FCP! Don't lead the youngins astray. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering FCP :). Also, thanks for clarifying the uncertainty of determinism RBP :).--WMS (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo answers stupidity
Before I say what I say, I see the banner thing about only sysops being able to edit your talk page and, despite being a sysops myself, I feel like I'm breaking a bit of a law here. So, very sorry if that's the case. With that out the way, I'd like to tell you something that happened about two days ago. I use yahoo answers from time to time to either ask a legitimate question or see what the general consensus is on Y!A. Anyway, I think it's safe to assume that you know the abysmal reputation that Y!A has (extreme views, uncalled for hate, etc.), a lot of the questions are controversial and just bad. Trying to be a nice person, I never post questions that could offend anyone (although, even when I ask a legitimate question, there are still people mad at me), so I was feeling bored and I wanted to hear some puns from people (I love me some puns!). So I posted the questions "know any good puns?" 10 minutes have passed and I received a 1 pun: "I was reading a book on gravity, I couldn't put it down"' I see what the pun was meant to be but it just didn't work for me. After 5 minutes I receive an email: "your question has violated our terms of service so it was deleted, also we took away 10 points from your Y!A account." .... I sat there, baffled, confused. It genuinely caught me by surprise- a bloody question asking for puns is that bad? Really? I could have asked for an appeal to regain the question but what was the point. All in all, my experience was bad: I only received one crappy pun, an email telling me how unlawful the question was and a continuing desire for more puns :(. Moral of the story, don't ask for puns on Yahoo answers. Hope this gave you a chuckle friend!--WMS (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally solicited 10 puns from yahoo answers looking for one that made me smile. Sadly, no pun in ten did.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A thrilling tale! I couldn't put it down. ;)
 * I'm sure us RatWiks would happily sustain your punny urges, should you ask appropriately. 20:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! Haha, I love this place :D!--WMS (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been known to enjoy a good pun or two. :3 For daily pun genius, see Imgur top comments. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Daily puns? That sounds like heaven! :D To Imugr comments!--WMS (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fun:A day in the life of an atheist
IMO, your edits are funnier than mine. :)- 23:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, you set up the article. :) All I did was remove the anti-conservative bits from ADITLOBHO. 23:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - 00:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving?
Hey Fuzzy, I added that script thing to my page from the archive bot page and it hasn't done anything yet. Ideally I'd like to get that right wing hack's crap off my page and a proper welcome box (if you feel I deserve one). Help please? MyNameIsMudd (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, let me initialize the archive for you. 18:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks tons. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're nominated for mod
Hola Fuzzy. Seeing that you have neither been nominated nor declined, I'm adding you to the (now alphabetical) nomination roster. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bertran as tech
This is for ru:rw - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah apologies, it's been too long. Thanks. 18:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pssst
Join the fun! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Image compression
When you modifying an image, make sure you save the image in the same compression as the original. Otherwise you can potentially triple the size. GIMP has the option you to export in the original compression. I realize this is nitpicking, but it's something that good to know. 19:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, did something go wrong with the Andersen image? I'm using paint.NET, didn't even notice. Apologies. 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Annotated Koran
I know it was a lot of work converting the text of the Koran into articles, but when I annotate each book, I look up a modern English translation because the current one is written in the King James style and a few words I can only guess what they mean while a fair bit is missed out I think. I believe it would be more helpful to have the modern translation to help us be more objective about what we are critiquing and so the reader understands the text better. It's up to you...if you think it's fine the way it is...no big deal...but if you're game, I'd be willing to do the work. I've practised it already and it can be easily automated for the books that haven't been annotated yet. A little more for the ones which have. Just let me know...and good luck in the elections. Shabi DOO  19:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. An alternative, if you're interested, would be to display both the Pickthall (KJV) and Ali (out-of-copyright but sanely-written) versions. If you need to be able to edit as a python wikibot, just ask. 19:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Since statistics make you purr
One (1) Swedish fake-money dollar for your thoughts on this? All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FuzzyDogPotato
Canine counterpart. 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 👌👌👌 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody please register as FuzzyDogPotato, make 5k non-bullshit contributions on it and use it to run for trustee. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Drumpf
Drumpf Drumpf Drumpf 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
Hi there FCP! It has recently been noticed that the "B" section of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has messed up formatting. After I checked the history, it appears that you messed it up back in July 9. Do you know what happened and whether it can be easily fixed? Bongolian (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because that article is being slowly merged into Lists of creationist scientists. 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Geologic speed! Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Election
is switched on, announcement time! - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Duty calls
Time to don the, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, note that he's doing the same thing here as well (2v1, in that case). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, do you mind setting the mod lock to 24 hours or a couple of days or so? Give people the time to chat this over for real? 4 hours isn't even enough time for people to reply — never mind for emotions to cool down (important!). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh brother
On the 5th of January, you gave the following warning to Levi. His response was to fingerpoint at me and Weaseloid — in doing so, conceding that we were two editors against one (which means we were in the right by default).

You've even had to revert him yourself as well, which makes it 3 to 1. Keep in mind that this is a user who willfully ignores RW's basic system of peaceful mobocratic rule.

Just a few hours after you presented him with the above warning, he reverts you too and rebukes you as a hypocrite. At the sight of this, CosmicDebris threw his hat in the ring — thus making it 4 editors to 1 on a decision that only needs a 1-user majority to begin with. Take a wild guess on what Levi did?

And did again.

And again.

As a moderator, it is your right and duty to root out this type of behavior. Is having a moderator stepping in and vinning the guy really that much to ask for at this point? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Aside: Appealing to mobocracy is poor taste. The idea is that, if people disagree, then the mobocratic consensus should take precedence. You did the right thing here -- tons of talkpage discussion shows that a consensus has been reached -- but it's not as sent fgffffimple as "heed the majority at all times". (Consider that, if editors are unanimous [eg, that Ken Ham sucks], mobocracy is unnecessary; mobocracy is a fallback, not a goal itself.)  15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Https
Hi, it would be nice if you could get https connections up and running. This is a relatively straightforward request for your IT guys and only costs a few dollars (single digit, if you look around). It prevents Big Brother from viewing all traffic entering or leaving the site, and is good for the privacy of individual users. Not sure who to contact, really, but figured this was worth a shot.-Ich (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WE NEED SSL. See  23:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's on the agenda for the RMF 2016 Winter meeting. I hope that leads to something useful. 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If Trent shows up this time ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Some questions
I found this super crank site called https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/, is it pageworthy?

Also, is there an active live chat where I can talk about atheism, rationalism, humanism etc? Like on Discord or something?2.216.243.206 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for asking!
 * Re: ItsNobody: You could easily make a beautiful article from ridiculous quotes alone.
 * Re: Live Chat: Unfortunately not. The best substitute here is the Saloon Bar, or the talkpages of Atheism or RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted. Neither is a livechat. If that's what you're looking for, I don't have any real suggestions. A useful starting place might be reddit.com/r/atheism, which has an active community that you could engage with. :)
 * Best, FCP. 15:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Election's over
BLT file in your email - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I remove content from my talk page?
CheeseburgerFace is abusing whatever conteol privileges he has in this place? Yesterday, he deleted my comments in the Saloon. Today,he has locked my talk page, saying, "I can't remove posts [all of which were my own] from my own talk page". Please advise. Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If I am abusing my power, then so is Reverand Black Percy. I protected the page because I knew you wouldn't take no for an answer, see the WIGO edit war. 06:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki disallows deletion of talkpage content that isn't obvious trolling. Instead, manually move it to your talkpage archive. This ensures that talkpage content is always searcheable. 14:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As Fuzzy said - and you can find it in the newcomer guidelines. The tradition of not being allowed to scrub your user talk page is well-established at RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @, but the Community Standards Talk_pages, states, "Occasionally discussions may be moved from one talk page to a more appropriate location, by copying and deleting it from the original page and pasting it at the new page. It is important to provide a link to the new location, which can be done using the "movedfrom" and "movedto" templates." This is what I did. I removed a topic of discussion from my page and moved it to Weaseloid's page. This led assface, I mean, CheeseburgerFace, to spitefully wave his/her proverbial dick around by locking my page. So, is removing content from one's page with the aim of adding it to another person's talk page allowed? Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Congrats!
A late congrats on being re-elected as moderator! - 05:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Groucho Marx
Thanks for fixing that better than me, it also made me giggle seeing the quote and then stating that the person who gets (probably wrongly) attributed it likely did not say it. Sorry for deleting that quote, I just couldn't find the original person that said it and I certainly did not have the creativity or humour to put "probably not Groucho Marx". Again, sorry for my little goof, hope you don't mind- at least it made the article a tad bit more accurate :).--WMS (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! My edit's not necessarily the superior version -- it did put in an inaccurate quote, after all. I think, however, that having fake quotes (and noting as such) encourages RationalWiki's mission of skepticisim and doubting what you see at first glance. 01:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty great way of subtlety promoting skepticism.--WMS (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fake quotes absolutely have a place, but it requires finesse, as the point isn't to literally mislead, but to prod skepticism by hinting powerfully at its fake nature. That being said however, there is rarely a situation (imho) where even a well done fake quote has priority over a relevant non-fake quote. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well put RBP, I'll keep that in mind anytime I come across a fake quote.--WMS (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hipocrite to be placed in vandal bin
Hello,

One of our users here, Hipocrite is vandalizing Laci Green's page by repeatedly deleting three whole properly cited sections. Kindly place him in the vandal bin and protect the page if you think that's appropriate.

Thanks, Rational1 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly normal disagreement about content, not vandalism.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting whole sections is vandalism. The End. Rational1 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The Beginning.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, shitbird, use the talk page so I can school you about your concern trolling again, please. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't use foul language. This is an intellectual space, not your personal diary. Rational1 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Talkpage, tone policing concen troll shitbird, talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just try to ignore Hipocrite, he's... ugh. 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Patriarchy
The page on Patriarchy had been kept as no consensus to delete by User:David_Gerard. I had planned to expand the page; it's probably best to keep it and matriarchy together, and to add some information to the effect that all human societies have political and military leaders that are majority if not exclusively male, and none have been found where those roles are reversed. What gives? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8 votes delete, 6 votes keep. This suggests that deletion should be preferred. 5 votes merge. Delete-ers wanted a rewrite; I cut some content (partially deleted) and moved to feminism. I would love a combined "gender-archy" article that was well-written and well-cited. Patriarchy just wasn't it, and most voters seemed to agree. 03:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Plz
Don't miss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User page layout
Hey, if you don't mind me asking amigo, how come the text on your user page is a long column now? Don't get me wrong friend, I don't have anything against it, just curiosity due to the fact that pereviously it was a short paragraph that was in line with other.--WMS (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it into a bunch of blockquotes instead of table-formatting it. 00:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

When life gives you influenza
You gotta make influenzade. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Friday was pizza day, the best day of the week
All the kids would line up super-early just to help  me     out       on         the           article      Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Come suffer with me
Like watching Nazi paint dry. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hipocrite isn't interested in improving RW.
Hello,

This is in reference to Laci Green's page.

If the statements are true, they should be mentioned and said that it's true.

If the statements are false, they should be mentioned and said that it's false.

In all the cases, the sentences are to be mentioned.

If the sentences are mentioned, and it's said that they are false, and whatever reasoning Hipocrite has is written down, RW will improve both in terms of quality and quantity.

Sadly, Hipocrite is not interested in that.

As an admin, I would request you to reverse his edits, protect the page, place Hipocrite in vandal bin, remove whatever user rights he has.

Thanks. Rational1 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't like someone disagreeing with you so you try to censor them? I want you to stop telling lies about people on our pages. When you find a winger criticism of one of your SJW targets, instead of copypasting it on our pages without even doing the remotest due diligence, instead spend the literal minutes it takes to debunk it and do so. You realize I could have blocked you, locked the page so you couldn't edit it, and placed you in the bin at any point in our conversation, yet I did no such thing? Perhaps your intolerance of dissent is the problem here. We don't parrot every dumb thing some nobody winger (or you, in one case) thinks in order to debunk it. Our pages are curated such that they are useful. Spewing garbage all over them so that others will clean it up is not what we do here. If you want to debunk the idiot points you are placing on our pages, do so. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a crowd-sourced website. I do not need to be 100% correct and write complete sections. I can write half the section (what others have claimed about her) and leave the other half for someone up to fill up.
 * What the fuck do you think will happen when people see your version of Laci Green's page? They aren't going to think that they can rely on it, they are going to think that most of the stuff isn't covered. Are they going to think that Laci Green's critics are wrong? No. They are going to think, "God knows if that criticism of her filling a DCMA claim is true of flase, may be it's true, she goofed up that one time, and may be many of the other criticism about her is also true".
 * I am making false statements? I don't know the correct context of Laci's tweet? How can I? RW is the website which is supposed to give me that information, and yet, here we are....you are claiming to have access to this "great knowledge" and yet aren't sharing it here? Rational1 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have crazy statements that you think are bullshit and you think should be refuted, put them on the talk page and ask someone to do the work. Don't shit up our articles with anti-SJW garbage. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "I don't know the correct context of Laci's tweet? How can I?" - www.twitter.com has a pretty good search function. Or ask on the talk page. Perhaps someone feels like educating you. I don't like you, so I don't want to help you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How am I, or anyone for that matter to believe that your statements of non-cooperation are not results of cognitive dissonance bias? Rational1 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno, we could go to the history - you know, the last time you accused me of that but it turned out you were just engaged in quote mining? Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if you were correct on that matter, that's irrelevant here. You not being delusional about something, doesn't means that you are never delusional about anything. Even if you have a very impressive record, it doesn't eliminates the possibility of you being a sellout on the topic of Laci Green, who is knowingly removing valid criticism against her. Rational1 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's possible I'm a total shill for Laci Green who has been waiting in the wings for 7 years to whitewash the article about her, but it's ALSO possible that I was looking at your history of edits after you were busted quotemining shit about Sarkeesian and saw you did the same thing to another target of the "anti-SJWs" and intervened. I guess the question is which is more likely? Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you marked me as "Enemy of the World"? Your statements remind me of Scientology. In Scientology, even if a friend/family member merely mentions having any thoughts in line with disagreeing with anything they are preached, you are to write up a detailed report and submit to officials. Your friend/family member will then be subjected to hours upon hours of tests. Even if you are best member RW has ever seen, and I am the worst member RW has ever seen, debunking those statements is what should be done, instead of just ignoring them. Rational1 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)