RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive251

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dog Barking at Shadows under Door[edit]

I saw a shadow under my door, very humanoid. My dog began barking wildly until shortly after it disappeared from sight. I thought maybe I was hallucinating but remembered that my dog was barking. Really creepy. I searched the entire area with my weapons, nothing. I'm trying to find an explanation for this, as my mind is (perhaps rather irrationally) jumping towards the Christian stories of demons which I honestly don't really believe in. Any ideas? As I was writing this my dog is was briefly to go near the door, something having caught his attention but I pulled him away. His ears are up and he continues to watch it. I believe I heard light tapping in the hallway near by. Nobody is home who could've done this. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Got a pet door? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
And the lights will flicker on and off just like in the storyBonesquad11 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you happen to be experiencing any...ahem....interesting substances whilst this experience occurred?
Joking aside, auditory hallucinations are a thing, but the fact that your dog also noticed this means it likely is not your perception. I used to have a dog that would bark at a rat crossing the street. If you are worried, find some thing you can use as a barricade (i.e. a dresser, nightstand, table, etc.) and place it in front of the door. This will likely deter someone who wants to kill or otherwise hurt you. Any other questions? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I am well prepared to defend myself but I simply am wondering what would be the explanation for what happened. Very odd. Whatever. I'm over it. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Have you discussed this with your dog to verify that you both remember the event the same way? (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the common example of the continually growing idiotacracy in our world. When a person has an experience we, as a culture, are so quick to judge, put down, and humanity someone for having that experience. Where true logic and science would say that we should instead want to inquire and explore that person's experience. The heart of science is inquiry, not forum shaming. With all the information that we do not know or understand about our universe how can anyone here discredit anyone's personal experience. Modern science tells us that their can be anywhere from zero to an infinite number of universe, and that's right, zero, science cannot prove with certainty that our own universe exist. With our discovery of dark matter and dark energy, which comprises about 95% of our universe, and which we know almost nothing about except that it is there, how can any of us honestly discredit someone who saw and heard something they did not understand. Instead of shaming someone for their personal experience, we should instead want to explore it. So to the person who say the shadow, no one here will every be able to explain what you saw or heard, however you yourself can explore it. Be the rational scientist, create a statement of the observed phenomenon, create a hypothesis of what if could have been, see if you can test your hypothesis, and most importantly never stop asking questions. Also never listen to people who are irrational, illogical, and too afraid of what they do not know to even begin to ask questions about. - — Unsigned, by: 16:50, 15 January 2016‎ (Talk)‎ / talk / contribs
LoL - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


FYI, User:MummificationBot has taken over from Pibot. I think this is the same codebase as Pibot used )but I'm not sure).

Only running on mainspace talk pages for now; I'll expand it to all talk pages later.

I hope it doesn't go crazy >_< If it does, block it!

Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If it does break, I'm ordering a new server for MiniNyar and can set him up to archive. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, server space isn't a problem. I have a server... The problem is (or rather was) the lack of code to run ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
And it's now enabled for everything, as the test runs didn't show any strange behaviour. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, using Sticky no longer words. You now have to "fake it" with a timestamp in the future:

<!-- Prevent Archive 21:09, 25 December 2035 (UTC) --> 

Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

... if you could make that work it would be good. Still, *pint*s all round for your good work - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please make "sticky" work before applying it site wide. Fake timestamps are so "30 day trial software" in 1988. Other than that, nice to have a functional archive bot again! I take it no changes are necessary to the old pibot instructions? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Not that I know of. I'll look at the "sticky"-thing at some point. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It should now work. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass rape by migrants in Cologne, what happened?[edit]

I thought the story was made up by racist cranks but turns out it was true. We should start and article on this. It also seems strange that pro-refugee people are more content tonlet events like these happen than let their own people protest such events. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I would rather everything that has happened so far happen than for Germany to block all refugees from Syria. I would consider myself 'pro-refugee', as I believe people should be able to freely move around from country to country without governments stopping them. Now obviously assault is illegal and everyone involved should be prosecuting, tried, and jailed; but I generally disagree with anti-immigrant sentiment. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
While there are signs that this may have been organised and a chance that some of the women who were attacked didn't report it there has not been any cases of rape.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I understood there were two. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The criminals in Cologne were all adult men. It's clear that Germany has a adult man problem. We need to stop adult men from immigrating to Germany and monitor the men already living in Germany more closely, in order to protect the German people. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 20:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I know you are making a strawman, but I actually agree with this. We should have much higher screenings for adult males immigrating than females, since most criminals are male. CorruptUser (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then why not screen all other men in your country?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sickens me how people are acting like sexual harassment didn't exist before the migrant crisis. That's all I have to say. Vulpius (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a terrible situation, but online everything is as expected. The Regressive "Leftists" outdo each other to look the other direction. They are a comical mirror image of the Tea Party or far-right Republicans, "sexual assault is bad...but". One group makes excuses when it concerns white boys, the other makes excuses for everyone else, see e.g. PZ Myers who deals with this in usual fashion: he makes it about his political enemies. Funny how this faction monopolised the term "rape culture" which would so perfectly describe their attitudes when it comes to Islam. ~ Aneris 23:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I assume you're joking, but I think it's amusing that the self-proclaimed "leftists" whose liberalism and egalitarianism mysteriously evaporates when dealing with scary scary Muslims, foreigners, and immigrants have the gall to try and call other people regressive. Anyone guilty of assault should be tried and convicted; but obviously taking the actions of, what, some 18 immigrants (out of 31 arrested) and trying to turn it into some sort of broad screed against refugees, immigration, or Islam is the act of a knuckle-dragging regressive. Progressives are (I hope) better than that sort of nativist dreck. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because someone doesn't immediately blame the attacks on immigration and brown people doesn't mean they're looking the other way. The only people who don't want the attackers brought to justice are your straw-leftists. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 02:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, unless they were quite good trolls, I have seen some making of excuses for them around the internet. Both sides have a tendency to do so for different groups. We should recognize it within ourselves. AyzmoCheers 14:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to say "absolutely no one has said anything in support of rapists", because of course people have, but when Aneris says things like "PZ Myers makes it about his political enemies", they don't actually respond to anything PZ Myers said, because what PZ Myers actually said was basically "fuck you" to people like Aneris who won't take anything but anti-immigrant and anti-Islam rants as a real condemnation of the attacks. Maybe that is making it about your political enemies. But it's something that needs to be said. Because there are people like Aneris who look at people like PZ Myers and assume that because he doesn't want to fuck over immigrants and religious and ethnic minorities, it means he doesn't care about attacks like these. You can condemn crimes committed by members of certain groups without thinking that those groups are as a whole responsible. It's not impossible, and it's not "looking the other way". It's saying to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Aneris has been ranting and whining about PZ years before making an account on this wiki. There's no point in talking to someone who burns with so much hatred against one person. Typhoon (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, now random foreign-looking people are being attacked on the street in response to the attacks. This is what happens when you place the blame for crimes on an entire ethnic group. Innocent people get attacked. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm curios if the same group of people who constantly demand muslims to apologize every time there's an attack will now apply the same rule to themselves. An important part of white privilege is the fact that you never have to apologize. Typhoon (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless you are German, in which case apology for events long before your parents were born are still Your Fault. CorruptUser (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You're not making any sense. Refugee centers are being burned down by neo-nazis almost daily, with scant media interest. Typhoon (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Guilt over WWII and so forth are burned into the German identity, so much so that they pretty much DO have to do absolutely everything to prove that they are no longer genocidal racists. That's WHY Germany was so quick to invite in the refugees in the first place. CorruptUser (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I very well understand the dynamics, and could offer two different models for it. One pits authoritarians and anti-authoritarians against each other. Authoritarians distrust the common folk and believe information must be witheld or shaped properly so that it has the desired effect, e.g. Typhoons conviction posted elsewhere to "not give ammo to the wrong people" sentiment. Hence you need to keep articles strictly one sided, so they are useful to one tribe. PZ Myers is also a high score authoritarian of a similar type. There is always looming the Greater Good, and the Means Justify The Ends. So if it's desireable to minimize harassment on minorities, a noble intent, it's okay to lie, leave away, or distort information. The traditional Enlightenment values are opposite to that, where it's trusted that people can make up their own mind, even when they might be doing stupid things with that information (then something else is broken, e.g. they aren't educated enough). Obviously, I'm tending to the latter persuasion. The other model is based on temperaments. I have the suspiction that there's a divide between what's called "feelers" and "thinkers" in various personality models. Feelers aren't more empathic and thinkers aren't more rational (or logical), but they value different things. Feelers are more concerned with emotional reactions of themselves and others: how it might come across; what kind of signal it sends. RhetoricWikipedia has a stronger effect. The "thinker" type is more conerned with "what is" and facts, and places consequences; how someone might feel about it; or how it might come across on a lower priority. You see this type of battlefield between e.g. SJWs and Richard Dawkins very often. He mocks how Islamic countries haven't produced Nobels (or whatever it was), they are concerned with "what message it sends" and don't care whether it's true. At the end of the day, everyone tries to make such events relatable and that means connecting them to something seemingly tangible, like how political opponents on the internet react to it. That said, I can understand where people are coming from, but I find it the wrong attitude for the wrong reasons. ~ Aneris 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the way you divide things up reflects reality at all, no. You think of yourself as a liberal, yet find your fear of immigrants and your emotional desire to defend the status quo increasingly driving you to take regressive positions and agree with authoritarians; so to justify your new outlook to yourself, you say "well, the people who say that my views are wrong must be driven by some sinister agenda, and therefore they can be discounted; they must be the real regressives and authoritarians, not me!" Likewise, since your reactionary views are driven almost entirely by your emotional response, you feel the need to convince yourself that you're rational by defensively leveling the same accusation against everyone else. But you're the one here who is making an emotional appeal; things like "think about the poor victims of Cologne" or Dawkin's handwaving appeals about Nobels (or whatever) are based on appeals to people's emotions, not to facts -- that is to say, they're based on soundbites and tiny, unrepresentative fragments of the news you've cherry-picked to fit your emotional needs, not on an objective assessment of all the information available. You need to recognize your own views are regressive and reactionary; you have to understand that you're not the only person who considers themselves anti-authoritarian, and that people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're irrational or authoritarian themselves (and that, indeed, the emotional urges driving you to reflexively defend the status quo are an authoritarian urge.) Sometimes you're just wrong; sometimes, even if something feels right and all seems to fit together in your head, it just doesn't hold up in the hard light of day. Sometimes, even when you think you're being completely rational and intelligent (and even when you can quote from a litany of soundbites you feel justify your position), your underlying framework is still constructed based on your emotional needs. This is the problem with your position. You can't talk your way out of it by insisting that everyone else is full of emotions and you're filled with pure reason, or by flailing out and accusing absolutely everyone who disagrees with you of being authoritarian, because at the end of the day your reason has been distorted by your emotional desires, causing you to fixate on whatever pieces of information satisfies those needs and to ignore everything else. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif---Mona- (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool story bro, but it is not true. You're again projecting. I argued repeatedly that refugees need to be helped and even gave away stuff to their shelters myself (pillows to be precise). I also consistently vote accordingly, and I don't know what exactly is authoritarian in my positions. I'm opposed to the safe spacer, trigger warning culture, went directly to the open-debate culture, oppose authoritarian meddling in the arts. But for social justice warriors, War is Peace. Of course, the next one turns up and makes me a liberatarian. Which is also bollocks. Or some other Other. There is always something. THe facts are, people like yourself are hardcore authoritarians, you speak of yourself and you just can't stand it when people don't toe your party line. You hate it especially when people who could be allies are somehow against you. This is why the whole Social justice movement typically emerges on the left side, in predominantly leftist communities and typically goes against fellow lefties. The fiercest of attacks always went against women. All doxing cases of people I personally know were women. They hate these "gender traitors" the most of all. The greatest whining and screaming was over #notyourshield -- what a furious response this evoked! Later it was explained and rationalized away. I'm well aware of manipulative techniques. This is how this game with people like you works. Further, I recognize that every side argues with "won't somebody think of the women" from time to time. Did I argue with this at all? I didn't. My point typically is the hypocrisy involved, namely how the "Regressive Leftists" don't give a hoot about feminism when it conflicts with their CRT or other ideological tenets. Incidentially, this is also the consistent main thrust of places like the Slymepit. We are too diverse to name a position, but the agreement is that the people we oppose (and who oppose us) are hypocrites extraordinaire. You want an example? I can dish out too many to count, but how about PZ Myers blackballing Abbie Smith (he was the first guy who did that). Later when the SJW heard that Dawkins didn't want to share a stage with Rebecca Watson, there was great howling. But comically, Watson herself declared she never wanted to have anything to do with Dawkins ever again (in Privilege Delusion), which was conveniently forgotten by this faction -- they revelled in hating Dawkins for his completely hypothetical non-blackballing (further enhanced by the fact that Watson wasn't even sheduled). I also know that people I discussed with in the past are incapable of understanding second order theory of mind, i.e. your position of X is this-and-that, and therefore you should be argueing this-and-that in case Y, too. That's structurally behind naming hypocrites. You compare THEIR positions. Mona for example thinks I'm supporting positions, when I compare structures. It's a step too far for some people, apparently. I'm typically not even going there to what I personally think, but play off what would be consistent with positions I see. And Mona was showed wrong already, and the current dispute with her over Nugent has the same inevitable result. Mona is simply too lazy to check the facts. It's as easy as going to the primary source and see what it says. She has so far evaded her theory how her alternate universe story came about. I'm still curious about it. In another instance, she claims (elsewhere) she isn't aware some information about a certain controversial Butts person, even though I provided her the links several times (which she saw and deleted). This strikes me as odd. Islam apologia is also, to go closer to the subject, not exactly an eccentric idea. It has well understood connections to anti-racism and critical race theory, but I realize that most people's reaction is more visceral -- they are concerned with their identity as "good people" and over-compensate. They are structurally racists, but displace it with their brand of identity politics. I also recognize that this whole "I support the people in Iowa" (that's a Chomskyan example) is straight propaganda talk. It's meaningless. But SJW know this themselves, hence their whole thing comes about, which I see (also) as a form overcoming cheap signalling. That's the posturing and warrioring that gives them their name. You can also try some more immunization strategies. I've seen them probably all. For example, writing a lot is obsessive, writing little is "spouting buzzwords". Bringing up feminist talking points, while being allegedly on the "wrong team" is seen as opportunistic, but not bringing them up is anti-feministic, and so on. But go on with your fantasy and reveal more about yourself. So, again, cool story, but complete bollocks. ~ Aneris 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Most Overrated/Underrated Scientists[edit]

Anyone have a scientist they think is overrated, in any fields? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Feynman. He's a genius and deserves his Nobel, but the way people talk about him you'd think he was the lovechild of Jonas Salk and Marie Curie. Incidentally, anyone want to read my fanfic? CorruptUser (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
On Feynman or the fanfic? Because that fanfic was a joke I thought of when I realized I was shipping scientists. CorruptUser (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, wasn't sure if you were joking. Kinda feel let down, actually. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple of reasons that Feynman gets so many plaudits. Firstly he was good at self-promotion, egotistical, charming, and more than capable of putting himself in the limelight, so he has a pretty visible presence. Secondly, he wasn't your stereotypical 'serious' scientist. He's become a bit of a geek hero, but he was almost the opposite of the things that tend to (falsely) represent geek culture - he was outgoing, pro-active, engaging, interested in others and something of a ladies man. I'm not exactly objective - he is a hero of mine. I think it's fair to say in some ways that he is over-rated, but that's not to lose sight of the enormous contribution he made to science, and popularizing it. Worm (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Tesla, if he counts as a scientist. People worship him like a god for all his inventions we didn't or couldn't use. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting stuff[edit]

So I don't know how stuff works here, but I recently found an article on Eurovision song contest that I wanted to do some work on, so I researched a bit and when I came back, it was already deleted. But there was no deletion template or anything. Should users not be able to discuss whether to delete an article? Or was this article deleted for its content? That should not be a reason for deleting! An article with bad content can be edited! -- (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

IP with no edits and RIPE says it belong to digitalocean, a hosting provider (i.e. a proxy). So, whose sock is this? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Who cares about socks, what matters are shoes! You did not answer my question! (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you register. Pick a user name, do some constructive edits to already existing articles. You are very new and just a BoN. No one knows what your purpose here is yet. You could be a great new editor, or you could be a sock of an ejected problem user.---Mona- (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, many of us are having trouble seeing how that is missional or otherwise valuable. So, I deleted it again. Please establish yourself, get a sense of the wiki before you tackle new articles about which there is, at best, ambivalence among some of us.---Mona- (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not create the article. I wanted to edit it and someone deleted it. There was not even an "article for deletion" notice or something. And if this is how you treat all newbies, I wonder how anyone ever stays to edit here at all. 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, another BoN created it last nite. And now, right away, another BoN is avid to edit it. BoNs creating iffy new articles is hard to assess. We very much welcome new editors, but it's best to get to know you; please register and I think you'll see that with a few good edits confidence in your value will be established. While it does happen, new articles from established, known users are seldom deleted without discussion. ---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Please be nice to the anonymous editors. We invite people to sign up; we don't require it. Surely a question can be discussed without recourse to number calling? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to say "no articles are deleted without discussion"? What harm does it do to have a good article for a few days it takes to discuss it instead of deleting it immediately? And if you want to keep users around you should not treat newbies like crap. Or maybe you should... after all 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (talk)
is this is really something to get pissy about? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
to both of the aboveAMassiveGay (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, what is the official deletion policy? Jean Moline (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Official deletion policy: N/A Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
RW:AFD for anything worth discussing, "wtf kill it" if it isn't worth discussing - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
wtf kill it? Jean Moline (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That article is not missional. That's why it was insta-killed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
and one person gets to decide that? IMO it is plenty missional. Just not enough for an article AMassiveGay (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
How on earth is the Eurovision Song Contest missional? RachelW (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be the question the AFD wondered too. It's now in funspace - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
never said it was hugely missional. It was the delete on sight without even giving it a chance that irked me. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm back bitches![edit]

Sorry for my disappearance, but I had to start my job as a "seasonal" (i.e. expendable) goon for Targét, which had me unloading the truck and stocking a whole buncha shit. That was fucking brutal. Extremely physical, fast-paced, boring as fuck, creatively stifling. The boss was a major cunt, and most of my co-workers were just bearable enough to keep me from going insane. And let me tell ya, I'm so glad to be taking a break from just being another nameless drone of the work-force. Also, just yesterday I started my first college course. Intermediate math, or something like that. Teacher was pretty cool, my peers seem alright, and the work is pretty straight forward. But the price is just fucking insanity. But, that's the glory of capitalism, eh komrades? Anyway, I thought I'd use this lull in my time to get back into RW. To start I'll just list some of the things that've happened and my opinions or thoughts on it. In no particular order.

  • Oregon militia: I'm a bit conflicted on this actually. I support the idea of turning the buildings over to the people, getting rid of police and federal goons, freeing prisoners with trumped up charges and the like, but I don't support the completely unenvironmental activities of the ranchers or the potential violence the militia is willing to use.
  • Anything about the presidential race: It's all bullshit, don't buy into any of it. If you really want change, move on the fatcats and elites that actually control this country. Start a revolution, shake-off the oppressive warmongers and slave owning wardens. All power to the people!
  • The Saudi-Iranian quarreling: Oppressive governments hiding behind religion, again. Surprise surprise. But despite what the sheeple think, it has nothing to due with the religious differences between Sunni or Shia, it's because they're both fucking fascist regimes built on lies and oppression. And given the powderkeg that the Arabic world is right now, they're rightly scared that their rule is going to topple at the slightest taste of freedom.
  • Detroit Sick-out: I'm conflicted on this topic as well. As someone who lives in the Greater Detroit Area, it hits me pretty close to home. Now, I'm pro-equality. So, when Detroit, a very poor and very black city, gets shafted while other more prosperous white cities in Michigan (Ann Arbor for example) get shafted a lot less, it seems a little fishy. Surely, a worse off school district would be a higher priority than a well to do one, right? Well then you don't know Amerikkka. So, how can the teachers bring attention to the plight of the inner city? Well, they can join a teacher's union, but that doesn't work as well as a workers union for factories (gee, I wonder why that is). So, they organize a sick-out. But that's just working against their intentions. All it's doing is making a whole nother generation of factory working debt-slaves. I honestly don't know how to fix that problem though.

Okay, I guess that's it for now. Power to the people! ✊ Aisha (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Aisha

Welcome. Have fun writing.
I think your point about "revolution" is conspiratorial and unlikely to happen. Moreover, it's questionable whether it should: capitalism as a whole has brought at least 5/7ths of the world to a level of prosperity literally never before seen, and will likely bring another 3/14ths by 2050. If you think that money should have less power in politics, then pass laws and try to fix political culture -- but you will never escape the influence of one kind of power ($) on other kinds of power in any system. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An excellent point, but what percentage of the world has it killed, enslaved, and fucked over? Even in it's "own" country? And I'm not saying capitalism and communism are completely ineffective, I'm just saying maybe there's a better way. And though it's unlikely to happen (mainly because of people thinking like you), we can still fight the system and try to change it in a big way. We may not succeed, but as Errico Malatesta wrote, "...the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." Aisha (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Aisha
Oh, and also, when you say prosperity, are you speaking of the half of the world that lives on less than a dollar a day? Or the prosperity of the wealthy elite who sit on the backs of the world's poor? Also, where pray tell are you getting these figures? Financial Crimes weekly? - Ukuphendukela (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Viva la Revolucion! We'll have Obamas head on a stick!'Legionwhat do you want from me 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't endorse violence on any means, and bringing down figure heads and other government puppets would only be effective to an extent. The real power comes from the banks, the lobbyists, the elites, and basically wherever the money is. Breaking away from them and money as a whole is the pretty much the only way to become truly free. Aisha (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Aisha
I hope you are feelin' the Bern, as they say. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Bernie does make me really freaking happy, but even if he does win (spoiler alert, he won't), I still can't support the existence of the state or any authority. Though hopefully his term would bring about more drastic left-leaning thinking, moving us closer to an anarchistic society. But, if anything it'd probably just backfire and make more people into right-wing lunatics. - Ukuphendukela (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems legit, Ukuphendukela/Aisha. The revolution thing I think should be clarified, as there is a narrow set of circumstances that would justify it, assuming the goal is a society better and nicer than the one we have. I'd say that's not necessary at this point in USA time. Also, breaking up the banks requires an authority to do that, namely the government. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A valid point. And that is quite a predicament. The bigger the banks, the bigger the government needs to have the capability to bring them down. However, the bigger the government, the harder it's going to be for the people to unite to bring it down. - Ukuphendukela (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to balance things out. I am way too much of a pessimist. Government is not going away anytime soon. Government will go away once people learn to stop controlling each other, get along, and govern themselves. That's several hundred years off at the least. There's a reason why the first communist movements largely failed: it was too early. You don't teach a 2-year-old to drive a truck; they have to crawl, walk, and run first.

Instead, we have a choice: either a strong, responsible, popular government that rules over private companies; or a weaker government that is controlled by the financial sector. I'd opt for the first, because it causes the lesser amount of harm to the least amount of people. Once the wealth is spread out and a socialistic economy is implemented successfully, then we can talk about eliminating government entirely. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

When everything is urgent[edit]

Nothing is urgent. That orange background on the site notice banner is fucking annoying. FFS, the mod results are last week's news. MaillardFillmore (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Hey Hey! Hoh Hoh! The election notice has got to go! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like someone came to their senses and put it back the way it was. Nice. Thanks, whoever it was. MaillardFillmore (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. click on "Mark as read" - it'll vanish.
  2. for me (Chrome, Ubuntu) the background's pale grey.
Pippa (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
CBA to click on an intrusive banner. (It was only orange (firefox, ubuntu) for a little while. Now it's back to grey, with a hint of brain.) MaillardFillmore (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If you really CBA to click *once* on a banner to remove it forever, then that's your own problem. Don't blame the site for a problem you could solve by moving your hand two inches. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The screaming orange banner was also visible when I was not logged in, IIRC. As a BoN I had no way to make it go away. Anyway, it isn't about the effort to mark it read, but the fact that some nimrod thought the attention-getting "you have mail" color was appropriate for a piece of old news at the top of every page. MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The banners can be intrusive if links to RW articles are posted in FB. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 21:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
They certainly shouldn't be the same color as the "your talk page was wandalized" box. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Question on Climate change[edit]

How many people here would say they differ from the mainstream scientific view on Climate Change, think it needs/could use far more research, evidence, etc or outright reject it? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine you'll get any affirmative replies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
My guess would be tumbleweeds all the way down.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oregon standoff[edit]

We have nothing? Not even a mention at Oregon. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think those of us who are interested in the hilarity of the subject are waiting for it all to play out first. After all, I could liveblog the hell out of the thing, but that would be more effort than the Bundy family are worth. Old guard (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I used to think "a bag of dicks" was just a figure of speech. Note to self: never count on the twittersphere for sustenance or snacky goodness. MaillardFillmore (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I put something in the WIGO when it first started. But I have many other editing priorities over writing an article about that.---Mona- (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, i think we should let it play out. I have a feeling it's going to end up being a complete non-issue (i.e. they all just walk out, get arrested and/or fined, and that's that), and only deserving of a section on Oregon's page, and not it's own new page.Petey Plane (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oregon's page? No, I think a place better suited for it would be a section on the page about Cliven Bundy. Old guard (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
"Wait and see" seems fine - if it's good enough for the FBI, it can work for the rest of us. And a section at CB makes sense. Only needs a redirect if the event enters common parlance (ala Waco, Ruby Ridge...). Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I would know this was going on if it where not the wigo. Its not exactly big news this side of the pond. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Basic science question[edit]

Shouldn't this article about a giant supernova consistently describe the event in the past tense, given that, if it's 3.8 billion light-years away, we are seeing something that actually happened a very long time ago? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like they are talking about the observation rather than the actual event. It's also a journalist who is not likely to be big on keeping things really straight over communicating to the reader. Pretty much every star with 1.5x the mass of the sun that we can see in that location now is dead (no longer undergoing fusion) or in the process of dying. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the article seems to alternate between past and present tenses: "At its peak, the event was 200 times more powerful than a typical supernova, making it shine with 570 billion times the brightness of our Sun." I guess you could argue that it is both past and present. The physical event happened in the past, but we can only see it in our present. AyzmoCheers 22:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it just a matter of scale? We don't worry about the tense we use when the delay in observation is small. If we start worrying about that, we might also have to worry about what "now" even means in a distant place and I know I can't be arsed with that. (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proxy blocking[edit]

Carpetsmoker blocked two IP ranges ( and, which he said were "DigitalOcean hosting provider, which provides hosting for a number of proxy services." Are we OK with this? I forget if there was a rule we had about this. FuzzyCatPotato of the Smelly Autobiographers (talk/stalk) 22:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've unblocked them. Far as I'm aware we don't do rangeblocks & don't have any policy against proxy IP editors. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Range blocks remind me of TK. We have enough active sysops that it is no great chore to selectively bin and clean up after problematic single ips. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The IP ranges belong to a hosting provider, and some servers are used as proxies by unblocksit.es. No normal person would edit from these addresses and no one is hurt by this except (probably) Arisboch or someone else who is unable to find anything more constructive to do with his time than vandalize sites.
There are no drawback to blocking these addresses and only upshots. Blanket statements such as "we're not like TK" or "we don't do range blocks, period" are silly arguments from assertion. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there any policy on how long to block IPs at the longest? After all, some IPs belong to publicly accessible computers. And some IPs are bound to a particular dwelling which may be occupied by different people at any given time... By the way the Capcha literally was "stop wasting time" (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
(EC caused by drinking tea instead of hitting save)We did it a few years ago when someone set up a hopping ip to continually vandalise RW, but that was an extreme occasion. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
None of this is the case here. This are IPs statically assigned to DigitalOcean; they are not used for residential internet access, let alone shared between different people Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And you know this how exactly? Furthermore, if the regular IP should be blocked or someone should be unwilling to register under their regular IP, how should that person access this site? And for some reason, some IPs are blocked without even the possibility to edit their own talk page. Some of them are blocked for allegedly being proxys. 22:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)~~
Yeah, keep on spreading FUD mr. proxy. The waffling about accidentally blocking random people doesn't apply. RIPE tells me the IPs belong to DigitalOcean [1] [2], which only provides servers. All IPs are assigned to a company (or in rare cases person); the company can do with them what they wants (like an ISP may assign them to different customers every day), but they don't move between companies. There is no risk of inadvertently blocking someone that we don't want to. I carefully checked all of this before I decided to block the range.
If people rather have assholes crapping up this site on a delusional attempt to be different from conservapedia or whatever then fine. You people clean up the mess. I'm outta here. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
While the Old Guard in me says "OMG, that's what TK would have done!!!", if we know that nothing good comes from that network of IPs, and so long as the rangeblocks are very temporary (keep in mind, TK's rangeblocks were for months and years at a time), then I see minimal problem if they curtail wandalism, especially if a week is the maximum length we have them. Old guard (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
RW really does need to stop living in the past.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly -- and I'm tech illiterate so may not be -- this range ban only blocks people using a proxy server not likely to be used by good faith editors? If that's the case, I approve. Especially if it's only done for, say, a week to see if that resolves the problem of all these new accounts wreaking havoc. If it starts up again after a week, then do it again for a month. And again if indicated.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDING: Carpetsmoker did a good job taking care of an affliction besetting this wiki. He makes an argument that these addresses are not used by good faith users. I've seen no compelling counter-argument against what he appears to have researched well on this issue. In my strong view the range blocks should be restored and Carpetsmoker merits gratitude. We may have more mods now, but they are still not always around when the Bullshit Parade is going on. Carpetsmoker took care of righteous business. ---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing good going to come from these ranges, and if they aren't in the open proxy lists we already use they should be. They are literally only used by trolls. Specifically Arisboch - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Arisboch would be surprised to hear that. And as has been said by people much smarter than myself: Several IPs are falsely classified as belonging to a proxy when they - in fact - don't. 00:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)~~
If you, unsigned BoN new today, are in a position to know what Arisboch thinks about this, that alone renders your observations highly suspect. Indeed, I'd say it argues for Carpetsmoker's solution, as supported now by quite a few.---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As a general point, this is just one of several excellent tasks Carpetsmoker has addressed and well done to him. The posts above by Mona and David seem to be spot on. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This also raises a policy issue. What do we think about the use of proxies as socks by banned editors?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they should be burned with fire, that is, blocked. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Are we seeing enough support to reinstate Carpetsmoker's initial range ban, say, for at least a week? If trouble ensues after that week is up, go for a longer period?---Mona- (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Aye. If these are just used as proxies, I see no reason not to ban them; nobody acting in good faith is going to use them. --JorisEnter (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
My ban was for a week ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok then, Carpetsmoker, why don't you reinstate the one-week ban? There's support for it here.---Mona- (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What mischief have these IP proxies been up to, or is it a block on site thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Block on site" (sic!) is something one or several of those who have used proxies to access this site would say... 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
oh yes a typo. Clearly I am both s troll and a fool. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New Internet Law[edit]

I propose that we add in a new internet law. I call it Monroe's law, from the alt text of [XKCD.com/1357/ Randall Monroe's comic] regarding free speech, though he admits he didn't create it. Basically, "Invoking Free Speech loses the argument; if your best claim is 'it's not technically against the law for me to say this', you are probably wrong". Thoughts? CorruptUser (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Our article on internet laws should document ones that are actually in use, not ones newly minted by editors. Plus it's a violation of Cohen's Law, and XKCD is way overrated. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
A big +1 on xkcd being overrated. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
What if the argument is about whether or not people should be able to speak freely? The ratio of ways a law like this could be misappropriated to the number of situations where it applies is kind of low.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
All Internet laws and fallacies are severely abused. If the law CorruptUser proposes doesn't exist, it should. Countless are the times, across a range of issues, idjits have shrieked about my "attacks" on their free speech because I criticized what they said. I see it stupidly directed at other all the time as well. Unless the argument is about what is or should be protected or allowed speech, it's a loser's ploy.---Mona- (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Being able to speak freely is NOT legal simply for being legal. If that were the case, it's a circular argument and there's no reason to keep it legal. No, free speech is allowed because when the government decides what is and is not allowed to be said, it's all too easy for government to make all criticisms of it "disappear". Mention Gitmo? You can share a room with Eli Chelsea Manning. There are limits of course; libel, hate speech (which is libel, honestly), "fire in a theater", fraud, and so forth, but the more dubious cases need to be treated with caution, and to prevent abuse of the system government should absolutely not be able to silence whistleblowers with "libel" claims. Ergo, no, even if the argument is about whether or not people should be able to speak freely, you shouldn't have to resort to the argument that it's legal therefore it should be legal. CorruptUser (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"hate speech (which is libel, honestly)" And legal, in the U.S. As it should be. It should not be up to the state to decide what opinions are "too hateful" to speak or write. All that means is the majority gets to decide which minority views can't be uttered, which turns free speech on its head, rendering it meaningless. (Popular views do not need constitutional protection.) The reason one cannot yell "fire in a theater" is because it is false -- to the serious risk of immediate physical harm to others. In the law that example is defunct, and even disreputable. As for the rest, I don't really follow.---Mona- (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
free speech is meaningless. There is, always has been and always will be limits on what you can say and where. I have no problem with this. Any arguments about such things are about where those limits are. I also happy with limits on hate speech which like your 'fire in the theatre' argument can lead to serious risk of physical harm to others. It does require, however, constant vigilance to make sure the mark is not overstepped. What ever that may be.AMassiveGay (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a preposterous and morally bankrupt assertion: "free speech is meaningless." Anyone who does not immediately see why this is so cannot be reasoned with. Do note, however, that you dropped my word "immediate" from the reason why one is not permitted to falsely scream "fire!" in a theater. The risk of an immediate stampede is high; also, the claim is akin to fraud. But most importantly, it is not political speech. The state should never be empowered to determine what political speech is too hateful to merit prison or fine. (Unless one directs imminent violence -- e.g., addressing an angry crowd and pointing to members of Minority X and saying "these are the types who should be killed.") The right to freely speak one's political views is fundamental to anything resembling a liberal democracy. Anything less means the right to free speech is an illusion; the majority can abridge the speech rights of political minorities at will.---Mona- (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
free speech IS an illusion. This is my point. There are and always will be limits. You yourself have advocated limits, though I would have more. It is not free speech, but regulated speech. How it is regulated changes with the weather. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
the distinction of 'immediate' harm is one I find bullshit and arbitrate. There is plenty harm from hate speech, from press invasions of privacy, from printing out right lies. Theses all cause harm, all ruining lives and communities. Just because it is not 'immediate' is neither here nor there. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"the distinction of 'immediate' harm is one I find bullshit and arbitrate" You are simply wrong. The "imminence" standards means that was is virtually indistinguishable from solicitation of assault or murder is illegal. Those are criminal acts, not political opinions. A political opinion that is, or is alleged to be, harmful to others in some intangible, down-the-road way is not and should not be prohibited by the state. That puts the state in charge of what political opinions may be uttered. By adopting the standard that ANY political opinion may be uttered as long as it does not cross into a direct incitement to assault or murder, that problem is avoided. Free speech is real, and those who think otherwise have not lived in a totalitarian state.---Mona- (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

One other thing that people don't get is that free speech is a good thing in itself. It doesn't require a utilitarian justification. It isn't there because it's useful to a political system. It isn't because free speech is an algorithm that inevitably leads to truth. Rather, the ability to express yourself is a basic necessity for self-realization and self-expression; human creativity requires that there be no stories or jokes you aren't allowed to tell and no cartoons you aren't allowed to draw. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with all that.---Mona- (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Except you just used a utilitarian argument of sorts. "Free speech is good because it improves people's wellbeing in some form". I belong mostly in the utilitarian camp, within reason of course; all things are moral not by the actions but by the results. Ends justifies the means (note: means are included as part of the ends). Is free speech moral? Only if the end result is a better society.
I'm sure attorneys will disagree and argue about how no, the action determines morality, but attorneys have an entirely different set of morality than real humans; they care more about whether the system working than whether the system actually arrived at the right answer. No, seriously, I watched as my sister went from being human to becoming some... beast after passing her bar. So she has a story from law school. She and another student -black kid, brilliant, got into a top tier school on a scholarship- were friends in undergrad. So the black kid was friendly with some rich kids, and the all go on a boat, gambling and drinking. Rich kid stuff. Then the cops show up. The rich kids, they all got their attorneys to negotiate out of it, they didn't serve any time or have any serious penalty. But the black kid? He got a public defender, and ended up taking a plea deal. But part of the deal was a class A misdemeanor, which may have caused problems for him had he gone on to law school, so he had to change courses. I assume I don't have to argue with anyone here about why this is not the correct result when all the kids committed the same crime. When my sister first told the story, she said it was proof of how horrible the system was. Then years later, after she sold her soul, she used the same exact story as proof of how the system works. The rich kids and the black kid all had the same system, the rich kids paid the thousands of dollars for attorneys, the poor black kid "chose" not to, therefore the system was working!
Not sure why I brought that up...CorruptUser (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the line between something that causes real harm and something that simply isn't very nice is a lot easier to draw than the distinction between something that could maybe possibly cause harm and something that causes no ill feelings (a.k.a. virtually nothing). Just because there are a few grey areas doesn't mean you should pull out the "it's all an illuuuusion" card.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Graham Linehan[edit]

Whoever's running the RW Twitter page: dunno if you noticed Graham Linehan (creator of Father Ted, Black Books, the IT Crowd) retweeting your Gamergate related post yesterday? Pretty cool. Square.gif Have you had any other celebrity retweets? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be an ecumenical matter. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
that would be me. I didn't notice him reposting it, I did notice it was a remarkably retweeted tweet - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I tweeted that article last nite. It's excellent.---Mona- (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of Satellite Data[edit]

A good overview of Ted Cruz's misuse of science and of the evidence for Global Warming. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be a shocker if he was right, the question is if any of his base care. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Science Based Medicine vs.Evidence Based Medicine[edit]


"Our ancestors lived in a pre-scientific world where the evolution of “logically illogical” thinking helped them survive.

Science doesn’t come naturally; we prefer stories to studies. How can we decide if a medical treatment works?

The scientific method is the only way to get reliable answers. Evidence-based medicine was a good idea but failed to live up to its promise.

How science-based medicine is different from evidence-based medicine and why it is better."

It's an odd title because we tend to call the former by the latter's name, but she has a point. And it's only four hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible stuff[edit]

Collapses aren't working. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The [show] button is added to the header, and if it can't find that, it does nothing. So you need to add a header. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right. However, stuff like {{Logfal}} also isn't working. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A new conspiracy theory?[edit]

Is anybody looking into this one?




It looks like quite an hysterical reanimation of the anti-vaccination lobby.

Are any of these quacks dead? Have they died in suspicious circumstances, or by the natural consequences of believing their own quackery?

I'd be mildly interested to know the truth behind the hysteria.

Fustbariclation (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Is "Government intentionally infects non-vaccinated children" a conspiracy theory yet, by the way? Vulpius (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Lol. But in regards to the OP, here's a Snopes article on it. Obviously this is just big pharma's PR department, so don't believe it. /s. - Ukuphendukela (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rightwingers deadlier than Isis?[edit]

According to many different sources, you are 7 times more likely to be killed by a radical Rightwinger than ISIS. I'm not sure this is very true, but searching it brings a lot of articles claiming it. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

By "you", who do you mean? I imagine if "you" are a Shia living in Mosul, the odds are different than if "you" are a black churchgoer in South Carolina. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bingo. Also, ISIS is right-wing. They're religious, conservative, warmongering, supremacists. - Ukuphendukela (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's specifically in reference to FBI records of terrorism deaths since September 12 2001. There's been a lot more right-wing American terrorism than Islamist terrorism. The reason it doesn't seem that way is because Al Qaeda and ISIS were both very good at making dramatic, noteworthy violent events. The two right-wing mass-murders that made the news were the Holocaust Museum shooting and the South Carolina shooting, but numerous smaller politicized violent events have occurred. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inside of the US? Of course, by a landslide. In fact, you will almost never be killed by ISIS unless you live in a big international city like Paris or London, and even then, your chance of being killed is literally (1/1,000,000) divided by 365. Which is almost nothing. So be very, very afraid of street criminals and not ISIS, at least if you live in the West. Worldwide, it's a different story. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Luther King[edit]

Today is MLK Day in the U.S. I hold generally negative feelings about that, because the media and politicians have turned Dr. King into an icon exploited by jingoists and politics-as-usual "pragamtists." Martin Luther King was a black revolutionary whom the pundits disparaged then just as they do those who say the same things today. In 1967 King declared the U.S. to be: "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He was said to be "anti-American" and he supposedly "whitewashed Hanoi." Moreover, he endorsed social democratic political philosophy and was deeply critical of American-style capitalism.

Today, the snarl word for people like King remains "anti-American," but now we also have "regressive left" and "terrorist apologist." On MLK Day he should be remembered for who he actually was.

ADDING: This is what King thought about the American economic and political system. A quote:

[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”

---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I take it you backed McCain when he opposed declaring MLK day? /snark
Personally I think MLK was one of those guys that was great if you think the ends justifies the means; he and Malcolm X were effectively working together in the classic "good cop bad cop" routine, where X's "black power!" made King's "I have a dream!" look much less radical and much more palatable to the American public. If you only go by the means, well, like all humans he's flawed so you need to do a lot of cognitive dissonance and other mental gymnastics to make King into a shiny superhero of justice rather than the human that did great things that he was. You pretend that he never did anything bad, or everything bad he did was actually good. You turn a blind eye to how his PhD thesis was plagiarized. You ignore his infidelities to his wife.
And then, lionize him by downplaying all the help that he received from the White and especially Jewish communities, in order to turn him into Leonidas vs the Persians, much like the story of Leonidas ignores the thousands of allies of Sparta present at that battle.
And from our perspective, you ignore that he was a preacher. CorruptUser (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating my point.---Mona- (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. AFAICT your "point" is that MLK is remembered as a saint rather than a radical with communist sympathies or something along those lines. CorruptUser (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You are getting into an argument literally over nothing. Cool down, the Avenger/Arisboch days are over. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, CU, you absolutely do not know what I mean. I feel no need to respond substantively to your...contributions.---Mona- (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Politicians and (some) media turn everything into an icon and a soundbite. I find with MLK day, as with many things, you don't have to dig too deep to explore the richness and complexity of the reality if you want to. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving (Noob question)[edit]

Ok, noob time. How do I archive talk pages without creating a new page and then clicking relocate? Is there a way to do that that I missed?CorruptUser (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Copying & pasting is the usual way of doing it. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You can also automate the whole shebang with the archival bot. See MummificationBot. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Welp, mummificationbot added. Thanks. CorruptUser (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cologne mass rape by migrants, RW sources?[edit]

I made a topic discussion about this before, but it has gone to a useless direction. I think we ought to discuss sources for the article we will make, it seems no reason not to do so since this event has attracted so much media attention, rightfully so.

We could also discuss the content and the spin. This article here: http://quillette.com/2016/01/18/after-cologne-feminism-is-dead/ is an excellent place to start with because it gives an argument for how feminism failed to stop sexual violence against women by migrants, and all the feminists here should discuss why and how. It's also a mostly unbiased article.

Feminism should play heavily into the article about this, perhaps also into our article on Rotherham. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 03:49, 20 January 2016

I think there's quite a few articles on how German police have been really pretty bad at preventing sexual assault in crowds in general, even without the migrants involved. Doesn't justify the migrants, but shows they aren't the issue. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The maximum number of rapes I can see referenced is | three with a very large number of other sexual assaults. Obviously this represents three personal tragedies and a number of serious crimes.
But your constant gross exaggeration by referring to the situation as "mass rape" is the worst example of "spin" I can imagine.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I would not call that article "unbiased"--Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders and leftist populism[edit]

So the Iowa caucus is nealry here and in the US that can be a solid predictor on who is the nominee. Now I consider myself a democratic/libertarian socialist, but I do have concerns that Sanders my become infected by left wing populism; he may end up looking for more 'shock and awe' tactics instead of measured and reasonable short term goals. What I mean by this is that he has recently called for the removal of both Mayor Rahm Emanuel, over his cover up and mishandling of police shootings, and Governor Rick Snyder, over his cover up and mishandling of the Flint, MI lead poisoned water. Now I may agree with both their removals, but it may not the most practical solution nor is it going to cure the problem. My main issue with his push for their remival is that he hasn't meet or talk to anyone from Flint and has only now starting to talk about racial issues as a separate platform (though his racial platform is still very progressive). AFAIK he still hesitates on supporting an expansion to guest worker programs and hasn't states how he will fight economic discrimination besides providing some social programs and public works for all of the working class; without support reparations, affirmative action, open borders I don't know how one specifically fights economic racism towards Afircan Americans and Latino Americans (and yes I am aware of his voting record on these issues, but he hasn't detailed any plan on the campaign trail). Now I greatly admire the man for his push for the Veteran's omnibus bill and his creation of the Burlington housing trust, but his healthcare plan still has certain issues that need to be addressed and he hasn't even given out his other reform and foreign policy plans with very little time left for public scrutiny. More specifically he has only supported a multilateral coalition in the Middle East (which will somehow include the Saudis and Iran), supported the drone program with congressional oversight, and a two state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without removal of sttlements or arms control. Now my greater concern is on his support for auditing the fed, labeling GMOs as if they were ingredients, and his distrust of nuclear waste disposal.--Owlman (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My reaction to your post is that a president is never a panacea. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In my view, Sanders revealed how shallow his leftist credentials are with his refusal to consider reparations for slavery and Jim Crow. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, Ikanreed, that was mostly why I posted this. I think everyone may have gone overboard with him being this 'messiah' and I just don't know how to react to this. I know people, including myself, who are so invested in his campaign, but may become disappointed with him when he actually tries to pass legislation. It may be more empty promises backed by weak reform and racial tensions will still live on. I still will most likely vote for the man, but I don't expect the revolution to succeed in the way everyone is hoping. Also, Aginghippie, I read that articke in the Atlantic and I do believe it is most likely his greatest blunder on racial issues; its why I have now begun to seriously question if his racial justice platform will revolutionize racial minorities in this country especially when such a man wants to embody the legacy of MLK.--Owlman (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Not how I see it AgingHippie. I also support reparations. But the public overwhelmingly does not. The public can get behind things like single-payer national health coverage. And also some urgently needed criminal justice reforms -- which would affect the lives of African-Americans first and foremost. If reparations is a deal-breaker for too much for the public, and I think it is, then he has to let that go for the sake of what he can get at least try to get done. And really, Ta Nehisi Coates is so in he tank for Hillary it isn't even funny. When's he gonna ask her about reparations? (I'd also like to know the position of his "good friend" and colleague at The Atlantic, former IDF prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg.) Since when was this issue one that gets (selectively) applied to candidate Bernie Sanders alone? If it should be an issue in the election, everyone's views should be discussed. ---Mona- (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of Ta Nehisi Coates's affiliation and hypocrisy Sanders still wants to remedy injustice in this country and to ignore race is to be blind to economic discrimination. If Sanders wants to appear to carry the legacy of radical black leaders he is going to have to fight the historical injustice that they fought and that starts with reparations; he can otherwise stop saying how truly radical MLK was if he won't support truly unifying the working class. Reforming the political system, supporting equal pay, and crapeating a stronger welfare state will not correct the historical inequalties ravial minorities have faced even if those reforms help them the most. So if Sanders wants a revolution in this country he has to go all the way.--Owlman (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"and that starts with reparations" Not even sort of. Incarcerated people, people who can't be employed because they are felons, reparations isn't going to do shit for them. Reparations won't replace mothers and fathers rotting in prison. Reparations won't stop cops from killing black men with impunity.---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then abolition the prison system and switch to restorative justiceWikipedia, preliminary hearingsWikipedia instead of grand juries, abolish peremptory challengesWikipedia, have courts concentrate on constitutionality of police work instead of looking to deter them (i.e. stop and frisk), abolish the death penalty, declare children to be unable to reasonably waive their rights, and fund public defendants.
But won't wealth redistribution and economical, infrastructural etc. enrichment of impoverished communities de facto achieve the same effect as reparations when the great majority of people benefiting from them will be the people that would be eligible for reparations? I also doubt there's even a considerable demand for explicit reparations among African Americans (I could be wrong though). (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that it does (Mother Jones puts it interestingly), but he hasn't put out any plan to do so when he is already low in polling with African Americans. He makes no clear plan in his racial justice platform on how he would achieve this end. So he sounds like he wants to correct racial injustice, but w/o a plan his statement means nothing.--Owlman (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
My best friend's liberal dad believed in reparations... AND back to Africa. Basically offer to pay people $100,000 on the condition that they leave, since it'd be "[sic] saving the country money on welfare and prisons". The story behind that is that he had a second home in LI, decided to section 8 the place to rent, and both sets of tenants were terrible (and black). The lesson he should've learned was "some poor people are shitheads", or maybe "don't section 8 any property you want to keep", but instead he learned to, well. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Wait. How do we NOT have an article on Reparations?CorruptUser (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Since when was this issue one that gets (selectively) applied to candidate Bernie Sanders alone?" Since Sanders started running for President as a socialist. I wouldn't expect a mainstream/establishment Democrat to support reparations. I would expect a self-described "socialist" to at least entertain the idea. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't expect a social democrat to endorse a position that is so unpopular that it could tank his candidacy. I'm as disgusted with calls to "pragmatism" as many, but when it's used as an excuse not to do what possibly could be done. I've never denied that politics is the art of the possible.---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware reparations was a socialist/social democrat issue. Really could use that article. CorruptUser (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Some socialists/movements are on board with the idea. Here's one; here's another. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Much of the socialist movement can be construed as workers demanding reparations from the rich elite in power, so it doesn't seem that odd to connect the two. (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Sanders may become infected by left wing populism? *snicker* My general impression is that he's already there - a left wing analog to the Pauls, down to the very... enthusiastic fanbase.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Ron Paul has much to commend him. It's just the stuff that's reprehensible that's a deal-breaker. That isn't the case with Sanders. He is a Zionist and not as good on the Palestinian question as I'd like to see, but he's better than Hillary by many magnitudes, including on that issue.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I do realise that I am trying to be optimistic about him. I truly fear that left wing antisciencentific positions on nuclear energy and GMOs will become more evident if he is the nominee; I hope I am wrong. Mona I am not as afraid of his Zionism since I believe in the one state solution, but I need more info on his foreign policy plan in order to truly believe in his antimilitarism.--Owlman (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, I don't think it can really be said that Sanders is "antimilitarism." His foreign policy is a bit muddled; he's not Jeremy Corbyn. He's just much less hawkish than Hillary or the GOP. He's not, as I think you put it, the "messiah." No candidate ever is.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah you are probably right. I am being overly idealistic with my leftist views when it comes to foreign policy; I just want an end to this neocon bs already.--Owlman (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"I think everyone may have gone overboard with him being this 'messiah' and I just don't know how to react to this." Good news! We have an article section that I feel is in need of elaboration! I added the last paragraph, I feel it could do with expanding and some examples of stuff like this, where the supporters betray the man. (Note: I personally don't have that much against him, and am mostly neutral towards the man himself, though I do feel he's attracted the reactionary user-base that's too smart/in denial to go with their real candidate, Trump.)

...Yeah, I'm just plugging the article because I feel there's a great deal that needs to be put there. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah some of his fans (I say some because idk how prevalent this is) truly are fanatic. It seems like they are so angry and involved that they tend to create a cult of personality around him when there are issues with how successful his campaign will end up and how little he has said outside of broad domestic issues.--Owlman (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What truly befuddles me is that I seriously have to consider whether or not they actually know Bernie's policies or beliefs. It feels like they're hailing him as a messiah because he's the only likely candidate who isn't Trump or Clinton. And it feels like a huge black mark on Bernie that he doesn't actually deserve. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, but I do think so of them do understand his policies which I guess makes them progressives. I have also noticed a significant tankie following, but they are mostly outcasts in the furthest depths of social media.--Owlman (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is by far the best candidate in the field. He beats Hillary Clinton by a mile and a half, and he beats the Republicans by 400 light-years. He seems pretty genuine to me, and very responsive to the will of the Democratic voter, but he is also principled and has taken unpopular stands on some issues. Owlman, this is to you btw, and any other voters that are unsure about Sanders. Don't worry about nuclear energy and GMOs. Bernie is not going to be able to stop those things, or even slow them down, so don't worry about that. The neocon bs will end under a Sanders administration, so don't worry about that. Mona: don't worry about the Zionist thing. Bernie is Jewish and spent months on a kibbutz: he is going to hold that opinion. I also think it is more likely that Bernie has his U.N. ambassador vote in favor of a Palestinian state than any other candidate in the field. Thus you should vote for him if you are anti-Zionist. Chances are he is not extremely steeped in the subject and is just towing the national line on the Israel issue, and will make more sense when he is in office. Also, with regards to reparation, he will do more on that front than any other candidate. Don't be scared just because he said he was against it. What he said he was against was basically huge checks in the mail. In my opinion, a great way the country could pay reparations to the blacks is to build more public works, increase funding and care for failing inner-city schools, implement universal healthcare/daycare, and provide free tax-funded public college. The black community would vastly benefit from these things, all of which Bernie Sanders has supported and worked towards for his entire career. There's your reparations right there. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Look I will vote for him as the nominee and if he loses (assuming O'Malley doesn't pull some miracle rebound) I will vote for Jill Stein with the same concerns, if not more dangerous, of her left-wing anti-science outlook.--Owlman (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify: will you vote for him in the primary for your state? I hope that you live in a solid Democrat state; that way your vote will be harmless to the democrats. So if you're in New York or California, sure, vote for Jill Stein if Hillary is the nominee. But if you are in Ohio, Florida, or Virginia; you should vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. This will result in the greatest long-term benefit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't happen to live in consistently blue state, but I am not a big fan of the Dems as a whole. I definitely don't see my vote to be detrimental to Hillary because if she can't move to the left enough for people to vote for then she can't win anyways. I will never forgive anyone who voted for war in Iraq in 2003.--Owlman (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really get the attraction to Sanders, and as a 25 year old I'm severely disturbed at how many people in my demographic fall for his vacuous diatribes ("Wall Street's business model is fraud" could charitably be described as disingenuous, however politically expedient it is to rant about them). Besides, Sanders is just another petulant ranger that's done his share of getting things to a state of FUBAR; this idea that everyone should have the chance to go to college for free is completely DOA, and the bill he cosponsored with the VA made it that much more difficult to un-FUBAR said administration (my father has to deal with them a lot through his work, so this sort of thing was regular dinner conversation). That said, he's Not Hillary Clinton and Not Donald Trump, so he definitely has some redeeming qualities. On a more serious note the idea of reparations for slavery is a complete non-starter, it would have been the right thing to do in the years after the Civil War but that ship has long since sailed (and I, being part Irish, would have a major objection for reasons that should be really obvious). I have no intention of paying for something for which I bear no responsibility and which no one who actually experienced it is alive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't think Sanders or the POTUS are panacea to the problems in the US, but Sanders has a strong union background. That said I can understand how someone who isn't as socialistic/social democratic as some others on this wiki find his positions too radical. I disagree that his college plan would be a bad idea as other countries are already providing college tuition for free (Scotland comes to mind), but he has yet to release such a plan. The specific veteran bill I was referring did not pass and was only a spending bill; his reluctance to clean out bad bureaucracy is why I brought up his stance on the Chicago mayor and Wisconsin governor, but failed to criticize the CPD or WI state EPA which would be the only way to actually reform those institutions. Also I support reparations not just for slavery because economic racism didn't end after the civil war and has still continues today. Now maybe I shouldn't be so hardline about the type of reparations, but there needs to be specific programs for African Americans, Native Americans, and LAtino Americas in order to actually create a stronger middle class within those communities.--Owlman (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Just so everyone here knows, people in r/politics have been finding a lot of fake Sanders supporters who were intentionally posting ridiculous comments in order to make his supporters look bad. Most of them are actually Donald Trump supporters, but a small few of them have actually tried to pretend to be both Sanders and Clinton supporters at different times in order to make both sides hate each other.
From what I've seen as someone who has lurked around places where a lot of his other real supporters actually organize, they're a lot more rational than the fake supporters paint them out to be. Eoan (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to The Blade of the Northern Lights:

The attraction to Sanders and his policies is the direct result of a large portion of the American population becoming disenfranchised with the existing socio-economic elites after the economic recession in 2009. They will turn to a condidate who appears to or does support left-wing policies designed to shift the economic system away from the mindless free-market system and towards a more democratic needs-based economy.

On his statements: with regard to him saying "Wall Street's business model is fraud", I view this as an accurate statement of the facts we know. In the subprime mortgage crisis, banks gave massive loans (>$300,000) to lower-income families to buy houses that cost far less than the loan (<$200,000), and charged very high interest rates for these loans. Then, when the people couldn't pay the loan back due to how much the payment increased, their houses were literally swept out from under them, whilst the banks collected their multi-billion-dollar checks from the government. They were selling someone something that they claim will be no big deal and easily payed-for, but was actually a debt trap designed to suck out all of their money from their bank account and their assets. This is fraud, and it was practiced by well over 50% of the largest banks.

On the VA Bill: I thought it was pretty good that Sanders hammered out that deal considering the circumstances. When the other side's position is that the program should be destroyed, getting 27 new hospitals built in the coming years is not bad, as it will free up backlogs in existing hospitals. I know someone who regularly attends VA hospitals, and they have never had any major issues with their care there. The "VA crisis" is largely exaggerated by the media, who could just as easily be spending time talking about insurance companies whose policy it is to deny a certain quota of claims, but for some reason they don't cover that story. I also largely agree with you on reparations and Sanders' position on that topic. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the VA that has come up is the astonishing amount of bureaucratic wrangling that they put even the most minor issues through, and my understanding is that this made it more difficult still to deal with (the specific matter at hand was the endoscope cleaning, which they weren't doing right and, when told so, put them through a 9 month rigmarole of explaining and documenting the change instead of just doing the procedure they were being told to do in the first place). Their care seems to be good, and Sanders does deserve credit for the parts of the bill you describe above. As to Wall Street, all you say above seems to check out from what I've read; I guess my only issue is one of semantics, just labeling it "fraud" seems simplistic. I don't actually despise the guy, which my comment above would have you think, he just doesn't resonate the same way. I grew up in a very upper middle class background, so I haven't had some of the economic hardships most people have, but I get my hackles up when I hear that I've had "the easy life" because there are plenty of other things working against me. I guess I see the people in my demographic getting so hung up on the race/class/gender part of things, which Sanders plays very well to and has the credentials to back it up, lose sight of how many other things influence inequality and don't fully understand what they support. I don't claim to be exempt from all the previous, but I at least try by doing a lot of reading and watching Charlie Rose (which really needs to be a bluelink) and following up on his guests; I don't see a lot of other people my age doing anything similar, which is probably good to a degree (my social life leaves plenty to be desired) but which leaves me concerned about how much they really get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"but I get my hackles up when I hear that I've had 'the easy life. because there are plenty of other things working against me." Now imagine that you've not only had all those things working against you, but also the things you do not have, because of your upper-class wealth and status.---Mona- (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's where I get lost, partially because empathy isn't hard wired into my brain (autism can be a hell of a pain) and partially because, when in groups purported to be diverse, however well-intentioned that question was asked it almost always goes from there to "Look how much I was oppressed" and "You don't know pain and hardship". To me it's unanswerable beyond generalities, which of course means readily acknowledging that I had a lot go right for me and being very clear that, no matter how many points I lose in the game of identity politics, I'm quite unashamed to point out the many very real issues I have to deal with every day and how difficult they are for me. Take it for what you will, the neurons in my brains being badly miswired certainly can lead me to some out there conclusions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Honest, to-the-point questions here: Did you have to take out a loan to go to college? Did you have trouble paying it off? Did a bank or other company screw you over a large amount of money? Was your house ever foreclosed on? Did you ever get arrested go to prison for unjust reasons? I'm asking this because the people who support Sanders have had to deal with some of the above situations, and that explains their support for him and his policies. It can be hard to understand the struggle many people have had to go through over the past decade if you haven't gotten to know some poor people.
Most of the reason people hate the rich is because of what few indirect experiences they have had with them. Everything is relative. You have had the good life compared to a poor black teen who got jailed for 2 years for marijuana possession, or a family who had their house foreclosed on during the crisis and is now living under a bridge. Sure, you have to deal with issues and hardships every day, but what some of the poorer people you've heard were saying is that you've had it easy relative to them. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I do have student loans, they're not especially onerous; the other answers are no. Much of it is no doubt my background, probably most of it, but a good chunk are because I made smarter decisions as well; unlike many people I know I didn't feel the need to go someplace that cost 50k/year for school, though I theoretically could have, so I decided to get a comparable education someplace much cheaper. (Whils I wish everyone could go to college for free there are too many things that don't make it seem realistic unless a lot more people start pursuing options like trade schools; emphasizing said options seems to be the much better idea to me) The answer, I suppose, is that it's both; even though (to use one example) I clearly had a much better time of it than one person I knew, however much his background influenced his decisions he's ultimately the one who made the decision to physically lift the meth pipe up to his mouth, start to smoke it, and then break into abandoned buildings. Exactly how much of it is one vs. the other is impossible to say, where I get agitated is when people say it's all because they did/didn't have certain advantages that they turned out as they did. And that's the lack of nuance I see, I wish I could have expressed it this well the first time. That said, I do better understand the mentality of Sanders supporters now and I'll bear it it mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"he's ultimately the one who made the decision to physically lift the meth pipe up to his mouth" Ask almost any criminal defense lawyer who is easier to defend, who is going to get the better deal on the same crime: A young black person from a lower-class neighborhood, or an upper-middle class white kid from the burbs? For one thing, the former is going to have a public defender who has a case load that makes it impossible to do right by all his/her clients, and almost no resources for experts and investigators. For another, the latter will be able to pay for a private lawyer with an established record of "getting people off" and who has a file of the best expert witnesses money can buy. Of course it's been demonstrated many times that white kids use illicit drugs at the same rate as black kids (tho they choice of the harder drugs tends to differ). But the likelihood of the white kid ever being charged in the first instance is far less than the black kid's.---Mona- (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A millennial explains Bernie mania[edit]

Here. And it makes complete sense. I'm a baby boomer, in the middle of that generation. Going to college for me in the 80s was difficult and required taking out loans. Law school was worse; the debt was awful. Just as I graduated the market for new lawyers bottomed out. I was very fortunate to have gone to an elite enough school, and do sufficiently well, that I still got jobs that could barely manage the debt burden. That's about 25% of my graduating class in '94. Many just sank.

Generation X had it worse (that's who I went to law school with, as an older, "non-traditional" student.) But the millennials are really fucked over. Unless they come from the upper-middle class or better. Hence, their Bernie mania.---Mona- (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Is Making Sense (Really)[edit]

No, really.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

While she does make a correct point in that money plays much too large a role in American politics, she doesn't offer any solutions to that (as the author points out) and she, at least tacitly, endorses the Citizens United Court ruling as a benefactor of super pac money, making her a hypocrite, at best. At the end of the day, it seems like more incoherent populism.Petey Plane (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, believe me, Jon Schwarz is not remotely a Palin supporter. (And CU isn't the actual problem people think it is. There's a reason the ACLU supported the result in that case.)---Mona- (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that CU was more than a simple ruling on corporate personhood and that the attempt to remove corporate personhood entirely would be disastrous, I personally side with the ACLU 'defectors' who disagree with their stance on campaign finance reform in Buckley v. Valeo. To clarify I support Steven's dissent in CU.--Owlman (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Making sense on one point doesn't mean that everything she says makes sense. Alex Jones can point out the same thing, but it doesn't mean time traveling clockwork elves are real (which was a really wacky show). Nor does it mean that, as the author seems to point out, that since Donald is largely self funded he is beholden to the people. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I assure you, Jon Schwarz does not think, nor does he imply, that Donald Trump is "beholden to the people."---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
O...kay. I will take your opinion under advisement. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Palin, before people jump in with the headlines[edit]

Her son punched his girlfriend and chased her with a rifle. Sarah Palin said that the problem is that Trump's not president (in a much more insane way than I'm making it sound). Headlines are saying she blamed Obama, with minimal body content supporting this (because she could have been implying Obama was at fault). Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 00:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I literally just finished reading about that. Her defense of him was nothing I wouldn't expect.--Owlman (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say she's a fascist, but she's not really bright enough to have any well-thought out ideology.---Mona- (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
She's a political cheerleader for the far right. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
She actually has very little thought-out political opinion: mainly because it requires that one can think. She instead parrots talking points; that's why she was a libertarian tea-partier 8 years ago and a fascist-supporter today. The ideological movement that happened there was not the result of long years of pondering and thought; instead it was a simple emotional choice based on the sound and feel of a candidate. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
she's nothing more than an empty vessel full of right-wing media talking points. Blaming Obama for her son's violence may be the ultimate example of that.Petey Plane (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
John McCain must be so proud. [snort]---Mona- (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give this crazy guy a full page.[edit]

http://www.jesuswasnotajew.org/yahweh-s-flat-earth.html https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt-vBXkrpkaz2FyOVkHVwVg/videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNn3SPHKb6I He also got on the mainstream media. You can see him on fox in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyFRsBz7rPg He is a off his rocker pseudo pastor. He does not preach the gospel. I can't describe how he acts you will need to see him for yourself.

Please sign your signature by using four tildes like so ~~~~,thanks.'Legionwhat do you want from me 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops sorry. (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This kook may be worthy of his own page. Added to the to do list. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why Trump[edit]

This. Trump is a genius at tapping into what Middle America actually wants, as Samuel Francis -- paleo-con and racist -- told Pat Buchanan 20 years ago. The country just wasn't ready yet, and Buchanan was the wrong man. Middle America wants white, Christian nationalism. Not conservatism.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the two have a LOT of overlap. Enough that the lines of definition are constantly blurred. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
They're not that blurred. The GOP, beginning with Reagan, took Southern Democrats. White, racist, Southern Democrats. Based on God, Country, Abortion, and The Dread Gays, that part of the electorate stayed with the GOP for several decades. But they are populists; they want their Social Security, their unions, and they don't like the debt peonage that college now entails for them. They were willing to put their economic issues aside for the pandering to social conservatism, and fear of the horrid commies -- now the Islamic Menace. They want nationalism, but not fiscal conservatism. Trump gives them that package.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That ^^^^ ħumanUser talk:Human 16:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. I would argue that's a subset of religious conservatism, because I don't know how concerned religion is with finances and budgets. That specific reactionary bent of conservatism would be general conservatism, but it quite often comes hand in hand with religious conservatism, and is usually a complete package. I get what you mean with Trump mostly focusing on appealing to religious conservatism, though has Trump even given any fiscal policies yet? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Read the article I link to in this section. Trump talks economic populism. He doesn't get into specifics. He doesn't have to.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Trump is nothing if not a political genius. He has cultivated an image as an outsider and misunderstood magnate during the 2012 campaign by questioning Obama's legitimacy to the throne. Then he made his run. Now he has succeeded in capturing the Republican nomination for president, and he stands a good chance of winning the presidency. This is all because Americans are dumb and emotional and worship mean assholes that sound cool: the result of decades of war propaganda, action movies, and silly TV shows. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Trump is not a genius. He's just a blowhard asshole who coincidentally happens to be what a lot of blowhard asshole Americans are looking for in a leader, since we all want someone like us to be president. He makes too many mistakes and doesn't listen to enough advice to qualify as a political genius, which is a good thing. But his bluster appeals to some. Weorthe (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No. No. Trump is a blowhard. But he is also a genius. In the same sense Huey Long or Hitler were.---Mona- (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll see how much of a genius he seems once all this is over and his precious brand has become synonymous with the worst of right wing vitriol. Vulpius (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Where you see genius, I see "being in a position to assert the fascist ideology that most people paying attention know republicans want". Anyone who actually holds elected office will have a record concordant with enough centrism to win public office. Either that or a record of complete policy failure a la scott walker. As a "Washington Outsider" who already has enough fame and money to keep a public face, all he says to do is say what the right wants to hear. Carly Fiorina could have done it too, but didn't. The only "genius" required is the same genius any actor has. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Myth of the Christian West[edit]

I opened a can of worms. I suspect there are already some similar takes somewhere here on the RationalWiki, but was unable to find them. I guess it's missional, and at least for the European folk of some relevance. The "USA is a Christian Nation" nonsense is in some sense a smaller subset of this. Americans have it rather easy, since the settlers came as self-identifying Christians. But it's still relevant there, too, since what does it exactly mean to be "Christian" in the 17th century, and how much "Christian" was actually in the culture. And was the Christian contribution a good thing? Have a look at the article in the making and fire away your general ideas / opinions ABOUT the article idea here. Stuff that's more directly relevant to improve the article should go to its talk page. Thanks a lot, any feedback is appreciated (also if you think this article is useless, since it would save me some time). ~ Aneris 02:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please feel free to edit this article also directly if you have some ideas. Thankx! ~ Aneris 03:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The recent RW moderator elections[edit]

In the past 12 hours or so, comments have been made across a couple of different user talk pages that there was back-door activity by at least one existing moderator which sought to prevent the election of a particular editor as a moderator in the recent by-election. See here and here. If this was the case, then it seems distasteful at the very least that this was done privately rather than via the page set up specifically for campaigning. If these allegations are not true then they should be knocked on the head right away.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly what happened. A user sought to have Carpetsmoker banned before he might -- horrors! -- win the mod election. That he might win that position was deemed unthinkable. We can know that at least one mod didn't agree, because it did not happen, CS was not banned. Yesterday and today, that same user, together with a mean-spirited crank user, raised the same issue of Carpetsmoker's alleged perfidy. I had not then known about the campaign to ban him. His ill-advised behavior elsewhere makes more sense in light of of all that. Really, this wiki is a goddam sewer. We didn't need the assholes at Kiwi Farms to destroy us; we've become very good at doing it to ourselves. It simply entertains them.---Mona- (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I really do hope you have proof of these accusations. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What accusations? That's what happened.---Mona- (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. So that implies that the comments posted by CS here about moderator complicity are are not correct? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have knowledge of that. What I know is that the mods were lobbied to have CS banned. The extent of any particular mod engaging in further emails I don't know about, except that a vote was taken presumably by that route. As I said elsewhere today, sunlight is the best disinfectant and I hope this is all brought out in the open. Or maybe I won't be here long enough to care. My disgust and weariness of all this bullshit is pretty advanced. Paravant's gone, Goonie, now CS. And who hears from PacWalker any more? Almost everyone signing up new are vandals and trolls. CS's actual sin was to lead the charge to rein in Ryu. (And I have a stalker now who thinks I'm the source of all evil because of the community vote to perma-bin Avenger, which I single-handedly brought about, don't you know?) It may be a sign of mental instability to remain with all this never-ending drama and shite.---Mona- (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the only post I'll make here, so take what I say or not but that's all you can do. Kitsunelaine did lobby the moderators, including myself, to go after CS. We decided that, while what he'd done was concerning, we weren't going to interfere. NoiseBot (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the infoirmation. I read all the KF material comaplained about. It would not have been my choice, but he defended the propriety of the Arisboch sanction, if not the duration. He made it clear that that behavior was unacceptable. He didn't encourage it.---Mona- (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not contact you directly. My only direct correspondences were with Fuzzy, Goonie and David. And that was because I felt that the situation was sensitive enough to warrant a private conversation.
My biggest concerns were depriving the ongoing site deterioration of oxygen, something which I believe everyone appreciated, even those that hold me in great disdain. To this end, I did my work as a good citizen of this site. I reported a lot of incidents to make sure they were swiftly handled before they caused drama. I did not directly interfere, because our stalkers were targeting me, and anyone who dared express sympathy towards my situation.
If I had done anything, it would put myself and others at risk. This is why I did not coop Carpetsmoker at that time. This is why I sought council with the moderators. Because it was the only thing I could even do. It was the only responsible action I could have taken, because the other one was doing absolutley nothing. As this site and it's users were still being put at risk, this did not sit well with me.
So I resolved to work with the moderators behind the scenes to try and make sure this situation came out with the least damage possible, which I felt like I was in a unique position to do with my closeness to the issue, and the things I had to monitor for my own safety.
As such, I do not appreciate that someone aired this publicly. It fuels the tinfoil hatters, and it creates drama. What has passed is a betrayal of my trust and confidence.
Finally, I do not understand how any reasonable person could have an issue with my actions. They were situational. They were things I would have done myself in full view of everyone if doing so did not put people at risk. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not engaging Kistunlaine on her rants about CS. He's no longer here to defend himself. The process is what matters. Or shall I say, the "process."---Mona- (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
So you're gonna drop the shit you're saying and run, then? Honey, Carpetsmoker isn't the one who pushed this issue. You did. Back your shit up or take it out. Until then, you have no argument. You have no right to pursue the argument, because it relies on calling what I did a bad thing, and it relies on suggesting things that are patently untrue about the manner of which my conduct was carried out. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Say what you want but this place is a lot less pleasant since you and your buddy showed up. Half of that problem's been solved, now we're just waiting on the other half. – Sarah (HH) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Go away. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Social justice oy oy! They destroy pretty much every community they enter with their manipulative shenanigans and power-plays, especially tribalism. Some poeple are just too gullible or refuse to look at the path this movement leaves behind. As everyone with some experience knows, you can only sit back and enjoy the Lulz. Do not engage (or only for fun). /popcorn. ~ Aneris 05:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Aneris, if there is a hell, you and Kitsu should be locked in a room together for all eternity. You both have much more in common than you know.---Mona- (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

She likes foxes? I agree. We are probably also rather quick witted in comparison to your more glacial speed of reasoning. :D ~ Aneris 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, how dare I protect myself and my off-site friends from being targeted by ruthless stalkers and try to resolve the situation at the same time. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't need to "protect yourself" from Carpetsmoker. He did nothing to warrant a ban. I read it. He did not do what Arisboch did. He's a good guy, and you and that foul sidekick who restarted all this again chased him out.---Mona- (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No he fucking isn't. He got in bed with these assholes, he furthered their goals on this site, and has made huge leaps in making the situation worse whenever he fucking did anything relating to it. He is a cause for a lot of this shit, and he enables it. He is a foul creature, incapable of recognising that the words on screen are being typed by actual, real people on the other end, unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions, only ever able to keep digging, and digging, and digging, and digging, and dragging everyone else down with him. He needed to go. He was invested in keeping the drama going for as long as fucking possible because he gets off on it. And the longer the drama goes, the longer you, me, and everyone affected by this is at risk. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well good for you. You wanted him gone, and now he is. He explicitly told them the doxing was wrong, and explicitly supported that Arisboch be banned. He made it clear he opposed Arisboch's behavior. CS did nothing wrong. You cost us a good editor. You are an unreasonable person who chases out a guy like CS while demanding that an insufferable jerk like Ryu be pampered and placated by everyone else; we somehow failed by not catering to whatever his personality disorder might be. You are the perfect caricature of this "SJW" freak the Aneris contingent rants about. It's just that it's not a big cabal. It's a perverse strain -- a limited one -- of thinking that infects a sub-set on the left. And now I'm getting into bed with my novel.---Mona- (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You learned about two, then you learn about another few, and another few, and you do this for some time and you get the idea that it's not just one or two persons and patterns begin to emerge. Like collusion and manipulation behind people's backs. Everything starts with one example. For the record, I still don't dislike you, and am generally slow to hold grudges against anyone. You are just remarkably ... slow, but that Nugent thing, that really pisses me off. ~ Aneris 05:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Honey, when you say "The only thing wrong with places like Kiwi Farms is that they dox people", like Carpetsmoker did, and when you hang around subreddits dedicated to mocking others, you're admitting you get off on the suffering and stalking of others. When you concern troll for these obsessive stalkers, you're enabling them to continue. Carpetsmoker was not a good man. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's my idea: everyone in this post calm the fuck down and shut up for a day. Seriously, it the same few pains in the arse going all over the Wiki with the same shite over and over again. Nobody cares. Calm the fuck down and go do something else for a day or two. On behalf of the rest of the Wiki, thanks in advance. Old guard (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If nobody cares as you claim, I would not have started this discussion. I definitely care and that's why I asked for clarification. Your option is course not to read any of it. Thanks in advance.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
"Nobody cares" That I know to be false.---Mona- (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of us did care about the original post and accusations of moderator abuse. But, since they seem to be nothing but foil hat (see NoiseBot's comment), the only people who give a damn are Mona, Kitsune, and Wiganpier, and not even about the original subject anymore. Rest assured, nobody else gives a horses arse. I defy you to prove me wrong. Old guard (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
"Rest assured, nobody else gives a horses arse." Rest assured, that is also false. Not everyone who gives a horse's arse, and then some, is commenting on it at the wiki. There is this thing called email.---Mona- (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Good, then take this back to your email conversations and leave the rest of the Wiki alone with this same dramafest that's going and gone absolutely nowhere. Goodness, my children don't even fight this much or this long! Old guard (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Mona, it's unclear what you want to achieve here when you start out by condemning offsite lobbying by email & then end by endorsing it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The presumption that Kitsunelaine did anything wrong is frankly inane. The mods were tipped off by email to Arisboch (who'd also put himself in for the mod election) doxxing on kiwifarms and kicked his ass off. Carpetsmoker didn't dox people, though his judgement was exceedingly poor - literally recruiting RW editors in the Ryulong doxing thread.
That said, the mods still aren't your mother and aren't looking for work. It better be something that seriously isn't onsite material (like that) not to argue with the rest of the mob - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
David this is a bald-faced lie and you know it. Why are you so blatantly lying about departed editors? At no point did Arisboch dox anybody on the Kiwi Farms. Ever. At no point did carpetsmoker 'literally recruit RW editors'. Ever. I challenge you to present a single shred of evidence to back up your lies. Stop lying, you lying liar. TruthTellah (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I am quite curious as to why a user would register and make this as their first edit. --JorisEnter (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone else is. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm probably just one of those gamergate concern-trolling sealions. Feel free to ban me or w/e as soon as David proves he wasn't maliciously lying about your departed editors. Or just ban me regardless, and tacitly admit you all know he's doing it and don't care. Up to you. TruthTellah (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
1. Arisboch did not dox anyone. He merely supported those who were doxing, especially with regard to me. 2. Carpetsmoker explicitly rejected the doxing to their faces, and defended the ban on Arisboch, save for the duration. 3. I did discuss the Arisboch situation by email. I was also alerted to it by that means. But it was the mods who told me about the plans to ban Arisboch; I did not lobby for it. 4. I would never have lobbied the mods with a hysterical email about how it is critical to ban Carpetsmoker because, omigod, what if he's elected mod!1!1! He will "burn the site down." (Direct quote.) 5. In the past several days, when all had finally been quiet on this front, Kitsunlaine and Castaigne began an on-site campaign to shriek at Carpetsmoker and suggest he be banned. CS was posting at a site where one member of the doxing site participates, and I did find this disturbing. 6. It was then brought to my attention that Kitsunlaine had been working behind the scenes to get CS banned, and he knew it had something to do with the mod election. 7. That caused me to make sense of CS's anger and resentment and desire to complain about Kistulaine -- and her partner in character assassination, the rabid Castaigne -- at another site. 8. After enough abuse from Kitsu and Castaigne, Carpetsmoker decided he'd had enough and has quit. 9. While both Kistulaine and Ryu, along with myself, have been "victims" of these doxing harassers, the trouble at this site also arises from the behavior of the former two, who are profoundly unreasonable. Kitsu's screeds about CS are simply unhinged. 10. Paravant has left. Goonie as well. Carpetsmoker just did. Some won't run for mod, either because of all the bullshit users, or because they fear doxing, or both. The new sign-ups are almost all trolls or vandals. Others have discussed with me that they are also strongly considering departing, as am I.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. I've never asked that Carpetsmoker be banned. Never. I don't know where you get that from. I want Carpetsmoker to stay, man up, and admit that he was completely wrong in his conclusions. Instead, he prefers to flee and try to make weaselly excuses. Welp, hope he enjoys his time elsewhere.
  2. Who gives a damn what an email said? I believe in freedom of speech; if people want to lobby via back channel - something I do not do, I should point out - or publicly, then they are free to use whatever invective is most satisfying. That's how free speech works, Mona; not everything is said according to what standards you believe should be iron-clad.
  3. I'm getting a strong vibe of "How dare people not be obedient to my dictates and desires!" out of this. If people want to leave? They are free to do so. This is not a Communist gulag. This is not Auschwitz. To paraphrase Dracula, "Welcome to the wiki! Enter or leave freely and of your own free will!"
  4. If you don't like what I'm doing, you are free to coop me and have me permabanned. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You just lost the argument.---Mona- (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's a nonsequitur. I will note that you had nothing of substance to respond with. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A person invested in forcing this site to deal with the worst sort of trolls, partially responsible for the need to have this election in the first place, would burn this site to the ground if he got a position, yes. At the very least he would be the Chris Christie of the moderators, walling them and undermining them at every opportunity, and shutting down bridges in New Jersey. I love that you have to reach to the absolute bottom of the barrel-- private conversations expressed in the confidence that they would remain private-- to continue your harassment campaign against me for having the gall to not stand for the way Carpetsmoker has been behaving. I also like your suggestion that I have not, somehow, tried to stay away from these topics and issues ever since things calmed down. No, its Carpetsmoker who's been poking them with a burning iron rod, not me. I just got sick of it. What is your end-game here, Mona? To try and force me away from the site for expressing sensitive concerns to the moderators in a time of need? Seek some sort of vigilante justice on the behalf of Careptsmoker? Burn me on the stake for the crime of worrying about an editor who has sought to make the situation worse at every turn? Hell, Mona, at least my concerns about Carpetsmoker were legitimate. You're just upset that your senpai got his ass handed to him in a way he couldn't actually refute (And by that I mean the talk page row that caused him to seek solace with our friendly stalkers.) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This will be my final post in this current debate. Mona. And I'm being seirous here. Start a coop case or get out. I've not got the time, patience, or energy to deal with your shit anymore, and I doubt anyone else does either. If you think a great miscarriage of justice has been preformed, use the tools at your disposal to resolve it. Screaming in the Saloon Bar will accomplish nothing. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This would not appear to be coop case material. Also, I did not start this thread. A discussion of how good users get bullied and/or chased out of here was overdue. The secrecy stank.---Mona- (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Mod confidentiality with serious emailed concerns[edit]

I have dropped a note to the other current mods that emails forwarded as serious concerns should be treated as confidential, and not, e.g., cut'n'pasted around - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? We had a discussion here about the confidentiality of emails and I was told that RW emails have never been considered private. This shocked me, but that's what was said.---Mona- (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop being inane - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, no, nothing inane. Check the archives. That's what was said.---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not exactly what was said. Plus it was a discussion about sharing emails publicly (on-wiki) not about sharing them privately with other people. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I hardly see how sharing an email with other people (which we do not know even happened; emails can be merely quoted) is "worse" than sharing them publicly. Especially when it pertains directly to the editor told of the quote. Are you advocating that mods should be entertaining banning people in private without either public notice, or even notice to the editor? Is that the policy here now?---Mona- (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Look at all the accusations of conspiracy & intrigue flying around on the page. Can you see why sharing stuff around by email while keeping it offsite turned out to be bad idea? No, I don't advocate that site business be resolved offline, for the same reasons. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Secret bannings from "private" emails[edit]

David, this is quite disturbing. Are you taking the position that: When a User A is secretly lobbying mods for the banning of User B (a long-time member in good standing), a mod(s) who thinks User B -- whose banning has been sought -- the mod(s) commits a wrong by letting User B know of this? And also when a secret vote is undertaken? Carpetsmoker User B has no right to know all this?---Mona- (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely what happened with Arisboch - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I never lobbied any mod to ban Arisboch; I was told by a mod that that was going to happen. What he did was especially egregious, but Carpetsmoker did not do that. This appears to demonstrate the lesson of why power should never, even for what seems like pressing reasons, be allowed to operate in secret. I had supported it in the first instance, and was clearly wrong to have done so -- it was immediately abused.---Mona- (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


So... Assuming that people agree that it's a worthy topic for an article, this weekend I'll pump out an article on reparations. What does it need to cover?

So far:

What's the background?
  1. Slave trade
  2. Civil war
Will it work?
Who should pay?
  1. European empires
  2. Colonists
  3. The US
  4. Brazil at 10x the US (since 10x as many slaves went there)
  5. African warlords
Who should receive?
  1. Mixed race?
  2. Africans?
  3. African Americans?
How much?
  1. 40 acres & mule
  2. $100,000
  3. minus inheritance taxes

05:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It should probably include past reparations examples like those given to Japanese Americans and to Jews and Roma victims of the Holocaust. These examples should be put under direct and indirect reparations. It could also include, though this would be more controversial, Native American tribal sovereignty and tribal casinos.--Owlman (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Read what you can on the Caribbean reparations initiative that Hilary Beckles is heading up -- it's the closest thing to an articulated political/legal/economic plan that there is right now. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I know one thing, and that's that no black person is going to want 40 acres and a god damn mule. 100k? Maybe'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The best way to pay is to make sure that those of slave heritage have the chance of a good education, decent minimum wage, pensions, access to healthcare, and good social housing if needed - now and in the future. Throwing money at the present generation will do nothing for future generations if it is not used wisely. Not all African-Americans were forced immigrants, there are many who have arrived quite recently so trying to decide who should benefit is doomed to failure - basically everyone should be given these rights as part of living in an advanced civilised society. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What they said. With all the talk of the Powerball recently, there's a reason why some 70% of people who receive a great monetary windfall end up burning through it within the next several years (according to the NEFE). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should probably focus on the problems underprivileged people face today than try to absolve some sort of racial guilt for things that happened centuries before our births. Races aren't people, and the color of someone's skin doesn't entitle them to anything that they aren't already entitled to as a human being.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Now hold on, Cossacks burned down my Great Great Grandpa's alcohol warehouse that I've never seen nor really care too much about. I demand reparations from Putin if it means free money. CorruptUser (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I come from Wales and I've always felt bitter about the way that the Anglo Saxons came to Great Britain and just pushed the Celts into Wales and Scotland and carried out ethnic cleansing in respect of the remainder. Wales and Scotland clearly need compensation for this stolen land.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The real lesson is, if you are going to commit crimes against humanity, don't half ass it; exterminate anyone that could make a claim against you. CorruptUser (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You are being hyperbolic. You act as if the US cured their racial injustices after the Civil War. Jim Crow destroyed the possibility of African American prosperity and when they left in order to live in the supposedly tolerant North during the Great migration they were denied jobs and slammed into ghettos. Housing discrimination, police brutality, white flight, racial pay gap, and gentrification still continues to this day. To give reparations to African American, and not just African Americans, you need social programs constructed specifically for African Americans in order to create a more equal society. Just because the programs Sanders proposes accidentally benefits people of color more doesn't mean they are reparations. Affirmative action is a good example of a social program specifically created in order to increase opportunity's to disadvantaged minorities. Also the English gave Wales and Scotland autonomy after years of English domination over those societies and Cornwall itself wants autonomy for the same reason; those are examples of reparations in some form.--Owlman (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Giving someone freedom is less "healing" and more "removing the knife" after you stab the person. Anyway, I'll start working on a preliminary article soon. CorruptUser (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mod unilaterally overturns community decision[edit]

This happened, the anonymous decision of apparently a single mod, at a time when there were only two -- just before the last elections. Is it now the case at this wiki that community decisions may be unilaterally overruled by a single, anonymous mod, or even more than one?

Especially the mods, all of them, should answer this inquiry.---Mona- (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I have placed Ryulong back in the vandal bin as per community consensus. Whoever was the mod that made this decision should be ashamed of themself. Tielec01 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Jesus wept, you could not make this stuff up. The outcome of a tortured and very long coop case is just undone quietly and unilaterally by a mod and then the name is redacted? And thank you Tielec for dealing with that. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Does the community not have a right to an explanation, as well as to know which mod did that? And yes, Tielec, thank you for taking whatever risk may be entailed in that action.---Mona- (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say I have a good idea of who it could be. Regardless I may have been too quick to say there wasn't a cabal (or at least overly powerful, self serving mods) within rationalwiki.--Owlman (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Owlman, this has long been apparent. Tho I'd say singular. For some time I've been arguing that the GGers are generally vile and awful. But two things can be true at the same time: I've also been saying not all anti-GG here are reasonable people who play well, or fairly, with others.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I struck the name unnecessarily in a series of necessary strikes (personal information etc.). The name is "SecretAgentoftheMods". Said acct. is deactive & similar patrolling appears unlikely. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why bother striking out that username? It seems to me that it's as anonymous to have that account in the logs versus a redacted username. Tielec01 (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
FCP, then you're the mod who reversed that particular binning?! If so, why?---Mona- (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding: I do have knowledge of why that anonymous account was created in the first instance and know it was not done for any nefarious reason. For the one, specific use it was designed for it made some sense, at least to me. But that particular deployment of the account struck me as wholly unjustified. It was not and is not my intention to suggest the account per se testifies to wrongdoing. Merely this particular use, which merits a justification for the action itself.---Mona- (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The fuck is going on here? Removing evidence is straight-up CP behavior. In my mind that disqualifies someone from holding a mod position on this wiki. And, if I'm reading this correctly, in addition to the mods there is a secret mod account? That also seems to go against the spirit of this wiki and quite bothers me. I feel like I'm, quite recently, seeing a dark side to this wiki that I don't much like. Maybe I wasn't aware of it before, but it certainly me less confident in the moral superiority of this wiki compared to Conservapedia. AyzmoCheers 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ayzymo, that account was created for one, very unusual and specific situation for an issue that has been dealt with. There was a reason it was highly advisable not to have any specific mod identified with that. But that sui generis matter is not an issue in this case. Moreover, this action -- the specific one I link to above -- should not have been undertaken by any mod, anonymously or not. The anonymity is not the primary problem here: It is whether a mod may unilaterally overrule the community.---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Both are issues as I see it. A wiki should be transparent. Actions, and the authors of those actions should be known, except in extreme circumstances. We have, historically frowned upon oversighting on Conservapedia and other burning of the evidence. Hypocrisy on that should not be tolerated just because we like who did it. But acting against the consensus is another issue. Like transparency, it has limitations, but you are right that it is an issue here. AyzmoCheers 19:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"except in extreme circumstances." That was the case. The reason for it is not unrelated to the resignation of a good mod. I felt that since we elect mods in part for their judgment it was safe to let them have an "emergency power." But I was clearly quite wrong. All I can or should say is that the issue involved real life harassment of people here, in my case involving my family.---Mona- (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That's an extreme circumstance and I understand that. That account should have been a one-use thing and then removed from existence once the work was completed. No mod should have access to anonymity during the regular operation of this wiki. AyzmoCheers 19:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyone unfamiliar with the general situation around that account should at least have a look at User talk:SecretAgentoftheMods, to avoid rehashing here what has already been said. Keep the discussion here about the specific incident.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't do that parole. I did do that strike, though. TLDR: SAOTM is dead, and the issue it dealt with is dead. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of mods, where are they?[edit]

We just elected another four (after two resignations) and I believe we now have six. Two have been somewhat active. Where are the rest? There is a reason the community determined we needed more mods active to control various issues arising at this wiki.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an anarchic mobocracy, not Wikipedia's autocracy. The mods are here to rule with an extremely light hand, not actively interrogate and walk around like Gestapo units. Learn to relax, please. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The community voted to increase the number of mods because the community felt they were needed -- the community wanted even more of them than I had advocated. A light hand is not coterminous with disappeared hand.---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
And what do you want them to do, specifically?
I've seen nothing since the election that's really mod-actionable. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe you.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Answering the statement, but not the question? That's a bit backward, madam. :) --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok.---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Digression: "A wiki should be transparent."[edit]

Actually, no. A wiki is just a platform for collaboration in writing text. There are wiki use-cases where transparency is either unneeded or actively counter-productive. As a public website built from public contributions with a moderation team, it needs transparency. It's easy to mix the two when the most recognisable example of the former is also the latter. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

Having read through this & the moderator election section above, my observations are:

  • All this talk of lobbying, campaigns, cabals, conspiracies & "a dark side to this wiki" is wildly hyperbolic & not helping the situation. Clearly there are a lot of tensions between certain editors which have been exacerbated by a few poor decisions. I don't see any dark forces at work in any of this.
  • There's been far too much talk of "let the mods decide" lately, and some rather inconsistent positions on this. For example, I see barely any difference between what Mona advocated here ("I strongly feel the matter should be handled by the mods in private back channels") and what she condemns Kitsunelaine for doing in the thread above.
  • Banning editors should be a community decision with very few exceptions. Doxxing is one of the cases where unilateral banning is sometimes done, & legal hazard is another (though that's really the RMF board's area rather than the moderators).
  • The less RW business is dealt with by email the better, though it's reasonable to contact users by email about stuff that it would be unwise to post onsite, like examples of doxxing.
  • Vandal binning Ryulong was not exactly "a community decision" - it was the outcome FCP & Gooniepunk determined from a bitter but not overwhelmingly conclusive Chicken Coop case. Nevertheless it shouldn't have been undone without community consultation.
  • This is all moot because the SecretAgentoftheMods account is defunct & won't be brought back.
  • Moderators have lives too & aren't tied to the site 24/7. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been far too much talk of "let the mods decide" lately, and some rather inconsistent positions on this. For example, I see barely any difference between what Mona advocated here ("I strongly feel the matter should be handled by the mods in private back channels") and what she condemns Kitsunelaine for doing in the thread above. 1. That situation I was referencing pertained to specific behavior that Carpetsmoker did not perform, and 2. Subsequently, and several times now, I have explicitly said that the "emergency power" I advocated in that link was immediately abused, and that I have withdrawn my advocacy. (Having my family targeted probably made me too emotional to reason well in that situation.) 3. I disagree that there was not a community consensus on the Ryu matter. That coop case was as bitter as you describe it, and we hardly need a do-over. The resolution finally occurred and needs to be upheld. 4. This community is going to continue to lose good editors, including good mods, if it continues it's too laissez-faire tolerance for unreasonable and abusive editors. On the Internet, the lowest level of behavior that is tolerated will likely attract the corresponding, lowest level of member. This has been demonstrated repeatedly and is beyond reasonable dispute. (Exhibits would include -- but not be limited to -- the closing of comments sections, such as here.)---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
So what action is it you want us to take? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The first issue is whether the majority finds the status quo tolerable, or whether a majority agrees there is a problem in need of a solution.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If you would ever deign to specifically define the problem instead of being nebulous on the subject, the majority could probably come to a consensus. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there are too many troll editors and vandals here. The solution I advocate is for a popularly-supported crackdown on editors who create their accounts, then immediately attack other editors and vandalize pages. [[4]] is one example of the type of editor I describe. This one didn't attack, but they start vandalizing pages immediately. I think we should be more trigger-happy with regard to vandalbinning and banning. That's the harsh but necessary truth. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember when we drove people away for deleting things from their talk page?[edit]

I remember that! User_talk:JzG, for example.

Did you know Mona is deleting things from her talk page? [5], [6] [7]. Don't dox me, bro! Don't Dox Me Bro (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Socks, socks galore.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You rang? Anyway, there is an "asshole exemption" allowing deletion of inane tendentious pestering. Unique pinion (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yup I have always understand that shit posting, trolling etc can be deleted from a user talk page. As that editor has been stalking Mona in a borderline creepy manner, I don't blame her for deleting.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this was thrashed thru here in the Saloon a month or so ago. The community still allows users to deem that trolls and harassers can't post their shit on other users talk pages.---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that's just a bunch of lies, Wigan. It isn't shit posting. It isn't trolling. It isn't harassment. It isn't stalking. It isn't "borderline creepy". Sorte is an editor of long-standing, his points are persuasive, and it's universally known that Mona is quite thin-skinned and unaccepting of any criticism. Archive? Sure. Delete? No. The both of you are frankly overreacting. I recommend Xanax or similar for that anxiety. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Castaigne, you think doxing is fine but not "appropriate" (whatever that means) at this wiki. You believe the Palestinians and Israelis should do the world a favor and kill each other off. You don't believe in apologies or accepting them. You detest any form of idealism. You treat other editors like shit, and helped chase Carpetsmoker out of here. A few months ago you LANCBed after your insistence on reverting me was rejected by the community, and now here you are, back again. Now that you are done with CS, you can refocus on me. That you would suggest you are in a position to judge whether someone's behavior is or is not creepy is amusing.---Mona- (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes on doxing. Not appropriate means "against the rules". Doxing is perfectly legal, I remind you.
  • If they can't get their shit together and make peace, yes on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
  • Nope. Apologies never correct a situation. They're not results-based.
  • Yes.
  • I treat other editors in accordance to what is merited. Carpetsmoker, he left on his own accord. As I've stated, I wanted him to stay, man up, and admit to his wrongness.
  • Yup.
  • I'm not focusing on you. You're just incredibly prolific, which I assume comes from having a lack of better things to do. The more someone edits, the greater the probability that they will intersect with me. That's not deliberate; just math.
  • I am just as capable of judging as you or Carpetsmoker or anyone else is. Unless you are saying that you are superior to me? That I am to be obedient to you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that your online persona is malignant, rather like many who infest the comments at Youtube. The problem is not you; the problem is that such as you are tolerated here. On the Internet, the lowest forms a site will tolerate, it attracts.---Mona- (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
As there is no difference between how I am online and offline, I am amused by your charge of malignancy. I must be a terribly awful person in real life and everyone around me and in my life has failed to tell me so. Truly, I despair.
(I'm chuckling to myself, as I hope you can tell.)
Well, if you don't think I belong here, I highly recommend that you coop me and have me permabanned, in accordance with procedure. As you are someone with familiarity with legal issues, I'm sure that your procedural mastery will sweep me off the wiki as quickly as a doorstep is cleared by the broom. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Chuckle away. Get a smiley face. Knock yourself out.---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My god, the hatred here from both sides is astounding. Please calm down everyone. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've seen Castaigne, ehmm, inhabiting a reality unrecognizable as valid, from my viewpoint. Sorte Slyngel has not even been here five months, so it can be said, with a straight face, that he is not exactly an "an editor of long-standing". He showed up about the same time Arisboch and Avenger were piling on, and joined what I consider to be the unconstructive parts of that fray. "Citizens, enhance your calm" if you like, or fight for your right... to party. Your choice, IDGAF. SmartFeller (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"He showed up about the same time Arisboch and Avenger were piling on, and joined what I consider to be the unconstructive parts of that fray." Yes. I also know that that is so. Sorte blames me for the results of Avenger's coop case, and so he's following me around to fuck up material I work on-- the articles I edit and my talk page. But Castaigne cannot be reasoned with. He began the latest campaign that ended in Carpetsmoker leaving. He's simply about entertaining himself with malignant behavior (but carefully within the bare-bones rules).---Mona- (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait a second, I started a campaign against Carpetsmoker? Not true at all, Mona. I just commented. I didn't start anything against Carpetsmoker. You seem to be confusing me with Kitsunelaine, who's bearing the chip. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You started at least some of what happened, and you were certainly a major part of it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
And, I regret not sticking up for Carpet more. Nobody should have to put up with 'there are no accidents' mentalities. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 16:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't even present on the wiki when this all started, which was what, first week of January? I was on vacation. I merely dropped in my opinions. And no, what Carpetsmoker did wasn't an accident; he did what he did with full knowledge of the consequences. He just chose to ignore the knowledge in failed hope of something else. If it were an accident, I would call it such. (And who said there are no accidents? Accidents happen all the time.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorte's been here a while longer than that, just as I have. You don't think I always have used the same handle, do you? Why do you assume others do? Bad assumptions, friend. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Some transmogrifications are easier to spot than others. I don't recognize either one of you as having a previous incarnation here. That may just mean you are an accomplished performance artist, assuming a role the way some people put on a different shirt. In both cases, the current persona lacks a certain charm. SmartFeller (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What he↑ said but delete "certain"; insert "any" Pippa (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Clinton campaign adopting literal McCarthyism[edit]

They have a dossier compiled of his “associations with communism.” These are Democrats, which isn't surprising for anyone who understands history. Bobby Kennedy sought and was given a position on Joe McCarthy's witch-hunting staff when that sickness was popular. Machine Democrats will do anything they think works to keep them in power.---Mona- (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

More undocumented crazy people. Please give them full pages.[edit]

This guy was sane when he first started his channel. http://www.paulbegleyprophecy.com The rest of them not so much. https://www.youtube.com/user/BPEarthWatch https://www.youtube.com/user/DAHBOO77 This guy is a big one. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUIwxA-CHccPAaVqrfggAiQ And this one https://www.youtube.com/user/FaceLikeTheSun This guy says he is fighting for freedom when really he is fighting for the right to be a pervert. https://www.youtube.com/user/illfigja/videos

This guy is who made Paul go crazy. http://counciloftime.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgstZdCdlI This guy is trying to make planet x a Christian thing. https://www.youtube.com/user/Planet7X http://www.planet7x.com/ ANTHONY PATCH Search for him he is crazy and hates CERN. (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: www.paulbegleyprophecy.com. That fucking web site design ruined my buzz! --Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooh look, you can get a free hit counter! (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussing and Replying Made Nicer[edit]

I created an experimental template called "re", which could be used for discussions. It also has a nice and easy explanation page that shows how it's used, which you find here.

And this is how the plain and easiest method looks like.


Not sure.

Why not?

I like it, too.

I added a lot of colours already as a test (they might change), so you can call them in plain english, but even with full colour use, things still look neat. However, this can be surgically removed easily, if colours are deemed too much (but please check the template's site before you judge on this). It then looks like this:

Hello, I'm Alice!

Hi Alice, Bob here!

Hey, Alice. It's me, Charly!

Charly! I remember you from this Other Wiki!

Here's the full documentation, again, which also explains what the advantages are with this method compared to the one in use (it's also not any more complicated, I kept it really simple). As always, it's only a suggestion. What do you think? Provided it's "approved", how do we go from here? ~ Aneris 00:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a negative change. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a solution to something that's not really a problem. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
90% of templates are solutions to non-existent problems. The percentage increases the nearer creation date is to the present; remember RW is NOT an encyclopædia. (Also: I wish folk would DOCUMENT the crap they're making & add them to the template list) Pippa (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Users aren't going to go to the trouble of typing all that guff at the beginning of their comment where a few colons would do. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that if there is a way that you could make this the automatic template that is used when one types a colon in front of their text, this would do better than what we have now. I never liked wiki's commenting system, so a color-code system where every post from a user is the same color (me red, Aneris blue, Mona green) for each thread is a good idea. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if users were given a colour when they signed up? Oooh I've had an idea... contribute to the RMF and get a colour! BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"IF" (but still no) Pippa (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are editors required to interact with those who abuse them?[edit]

Given that I've been asked what I "want the mods to do," and since I've been advised that I shouldn't be "nebulous" about what the problem is, I'll explain it some. This wiki has been losing good editors and good mods. Most of the new users are trolls and vandals. I hear by email from editors who won't engage certain topics, or run for mod, because they don't want to be targets. And I emphatically do not mean just targets of those off-site. I mean here.

There are constant coop cases at this site. Very often nothing gets resolved and a user is permitted to continue egregiously unreasonable and abusive behavior. Because it isn't against any RW rules. In short: assholes are permitted to continue to be assholes. They can and do taunt you with "if you think I'm so bad coop me." Knowing it won't result in anything.

Why should this matter?

It matters because at this wiki anyone may edit any page. I'll focus on one particular dynamic that this implicates. Good Faith Editor A cannot simply ignore Abusive Bad Faith Editor B; it's not possible, if B targets the articles at which A is active. B can revert A, or make unreasonable edits B knows will bait A at articles where A is active -- A is required to engage B. B can put A through this over and over, with no end.

B might constantly say: A is mentally ill, evil, intellectually impaired, a rancid writer, suffering from various personality disorders, hated by all (but sometimes A is also a Svengali who is leading the majority astray) and etc. Doesn't matter; A must engage B. B's "reasons" for reverts and edits might be manifest bullshit, but A must address these "reasons" or A is at fault.

This state of affairs gives most of the power to B, the abusive and unreasonable editor. As long as B stops short of actual, full-blown edit-warring, B can do this endlessly to A. Just keep picking different sections of the article, or a different article where A edits -- that's all B needs to do to stay within the current rules and to drain all of A's energy, including energy to deal with B on the talk pages of the articles -- which A must do if A wants to include or preclude B's bad faith edits.

A might be knowledgeable, capable, and have many sources at hand, and also decent at copy-editing. But B can make the experience here so miserable A will finally give it up. And A probably should. It's unhealthy to remain where one is required to deal with abusive individuals.

That's all one dynamic that is wrongly tolerated at this wiki. There are others, but I'll stop for now.---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're proposing a new policy here, it's hard to tell what you want it to look like. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you at this point more concerned with whether others see the same problem, Mona, or do you have something else in mind? ~ Aneris 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, Aneris asked the right question: I am, in fact, "more concerned with whether others see the same problem." And not just between the A and B as I described above. There are other unfortunate dynamics that occur when allowed to. The first order of business is to identify whether others see the problem(s). Obviously, where there is no problem(s), one wastes time proposing solutions.---Mona- (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with two things: not being able or not willing to engage in certain topics, because of the hassle, is one problem. The other is invective, where we are all guilty (more or less), albeit with huge qualitative differences. I disagree about the Good Person versus Bad Person part. I assume that some people are not entirely honest, I could show it (and sometimes did show it), but I believe you overstate it. Maybe you have other circumstances in mind than do I. You seem to be always in a fight with someone. I haven't followed these things and don't know who is right. But everyone except perhaps genuine trolls think they are right. Even the people who hide selectively a lot of information think it's the right thing to do and find rationalisations for their actions (“not giving ammo to the wrong side” was once cited as a reason). This applies to you, too. You also have your “reasons”. I get the sense you approach this with too much naïve realism: if people just were as rational as you are, things would be so easy! They are acting in bad faith! But is this really true? I don't think so.
Maybe you mean the same thing: the wiki is broken when it relies on the mobocracy only. The SPOV has become a convenient way to dismiss all criticism, and likewise the idea that it doesn't have to be neutral. This is all true, but of course the converse is not true. It's not “anything goes”. Ergo, many assumptions or conditions are invisible. So what are those implicit rules? The Wiki is also not any longer interested in authoritarianism, and even espouses authoritarian position itself. Years ago, authoritarianism was soley a matter with conservatives, but things have changed. Other “assumptions” are also no longer true. For example the New Atheist wave that most likely carried the Wiki for many years (i.e. combatting creationism) is no longer something people can agree on. Skepticism (i.e. the US thing that is associated with debunkery) seems to be dead as a movement, and the personnel associated with it is also no longer accepted anymore by everyone. Of course there are cultural developments that drive this. ~ Aneris 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"You seem to be always in a fight with someone." There are any number of editors I disagree with about this or that, and I've worked out amicable compromises -- Carpetsmoker was one of these. Most people are going to get into "fights" at one time or another editing at a wiki. My political interests happen to be include one of the most controversial topics here, that impinges on foreign policy, Israel, Muslims, and New Atheists. This area is second perhaps only to Gamergate and "SJWs" as a hot button topic. As a result, those who disagree with me, we argue. But some do not merely argue and negotiate; they are abusive, and act in bad faith. They want to make me leave -- this has been the explicit goal of one.
Unless I refrain from editing in that area, which would be ridiculous, my extensive knowledge about this topic is going to generate unhappiness. And that's fine; we can be expected to act like adults and work it out. But I assure you, there are a number of "Abusive Bad Faith Editor Bs," past and present. These cannot be worked with productively. I'm taking the time and energy to call attention to the dynamic, which is not the only unfortunate dynamic engendered by a tolerance of assholes. You and others are, of course, free to decide this dynamic doesn't exist, and to say so.---Mona- (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
ADDING: "Even the people who hide selectively a lot of information think it's the right thing to do and find rationalisations for their actions ('not giving ammo to the wrong side' was once cited as a reason). This applies to you, too." It does not apply to me. But it absolutely does apply to the Zionists who become irate at me for stating and documenting facts they believe must be left unsaid. Some go so far as to become the B I described above -- and then there are some who are not Zionists. They are Bs because it floats their boat to be so. And this site tolerates them.---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you imagine things, and didn't want to imply this. Everyone has to deal with other circumstances and makes different expieriences. Some people who are writing on uncontentious topics may have no clue what an edit war even is. In other topics you have ultimately tribalism, which also comes when you claim that people who have a different view than you have were “Zionists”. There should be endorsement from them, and even better, they should consider themselves Zionists. Let's suppose I see that you have listed every last crime the Israelis have ever committed covered, and all their potential evils are fully documented. But there is little on the Palestinians. You have curiously left them out, maybe because you genuinely don't know. Maybe you are motivated to not look too hard into that corner. I see there's work to do, and so I begin to research and add these things in. Now you come in and you see me as a Zionist. Somehow the seeming purpose of this all, documenting things, seems to take a backseat. People show up and tell you, they don't want to list some things, because “it gives ammo to the wrong people”. It piles on poor Palestinians, who already have it hard already. No need to write down how some rocket from their side killed a kindergarten (This is all for the sake of explanation). You see, there are suddenly assumptions that aren't written on the tin. ~ Aneris 05:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting scenario, Aneris, but it is not what I'm describing. I'm talking about the behavior of abusive editors, not mere disagreements about facts and which ones should be included. This behavior was engaged in by Avenger, who was finally perma-binned for violating what few rules there are. But note, before that he was B. Now, an editor who has an unhinged notion of my Evil Powers and is furious that I (supposedly) single-handedly caused the community to perma-bin Avenger, is picking up Avenger's B behavior, but doing so with even more malice and a constant blast of vicious attacks. Do you think that is something that anyone should reasonably have to tolerate to edit here?
Moreover, this is not just about me. Castaigne is permitted to spew vile shit about anyone he likes, and was greatly instrumental in driving a good editor, Carpetsmoker -- with whom I frequently disagreed -- out of this wiki. Why should that be tolerated?---Mona- (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The distinction between Good Faith vs Bad Faith editors is rarely clear cut. I see Carpetsmoker being described as little more than a troll by some editors & a "member in good standing" by others. I see the same things being said about Sorte Slyngel. Where an editor is disruptive or uncooperative enough to wear out enough of the community's goodwill, we can do something about it, as with Ryulong & AvengeroftheBoN. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So. Is it not possible to consider who is saying Carpetsmoker is a troll? And their own records? And, do you understand the stress many went through to finally get the Avenger and Ryulong issues resolved? Why should that have been necessary? Why must such users be permitted to make some people's lives miserable here before someone like Capretsmoker -- who was shit on badly at the start of the final Ryulong coops case -- have to happen? Invoking "some say this, some say that" as if reasonable people can't reach a judgment is not helpful.

Telling those seeking assistance "you two work it out." Or: "I don't care about that topic" is to abdicate responsibility, in my very strong opinion. To return to my original hypothetical, that leaves B with the power to continue making A miserable, unless A decides it's not worth it and leaves. Avenger was B. If Sorte has decided to replace Avenger where I am concerned -- and he has; see the Avenger coop case and the malignant power and wiles Sorte charged me with -- there is no end to it. This is how I described matters in an email to another editor:

Sorte Slyngel was and is angry that the community voted to perma-bin Avenger. During the coop case Sorte repeatedly stated the same sort of hateful bilge about me that he has done at various talk pages over many months, and for which Paravant, TheRoadtoWiganPier, 142 etc. have smacked him down. He spends weeks posting piles of text at my talk page trying to "be friends," about obscure shit I don't care about. Then he snaps, and it's back to the rancid abuse. It's a creepy and unpleasant cycle. The abuse phase has been ongoing again since Avenger's coop case.

So. After the Avenger thing, Sorte picked a page where he knows I've been active, the Noam Chomsky page. And began a bunch of bullshit edits -- I don't mean bona fide criticism of Chomsky. He is citing wingnuts like David Horowitz, who is justly treated with contempt at our wiki in our own article. TRWP and I both reverted Sorte, and the next day he just stated all over again with yet more. I asked Gerard for help, and he mod-locked the page, but announced he didn't care about the topic and we should "work it out."

So, on the talk page Sorte proceeded to blast all sorts of the usual abuse and invective, as well as long blocks of text that are irrelevant. I finally began to ignore him except for two-word replies like "I see." So, he then announced he was going to go to the Glenn Greenwald article, which I have greatly edited. He wants my attention, and is determined to bug the shit out of me. Just a few hours ago, he did indeed go to the Greenwald page, making changes that mostly were not even written by me but which I liked. The "reasons" in the edit summaries are ridiculous. So, finally I just blanked that whole section and he ran back to the Chomsky talk page and returned to his "promise" that he's going to continue the nonsense about Chomsky as soon as the protection expires.

He is crazy, and full of hate toward me for my "crimes" against Avenger. (Just see his performance in that coop case.) Really, I could work with an editor(s) who had good faith criticisms to offer about Chomsky. I don't worship the man, but I do understand his politics and have read most of the major stuff. Sorte isn't competent to address Chosmky's politics, he just knows he's "wrong" on Israel, and that's all that matters to him. It's the first reason he also hates me.

He has lost every time a vote was taken, and he knows there is no consensus for his basic POV. He just hates me. It's that simple.

Now, see the FR for my user talk page in the last few days. I asked Sorte, very politely, to stop blasting walls of text there and/or harassment. (Which, as my archives show, I get depends on whether he's in the "let's be buddies!" or the "you are an evil person" phase. One day, it's apologies; the next it's back to abuse.) The final post (which I reverted) is a reminder that he's ready to continue the nonsense the minute the protection expires on the Chomsky page.

If it is the case that reasonable people cannot make a determination whether there is merit to my objections in this matter, then I really do give up.---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDING: Some weeks ago, an Arisboch sock edited the Mossad article. I then did so as well, and the sock and I had some acrimony until, if I recall correctly, someone banned the sock. (CorruptUser and I then had disagreement about some of the same edits, but we managed to work that out.) Sorte was, in addition to Avenger, also very tight with Arisboch. Sorte, just now, went to the Mossad talk page JAQing off about my edits. If I don't engage him, he will likely then revert or dilute my edits, claiming I didn't defend them on the talk page. I don't think I should be put in that position -- see the question in the header of this section.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I wrote an answer to this but decided not to publish. If there really is need for self-defence, I'll supply it, but for the time being, I'll just have to say, that Mona is her usual self. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: I wrote mostly to remember how I came to look at the Mossad article. It began with a book recommendation in Mathematics and the road to Mossad bypassed Mona entirely. But anyone is entitled to a phobia or persecution complex. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Another PS, sorry: I did not know the contents of the mail above until now. David Gerard was not interested. I got a mail from FuzzyCatPotato asking for an explanation. I provided that on his talk page. You can have a look. He has not seen any reason to intervene. That leaves four moderators Mona hasn't run to so far, as far as I know. But Jurassic Park III awaits, so I bid thee good night. Cheers. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Mona, with the examples given so far (also below). What you mean to say is that you wish moderators act more like moderators in traditional forums. Further, you believe that the conflicts you are in count as such problems. I agree. I haven't followed the content of your discussion, but I've seen the behaviour you describe. I agree that moderators should have an eye on this, and as a first step ask the offending user to not bother you personally. The second problem are disagreements on subject, which is harder to resolve. It's hard to tell whether someone stalks you because they don't like you for whatever reason and their editing follows form this (essentially to annoy you); or whether they genuinely disagree and mainly argue, and the abusive behaviour comes afterwards, because of conflicts. There is a crucical difference. What's safe to say is that abusive behaviour is always wrong, for example trying to get attention on talk pages when asked to be left alone. But it gets complicated when it shades into political topics, because then you ask people to dive into a subject. ~ Aneris 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorte's commentary to and about me on talk pages[edit]

Just picking the most recent explosion of abuse, from the Noam Chomsky talk page. According to him on the subject of me: "I did speculate that you are mentally ill and to tell the truth, I haven't seen anything to counter that." "you are a charlatan" "You're not clever enough" "How old are you again?" "You are really a thick as a brick." "your hallucinations" "crying is apparently a favorite tactic of yours" This has been consistent from him across many talk pages. His excuses for dogging the articles where I edit are not credible, especially in light of his repeatedly declared loathing of me and vicious commentary. Everything else I cited above is also true.

And I again ask why I should be required ti engage an abusive person who despises me and lets me know that with great frequency, then apologizes, then reverts to this sort of bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not getting involved[edit]

Above, NarkySawtooth wrote this to Castaigne about the Carpetsmoker abuse: "And, I regret not sticking up for Carpet more. Nobody should have to put up with 'there are no accidents' mentalities." Why Narky made that decision, I, of course, do not know. But I hear from editors by email who don't want to be targets themselves, or who can't give the shit-stirrers the time and energy their constant abuse entails. And, who really wanted to follow all of that bullshit that drove Carpetsmoker out of here? Who wants to pay that much attention to some editors who are trying to do the same to me? To object to the community that hasn't the time or energy to follow all this crap, sounds like whining. So, between people who out rational self-interest decline to speak up, and the unpleasantness of having to do it on behalf of oneself, the dynamics the abusive editors generate continue-- and drive people out, after making their experience here miserable. Potential new editors see this. Word spreads.---Mona- (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A bystander's perspective[edit]

I hope this might be of some use to people, maybe. I have tried to stay out of this affair up until now, because I thought it would more likely add to the trouble. I thought I shouldn't stir the pot anymore, so maybe everything will cool down and end. I see that's not happening. I really think that any rational editor who looks at this whole situation over the past year sees that this is essentially a story of Mona and like-minded individuals being viciously attacked by another group including AvengeroftheBon, Arisboch, and Sorte Slyngel. I am putting that last person in the list because of the unusual fixation on Mona, the pages she edits, and her talk page.

I think its so ridiculous that people would accuse others of having mental disorders, pedo-apologism, stupidity, etc. It's absolutely ridiculous. This isn't a fucking playground. If someone is going to spend most of their time insulting one editor and reverting their changes, then they should leave the wiki. That is not what this wiki is for. We edit articles to the best of our ability and give constructive criticisms of other people's work if we see issues; we don't call each other simple-minded and ignore people's actual arguments. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I had written this before I saw your edit. I'll leave it be, except, you're wrong. I don't have a fixation on Mona. There is however a good chance, that she's already there, when I find an article distasteful, since she really holds rather special views about the world, and is very prolific. At any given time, my money would be on her being engaged in 2-3 feuds. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, but something just struck me. The use of the word „vicious“. That's a favorite of Mona's. Where's the viciousness and if there is, is Mona not vicious? This is the woman who's run crying all over the place, yet calling people vicious pricks, tendentious whatever, not being able to stand up for herself. If I'm so vicious, why don't you just take me out? And you, Pb, have not shown any particular discerning powers in all of this nor done much constructive, as far as I know. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're gonna call people children and crying all over the place, then you should be banned IMHO. That's also vicious speak, if you're gonna nitpick over semantics. "When have I been vicious? Mona's vicious!!" "If I'm so vicious, why don't you just take me out?" You see, this is exactly the type of useless behavior I am talking about. You are intentially typing that into the edit box, reading it over, and posting it solely to get a reaction from people. That's trolling, and it doesn't belong here. If you keep posting the tedious retorts that you do, you should be kicked out of this community, because it's not helping anything at all. It is making things worse and adding fuel to the fire.

Judging by your edit history, you've dealt with Mona at least 14 times in the past few days. That means posting on talk pages, reverting edits, etc. You've reverted perfectly factual and legitimate edits, solely because she made them. This is indicative of a fixation on a particular editor, namely Mona. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to judge. It doesn't seem like you've read the whole thing. In any case, I do have to communicate with Mona, since I will be editing Chomsky. The Marx-revert was a mistake, which I then let go. If your NSHO is that I should be banned, please start a movement. I'm not expecting to be rescued by anyone. And I've never reverted edits because Mona made them. I've reverted because it was the right thing to do. Her incessant faking of history makes 14 edits over a few days not so much and also for every revert of mine you'll find a revert of hers. Have you heard about such a thing? It's fine that you take her side, but portraying yourself as a bystander isn't entirely correct, you've been heard before in this context, and if you're implying that you're a neutral bystander, you're overstepping the bounds of what Mona would probably call veracitybut the rest of us would simply call truth. I'd be very happy if I didn't know she existed. But she is intent on paining all black and white, and what is that, IYNSHO? Mona is all over the place. And I do not have a fixation. Did you research the whole thing? I guess not. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Reading over, correcting and calculating? I did write an answer about the Mossad-insinuation. The rest was in the spur of the moment, if you'd please. I'm not a troll. You, Sir, are confused. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A partial answer to Mona (and on Chomsky)[edit]

Mona is absolutely right. I wrote that and I stand by every word. I might have been more gentle, but then again I can't take back what I wrote, and I didn't quite realize that she was so fragile until too late. For the full version of my villainy or viciousness in context see Talk:Noam_Chomsky. I would also refer you to Mona's talk page or archives, but she has been very diligent in trying to wipe out history, which is why I've developed a habit of keeping a copy of what I write to her. She doesn't want to, but I can provide most or all of what has transpired between us if asked. You won't find it here.

For the latest uninterested moderator see her email above and my answer to FuzzyCatPotato here. He hasn't replied and I take it that's the last word from him.

For those not interested, the sum is, that I tried to make a peace treaty with Mona, twice, the first was an outright apology, because I had a bad conscience. The second time didn't work either.

It is no secret that I regarded Avenger and Arisboch as friends, and I miss them. But, alas, that's history.

I decided to take a deserved break, and since I have to deal with Chomsky in real life, and can't stand the guy, neither his lunatic politics nor his lunatic Linguistics, I decided to do a bit with his article. I knew from earlier that he's a favorite of Mona's, but even given my experience with her, I was surprised how tenaciously she resisted every attempt to make him less than a saint. According to her, I'm probably a wingnut, batshit-crazy or whatever words she uses to describe right Conservative Americans, conveniently overlooking, that I'm from Iceland, not America, and the definitions are a bit different here. That was probably why she apparently accused me of trying to antagonize not only her but her fellow Americans as well. That's plain stupid, but being a mainstream Nordic, I would probably be called a Socialist in America.

In any case: Mona is a liar. I know that's harsh, and if I suffer any consequences, too bad that I don't have someone to give me my mop back as she is certain to be rescued should it happen to her.. Her influence is dramatically less than I once thought, but since Arisboch, who usually had a mop, I can't count on anything.

If any reader wants to get to the bottom, just check my edits and hers, as far as she hasn't tried to bury the evidence. It will be a very boring exercise, but the lawyer in Mona will certainly appreciate attention to detail.

I may not be pleasant, and probably am not, but I'm not a liar.

And to conclude, since I just came back from watching Jurassic Park III, if you haven't seen it, use every opportunity not to see it, it's that bad. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to have to personally disagree with you view on Chomsky. Feel free to post any issues you have with him, but I really don't see anything particularly lunatic about him. The most crazy stuff I've heard him say is that the bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO trying to take over all of Europe for purely economic reasons, and that's only 66% wrong. (I could get into that more later, if anyone is interested) Chomsky is pretty much spot on with his criticisms of America's political and economic establishment, and his critiques of American foreign policy make perfect sense to me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You might want to study him closer. His theories of language alone make him a loon, although sadly he's gathered a cult. His politics are mostly that it matters a great deal, who kills whom. He also has a political cult, and Mona belongs to that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You did nothing to bring up actual issues with him. His view of grammar is widely accepted and taught. Do you have a degree in linguistics? I don't, so that's why I tried to steer discussion towards foreign policy, but apparently you're going to say "he's a loon" over and over again until I get tired of arguing with you and it appears as if you've won, when in reality you have done absolutely nothing to refute anything that I have claimed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
From Sorte above, regarding the abusive crap he's hurls at me at just one talk page: "I wrote that and I stand by every word." "I didn't quite realize that she was so fragile" "In any case: Mona is a liar" "I may not be pleasant, and probably am not". This is constant, except when he's weirding me out with massive walls of text on my talk page about obscure subjects he thinks I should be interested in. I very politely asked him to stop posting on my talk page. His response has been to post yet more insults and nonsense on my talk page. (Which I revert.) It is simply not credible that he "just so happens" to be showing up at articles I significantly edit to revert me, insert material for which he's repeatedly been shown there is no majority support, and etc. It is not a coincidence. And I ask again: Why should I be required to engage him when he is usually very abusive and teeming with bad faith edits as a consequence of his loathing of me? ---Mona- (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait studied and taught widely where? (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia article, AvengeroftheBoN: "Chomskyan models have been used as a theoretical basis in various fields of study; the Chomsky hierarchy is often taught in fundamental computer science courses as it confers insight into the various types of formal languages, and this hierarchy has also generated interest among mathematicians, particularly combinatorialists." Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3, moreover, our own Steven Pinker article -- apparently another intellectual fraud and loon -- states: "[Pinker's] book The Language Instinct popularized Noam Chomsky's theory that language is an innate faculty of mind, and to that he added that this faculty was evolved by natural selection to improve human abilities to communicate[1][2]."---Mona- (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
True, studied and taught, although that is waning. He is influential, but he's influential in the way Marx and Freud were. He started a cult. You might want to check out Seuren, which is available on the net and referred to in the Chomsky article about the building of Chomsky's myth. If you have nothing further to add - well. 00:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Sorte Slyngel (talk)
As for Pinker, that was not written by me, but Pinker mostly, but not always, agrees with Chomsky. Just read The Language Instinct. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your hatred of Mona. It seems irrational to me. You accuse her of being part of the Noam Chomsky cult as if that somehow discredits her. If Noam Chomsky cultists are people who by-and-large agree with his views, then count me in. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Pbfreespace3. Sorte has ecxplicitly said he "detests" Noam Chomsky. And he's before likened him to Freud and Marx and alleged that he's headed for the dustbin of intellectual history vis-a-vis his linguistics work. Moreover, Sorte cannot abide Chomsky's politics, especially on the topic of Israel-Palestine. Now, how can such an individual be expected to reasonably edit the Chomsky article? He's actually approvingly cited David Horowitz's book on the subject of Chomsky. (Published by his co-editor's company because no one else wanted it.) Virtually no one who thinks anything by Horowitz is credible is reasonable.---Mona- (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
„...NATO trying to take over all of Europe for purely economic reasons“. Good one. And yes, if Mona hadn't been here, I would still edit Chomsky, other things being equal. Somebody mentioned Pinker. The Language Instinct was a best-seller, but I have done nothing with that article except referring to the opposite opinion, one article and one book. Also, as stated ad nauseam, I wasn't citing Horowitz, not yet anyway, but the last two chapters in that book. But Mona does not take kindly to disagreement. Please grow up - and feel free to lose it over that sentence. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorte, to understate, that set of Horowitz-edited polemics was not peer-reviewed. If the authors of those two chapters have peer-reviewed, professionally published criticisms of Chomsky's linguistics, great. Get them.---Mona- (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Chomsky's mind is effectively the same as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but with education.
You see, we all have this need to increase our social rank, to "be superior" to as many other people as possible. Men even more so than women due to psychology, which is why more crackpots are male, not that stupid is exclusively a male thing. So what's the easiest way to feel smarter than everyone else? Why, knowing things that other people are too stupid to figure out, of course! Thus, Conspiracy Theories! Cheat codes for knowledge!
But in Chomsky's case, he just uses his intelligence to "be superior to" all of the US. "Oh, I am Noam Chomsky, I'm so much more moral than everyone else in this country, the government is evul". No, he's just an entitled twat who doesn't know how the real world works, but thinks he does in order to continue to feed his ego. He'll write book after book in which the subtext is always "I'm better than the rest of the country because I see how 'bad' the government is". You see this type of thought in a lot of other people, whether that's Richard Dawkins or Howard Zinn. And regular people, in their need to feel superior, will gobble up this schlock in order to feed their own desires of being superior to everyone else. CorruptUser (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"Chomsky's mind is effectively the same as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but with education." That must explain why the New York Times, quite surprisingly (it was covered in the book), gave a generally positive review to Manufacturing Consent:

With highly detailed research, [Chomsky and co-author Edward Herman] move through a series of case studies: the press's trumpeting of the murder of the Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko by Communist state police in 1984, while paying little attention to priests murdered in our client states in Latin America; the press's praise of elections in El Salvador and its criticism of the 1984 voting in Nicaragua; the disinformation campaign that surrounded the supposed K.G.B.-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope in 1981; and what the authors see as the press's voluntary self-censorship in covering events in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

...many of the book's raw-data comparisons are compelling indictments of the news media's role in covering up errors and deceptions in American foreign policy of the past quarter-century. And Mr. Herman and Mr. Chomsky deliver a dark prognosis for America's ability to conduct a successful and moral foreign policy.

They say stuff like that about Alex Jones too, right?---Mona- (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably yes, in some crackpot journal somewhere. CorruptUser (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what that means? Are you saying the NYT published a mostly positive review of Alex Jones in a "crackpot journal?" Or are you suggesting that a crackpot journal falsely claims a positive review? Either way, altho the NYT felt Chomsky over-states his case, they generally found the work valuable.---Mona- (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
You're not really disproving my point here. CorruptUser (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Er, ok. Since I don't know what your point is it's not possible to assess that.---Mona- (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to name one other thing, I detest, see here: [8]. Don't get me wrong, I like the blog, and Andy Lewis is always well worth reading. I admire him. What I detest are the subjects of the blog. So, now that I've admitted that I detest homeopathy and quackery in general, am I therefore unqualified to voice an opinion?

Most people would agree that I am at least allowed to do that although I would have to have sources. But when it comes to Mona's pets and by extension whomever is her white knight in shining armor of the day, I'm apparently not. I've used the word hypocrisy several times in my RW-career and it certainly applies here. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly I agree that you are entitled to state your opinion on homeopathy, or your opinion on anything else.---Mona- (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's quite an admission. Thank you. It follows that I should not have to check whether my better sourced opinions about lunatics, left and right, have been dismissed out of hand because of the other editor's personal taste or view. In any case, if you can read it, this is worth mentioning. I'm just reading that, so it came to me. The villain of the story is a Republican governor. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk)
"It follows" What you wrote after that does not happen. That you propose to approvingly rely on a source that is to political theory what the Institute for Creation Research is to science, is what I find unacceptable.---Mona- (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does follow. The Anti Chomsky Reader is a document in its own right, whatever you may think of the contents. So are Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. I did not refer to Horowitz — it is getting boring to point that out yet again — but to two particular chapters, which happen to be there. You want to argue against their authors. And in any case, the Reader is by no means the only thing you dismiss and undo at a whim. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
So, do you next propose to approvingly cite to Mein Kampf? The operative word there is "approvingly." And I don't merely "want to" argue against the authors of the two chapters you have in mind. I explicitly do so. Anyone who permitted their name to be included in such a vanity-published collection of abysmal polemical tracts has the judgment of a toddler. If these two individuals hold professional disagreement with Chomsky the linguist, cite to their opinions published in a professional venue. Finally, this is but one example of the great level of unreasonableness you bring to your dogging of me at various articles and on my user page.---Mona- (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't approve of Horowitz, now that I've brushed up on him. That doesn't mean that he should never be mentioned. In this case he has to be mentioned because two chapters I approve of are in a book Horowitz edited. I disapprove of any wingnuts, right or left. You belong to the latter class. Right and left loons have one thing in common: Whoever doesn't agree with them is rabid, crazy or whatever you want the call them. That is the only reason you could have to assigning me the status of a conservative American, although you well know that I'm not. But you never were one to be rational. Could you provide a list of pages, where I have been „hounding“ you or however you want to put it? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: The debate in linguistics over the use of linguistic intuitions (elicited metalinguistic judgments) as data, and how that data should be collected has resulted in enduring, rancorous, often ideologically tinged disputes over the past 45 years. The disputes are remarkable, if only for their fairly consistent venomous tone. Robledo (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
1. Horowitz is "mentioned" in our RW Chomsky article. Appropriately, in the sub-section on wingnuts who irrationally detest Chomsky. And to repeat: those two linguists you want to cite most decidedly do not "have to be" approvingly cited from the Horowitz Embarrassment that is that Reader. Locate their professional views from a professional venue. 2. I don't care whether you, of all people, characterize me as a "left loon." What I do care about is that you behave reasonably at this wiki. 3. I have never said or implied that you are a "conservative American." Indeed, I've maintained the opposite; you are not competent to hold forth on U.S. wingnut views of, or treatment of, Noam Chomsky. I showed you that Horowitz is a clown show very early in our disagreements but you would not accept my documentation and continued to declare that the Reader would be -- as in, no disagreement or facts would alter your intention -- approvingly cited in the article. But just now you say you had to "brush up" on Horowitz. I already am brushed up, and showed you that. But from me, documentation cannot convince you. At all.---Mona- (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Following right wing lunatics is your main reason to be. And you apparently are a left loon. Horowitz is mentioned in your bloated section — far too extensive — so he may be mentioned in further reading. But you are right. I have learned never to trust you. See this delightful list for a funnier take on what you are. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"I have learned never to trust you. [link to a 'Blatant Lies' shtick on what I supposedly am]" Which gets us right back to why I should not be required to engage you when you edit on pages where I also significantly edit. And with that I am done here.
If anyone wants to collapse this whole freakin' thing, feel free.---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't have to quote from a section directly above. I assume people can read. Still you've done that before. But it is true that I have learned never to trust you and I think you are a perpetual, but very bad liar — bad in the sense of being clumsy and foolish. You see, whatever my faults are, I'm not a liar. You can look up everything I've ever said, and I acknowledge that. Your favorite phrase, I don't know what you're talking about is foreign to me unless I actually do not know. But, I have a life outside, so I'll sign off tonight. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion gets a bit all over the place. Manufacturing Consent is a standard work in the study of propaganda. It's well researched and should be even more readily accepted on a self-respecting left-leaning Wiki that claims on the tin it wants to be critical of the media. Has anyone else even read it (I guess Mona did, too)? On what basis do you discount its content then? ~ Aneris 22:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've read MC. It is, indeed, considered an important work in the study of propaganda. Professors assign it as reading for exactly that reason.---Mona- (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've read a good bit of it, and it is sitting on my bookshelf a few meters from me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A simple solution[edit]

Never respond to it and create a special archive for unwanted trolling on your user talk page, and stick it all in there. Then you have removed the offending posts from your talk but they still exist. This will satisfy those who are in the never delete anything camp but you also preserve the integrity of your real talk page archives by not muddling in the trolling.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

TRWP, I considered that, but don't think so. For one thing, I don't disappear the deletions in the FR -- anyone who wants to read them, can. Moreover, Sorte can knock himself out posting a huge, endless essay at his own page on the "Crimes, Stupidity, and Malevolence of Mona." But he should respect my request to stop the nonsense at my User page.---Mona- (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That would probably be too easy for her. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blizzards in the United States and Canada[edit]

How are those blizzards affecting Americans and Canadians? Is Canada likely to be affected? Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Man I suddenly love California right now. We're starting to get rain! Sort of.'Legionwhat do you want from me 09:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not in Ontario, as it is sunny and a little cold.--Cms13ca 20:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Posting from central New Jersey. Last night I saw lots of emergency utility vehicles milling about. The storm was fairly intense - the largest I can remember in several years - and left us with a good foot or more of snow. Fortunately no major services (power, gas, water) were disrupted. The weather's calmed, and the roads should be clear by the end of tomorrow. (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Here in central Maryland, we have about 30-32 inches of snow on the ground here, and it's been blowing all around for the past 24 hours. It looks like I have a five foot tall drift in the middle of my driveway and where I think I parked my truck looks like a big blob of snow. Fortunately the power supply and 'net feed has been stable, and for once it's very quiet around here. Unfortunately it will probably take several days to dig out from this mess. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Americans please take care clearing snow. See Why do so many people die shovelling snow?. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We're going to get the tail end of this storm in the UK. It won't be so bad here. UK weather: Storm Jonas to come to Britain as low pressure system heads across Atlantic. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
BoN from NJ: I just finished clearing the snow around my house. No grievous injuries to report. (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a certain type of snow specifically called "heart attack snow" around these parts of New England, and I have not yet seen any of it this year. It is a springtime thing in my experience, soggy, heavy, and a royal PITA. (I have no fondness for my memories of driving a plow/sander rig in years gone by.) A few ankle-deep dustings of cold light fluffy stuff is all we've had so far. So far, no reports of injury, either minor or grievous, from the folks I know who live further south. My maxim in times like this is that even the feeblest of excuses is justification enough for a nice cup of cocoa. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Template colors (sticky)[edit]

{{Christianity}} and {{Creationnav}} both use essentially the same three colors: black, white, and light gray. Is there any interest in changing one of the templates and associated icon? If so, what colors are best? (Currently used colors can be found at {{Portal portal}}.) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Color-sharing is also true of {{Biblenav}}-{{Religion}} and {{Enviro}}-{{Globalwarmingnav}}. Same question. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Bikehsed painting time!!! Ahem... These topics are intimately related, so sharing the colours makes sense. Other than that, I couldn't care less about the colours as long as it's readable. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it is bound to happen eventually. It probably only matters (if at all) when moderately high importance pages are sharing two of them?
On another note, someone did a nice job of tidying that portal portal up! Although I love that the tables are still in html rather than a series of weird hyphens and pipes... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@CS: Actually, I think the other way! If the topics are related, they're more likely to get multiple {{navsidebar}}s and {{navbox}}es. EG: Global flood could potentially use navbars {{global flood}}+{{bible}}+{{crenav}} and navboxes {{bible}}+{{crenav}}. Religion articles would seem especially relevant -- they could apply to multiple religions, and so merit the general religion template plus each of the specific religions! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Pages shouldn't get multiple sidebars at all. It looks terrible & is something that's only been happening at all the last few months. They were never created to be stacked; just one on each page. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
But there are so many now. And so many can apply to one article... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
In many cases multiple navbars apply equally well. Choosing the "most applicable" isn't always easy. Besides, why not have multiple navbars? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it clutters the page. If two, why not five? It's better to choose the most salient bar.---Mona- (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
For example, on our page about the eye, what would be the "most salient bar" ? Evolution? Biology? Creationism? It's about all those things in equal amount. I agree that more than one bar clutters things up, so this is why a made smaller bars ;-) (See discussion below). I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a page where five sidebars would be appropriate, but as long as it fits, why not? Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sidenavs and topnavs (sticky)[edit]

Out of frustration with the sidenavs I've been working on what I've called a "topnav".

You can see it here. Any potential final version doesn't have to look exactly like this, of course, it's just to show the general idea.

Why? Well, in my opinion the sidenavs take up an inordinate amount of space; which only gets worse on pages that have two or more sidenavs. All the space that's taken up with the sidebar can't be taken up by images. For example, the SGP page with sidebars would look something like this; you need to choose between either having the images way down, or having them on the left (which looks ugly, especially with lists, and leaves fairly little room for actual text).

I've encountered problems like this on a number of other pages; for example on User:Carpetsmoker/Eye the correct location of images is actually important, and the sidebar pushing them down is not really an option.

We also have the navboxes at the bottom (like Template:altMednav), but these aren't really that visible.

So, the topnav seems to do the best of both words: still be very visible, while at the same time not taking up a whole lot of space. An additional advantage is that we could also potentially expand the navs with more content (I just replicated the sidenavs for now).

Am I the only one annoyed by this? Whada ya'all think? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I like those. Either that, or use the same concept and apply it to the current sidenavs so that you have a collapsible box on the side. I agree wholeheartedly that the current sidenav templates are quite distracting and cumbersome. Old guard (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
[EC] A while back I made User:FuzzyCatPotato/navsidebar; these would be initially 1/4 as long but have uncollapsible content for those interested.
I like sidebars in that they don't push the article down (as topnavs do), are visible (as navboxes aren't), and kind of visually "frame" the beginning of the article (when pictures aren't available). WP has a similar style (Template:Communism sidebarWikipedia). The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, collapsible sidenavs is also an option and certainly better than what we're doing now. I personally would still prefer an option that doesn't interfere with the page content at all as it's really just navigation and not page content. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
TBQF the functional difference between topnavs and sidenavs is minimal but personally sidenavs look better. More importantly: would topnavs have a fixed width (if so: what width, and what do we do with the big empty space) or adjustable width (if so: manually or automatically)? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is a functional difference on at least some pages... Details like the width and exact layout are things we could sort out if there's a consensus this is good idea in the first place... Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
B-but... what will we use then as space filler? (talk) 04:20, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I'm with FCP on this one. Besides, I can't abide a nav replacement that doesn't use the neat topic icons we have, and which doesn't leave room for snarky subtitles. Though, Carpet, your hard work is appreciated - keep trying stuff out! The current implementation sure isn't perfect... I just wouldn't rush a replacement for it which risks lacking the benefits the current sidenavs hold. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there an equivalent bottom of the page navbox for every sidenav? If not, there should be. I'd certainly like to see more images on pages (I think that's no secret) and I've often had to give up trying to add an image to a page because there wasn't enough room for both it and the sidenav to fit in any kind of way that was pleasing to the eye. I applaud Carpetsmoker's efforts but don't think topicons are the answer. They just look a little too different to anything that's on any other wiki. I also think they look a bit too much like userboxes. I think the way forward is collapsible sidenavs for longer articles and navboxes at the bottom of the page for shorter ones. Spud (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@FCP: It uses the same icons? As for snark: meh. Snark is not a goal in and of itself. In fact, it's mostly lame jokes... Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sidebar-stacking is an abomination. They're designed for the one most relevant sidebar to go in each article. As for images, those can display on either side of the page. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a variant with collapsible sidenavs. Alignment and colours could be a bit better; it's just to show the idea. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I say: Take away the "I'd like to know more about" and add the over-text thingies into the collapsed form. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 06:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, those are details we can sort out later; just want to establish which direction to go in (if any). I'm not sure what you mean with "over-text thingies", though? Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever "light iron-age reading" is on the Bible page. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 08:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Really like those CS. Excellent work.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I like them very much too. The collapsible sidenavs have the Spud seal of approval. Spud (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's done[edit]

Here's are two more polished versions which are basically "done":

  • Without title - Takes up a bit less space
  • With title - Takes up more space, but you got a title (note: you may need to bypass your browser's cache for the [show] to work correctly).

I dropped the "topnav" since the response was rather lukewarm at best, and I couldn't make that look good enough. The width on those examples is 200px; which is slightly wider than the current 165px. That's because we need more space for the title and the icon.

Converting the existing navbar templates is fairly easy; we can just apply the change to all pages with a few template changes. Or we could choose to use both styles, depending on the page.

So do we vote for this, or what? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the larger User:FuzzyCatPotato/navsidebar kind. It's more noticeable and (to my eye) more pretty. User:FuzzyCatPotato/navsidebar/testFᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That's still pretty large... I think the smaller ones are noticeable enough, at would interfere a lot less with images etc. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the collapsible bit a lot; I prefer the version with the title; I think the smaller version (CS) is preferable. Recovering the screen acreage is nice.
PS, how does this site look on mobile devices, btw? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a fixed width, just like the current navbar and all images; so we're their improving or worsening matters on that front. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


As discussed last week, there are three proposals to change the layout of navbars:

  1. Small with title
  2. Small without title
  3. Collapsible sections by FCP.

Before I go around changing stuff, I want to make sure no one has deep objections to this. The first option (Small with title) seems to have been the preferred option, and it's also what I prefer ;-)

I personally dislike the "collapsible sections" option (sorry FCP!) as it's still pretty large and requires 3/4 clicks to see it all... Not sure that's an improvement over the current situation... Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

either of the first two is good for me, third seems worst of all options - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, WP does it. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Therefore I have to like it...? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I still like the one I liked above/before. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep the titles, they add flavor. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly oppose option 3, I think that just makes the problem of not having enough space on the page worse. I strongly support option 1, small with title. That looks less like a userbox than small without title. And Smerdis is right, keeping the snarky titles shows that we're still RW. Spud (talk)
I support #1 as well. #3 is way too big to be useful, IMO. --JorisEnter (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
These manage to be worse than the current navbars (and I hate the current navbars and the practices around them, especially the fact that some people insist on putting more than one in a single article). From UI point of view, they are counter-intuitive and defeat the original purpose of navbars - the new fully-collapsible version actually makes it harder for a first-visiting user to find other articles on the same topic, since it's not immediately obvious what the nav"bar" does. And I won't even comment on FCP's multi-collapsible monstrosity.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so everything is terrible. Do you also have suggestions on how to make it better? Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I don't buy that "show" is that hard to understand. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
As a general website design principle, the more steps it takes to do something, the less likely it is that users will bother doing it - there's a reason why Amazon patented one-click shopping and why even such mundane steps as requiring people to register cuts down spam in comment sections. As another general UI design principle, hiding stuff without indication what it is makes it less likely that people will find it and use it. Remember, navbars are supposed to showcase RW content to new users and accidental visitors. The experienced users already know where and how to look for content that may interest them.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
At the very least, you can keep the navboxes as they are and just exercise better judgment when creating and using them. For example, put at most one navbox per article - it should be perfectly OK for a page not to have a navbox, especially if it's less likely to be the result of an outside search.
The newly proposed system suspiciously look like reinventing MW's category system, but with putting the categories at the top of the page instead of at the bottom. Which probably can be done with some judicious editing of the MW namespace or the skin.
If you want to improve the navbox system, start by thinking about what purpose it's supposed to accomplish. And why, for example, Wikipedia keeps most of its navboxes at the bottom.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you care, ZG, I've made quite a few navboxes for bottoms of pages. (You might think they ugly, but hey.) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like those a lot. For short articles, those are certainly the way to go. Spud (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Superscript breaks the line-height. Here's a fix (for everyone who wants it)[edit]

You probably noticed that the line height (i.e. the leading) is wonky when there is a superscript in the line, from a footnote or from a wikipediaWikipedia link, resulting in inconsistent distance between lines. This makes for unpleasant reading and is technically also wrong. You can fix it for yourself in a minute. Since it's broken, I would recommend fixing this in the default style, too (but everyone can apply it and see whether it works). It will bring down the superscript a tiny notch so that the leading is no longer inconsistent.

  1. Go to your (top right corner) preferences → appearance
  2. Under skins, click on the "Custom CSS" link to create one (or modify yours). It'll create a page in your userspace i.e /User:Anonymous user/vector.css
  3. Just steal the code you find on mine. Note the purely optional part at the end, which increases the overall line height a tiny bit, making texts a bit more breezy.
  4. Save. Done! You may need to clear cache once in your browser to see it (often CTRL+F5).
  5. In case you want it removed again, delete the lines of css-code you don't want, or delete your custom css page you just created.

Found this fix here. ~ Aneris 14:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip. I'd taken to putting references in subscript to make the text a bit more attractive. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo answers[edit]

Apparently someone quite likes RW, and the commenters don't. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, someone realizes RationalWiki's true mission: Analyzing beauty and style, documenting the full range of makeup, explorations of beauty and style, and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 16:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Have y'all seen the urban dictionary entry on RationalWiki. It's hilarious.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Was the urban dictionary entry written by Marcus Cicero?'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ha, their username is "Atheism is bullshit." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 04:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Also "And as far as your question goes you can shove your shitty left wing websites up your parasitic ***!" Will do Anonymous!'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish by seeking out criticism given by internet randos? This is something I've seen you do a lot. Are you simply worried about the site's PR, or do you think we should try to please more people? I think both are misguided, but there could be a third viewpoint I'm not considering-- that you just find it amusing, which is something I could appreciate. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I check it out and find it mildly entertaining when this sort of thing is posted.---Mona- (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I was asking Fuzzy. For the record; I would rather the two of us avoid one another for the time being, Mona. I've no interest in sparking anything. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There are actually people who read Yahoo Answers? ;) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kitsu: I've got RW on Google Alerts, I post the funny stuff. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 06:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah. That's okay, then. I just know there are those out there who try to please everyone, so I wanted to make sure. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure most YA readers are there looking for a laugh. At least, I hope so... BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 10:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I go there for the thought-provoking philosophical questions. "How is babby formed?" Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 16:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Openly declared edit war[edit]

Please have a look here and there - it appears as if one or several editors have more or less declared to not even listening to each other and just blindly reverting everything the other writes. I think this doing great harm and disservice to the wiki we all know and love. How do we fix this? (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Concern troll trolls concernfully Pippa (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
We "fix this" by blocking this Arisboch or Avenger BoN trolling.---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Way to take honest criticism seriously... I applaud you... (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Do fuck off, please. Pippa (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give these guys full articles.[edit]

This guy was sane when he first started his channel. http://www.paulbegleyprophecy.com The rest of them not so much. https://www.youtube.com/user/BPEarthWatch https://www.youtube.com/user/DAHBOO77 This guy is a big one. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUIwxA-CHccPAaVqrfggAiQ And this one https://www.youtube.com/user/FaceLikeTheSun

This guy is who make Paul go crazy. http://counciloftime.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htgstZdCdlI This guy is trying to make planet x a Christian thing. https://www.youtube.com/user/Planet7X http://www.planet7x.com/ ANTHONY PATCH Search for him he is crazy and hates CERN. And look at this pastor. https://www.youtube.com/user/zion4131/videos (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Говорите пожхалуста по-англиский, я не говорю по-кретин.'Legionwhat do you want from me 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yo, Geth, you slipped into Russian there. Zero (talk - contributions) 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"Please speak English, I don't speak cretin" 'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)