RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

User talk:141.134.75.236

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, anonymous editor!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

While you are free to continue to edit as, and be identified by, your IP address, you might prefer to create an account (they're free!), or log in if you already have one. If you create an account, your IP address will not be displayed and you will face fewer editing restrictions.

;)
Important Notice: When I use this emoticon, I mean to communicate that I'm 'just kidding' and/or that my intentions are friendly/genuine.
It definitely doesn't imply anything sexual or sensual.
Or does it? ;)  ~141.134.75.236

Welcome to the wiki! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 17:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you take out an account? It's weird to see high-effort posts from an IP. A bunch of numbers doesn't suit you. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But I like my numbers! :D 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Create an account with the numbers as the account name.

"De-censoring"[edit]

I think that the proper word for that is "whitewashing", not censorship. Not that it matters much though. But I'd like to see more sources in that article. Looking at the history, it's the creation of a single user.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing is kinda like censoring out bad stuff, but yeah, I guess whitewashing is a more accurate description in this case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you like an account?[edit]

If you did, we could make you a sysop too. брэндэн (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm content with the situation as it is currently. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good edit[edit]

Thanks. Landmartian (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

pls make account[edit]

i want give rights, but you is IP. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Aww, but I like being a bunch of numbers. I also suck at usernames. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing stopping you from having a bunch of numbers as your username. --TiaC (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but wouldn't that be pretty sucky for a self-chosen username? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You could have a username of all punctuation. SophieWilderModerator 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds kinda interesting at first, but still pretty so-so. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A username of "141.134.75.236" would help fight the Actual Username Hegemony and bring justice to millions of stereotyped BONs. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

plus the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on your edits get old, when you're not clearly insane, like rob or something Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Every IP edit gets marked as a potential wiki-crime? Now that's some serious anti-number racism. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
fite the hegemony, make acct Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't registering a username mean I'm submitting to the hegemony? ;)
I'm also pretty sure you can't make usernames that correspond with IP addresses. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
So call yourself User:IP 141.134.75.236. Landmartian (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That only solves the latter point though. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Number usernames fight the hegemony. DOn't question IT Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── plus usernames halp fit teh illuminaughty and kitteh hufferz Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 08:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Omfg just do it Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Protip: Telling people what to do doesn't necessarily make it more likely that they'll do the thing you want them to do. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Since 141.134.75.236 is soooper unhelpful, I think it's time to abuse my power for my personal goals Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how power abuse would convince me to take your suggestion to heart. You're free to give it a go, though. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ceiling cat already tried the soft sell and it didn't work. Landmartian (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please pardon our error[edit]

You appear to have been accidentally blocked by our edit filter system. We apologize for our bot's error, and I have taken action to correct the problem. You should have no further issues. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Thanks for fixing the problem. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if you refuse to submit to my fully reasonable and in no way coercive demands to get a fokken account, I kindly ask that you never ever use ";)" again, because of my personal immediate reaction whenever I see said winky smiley face.[edit]

Why? This is why. unless you do want basically everyone on RationalWiki's penis inside you Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. It's not because something can be interpreted in a sexual way that all its other meanings need to be completely banned from use out of fear for confusion. And since I'm anti-sex, that particular meaning is obviously not the one I want to convey except jokingly, perhaps. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that you're a winky apologist? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
this video is relevant Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't show any, uh, explicit content, right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
... Noooooo... Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, notice those #HeGotTheWrongImpression and #Perv hashtags? I guess your link supports my point then. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
JUST CONFORM
TO THE NORM
Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for assuring me that I don't conform to the norm. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Um...[edit]

You don't see the problem with a comparison of laws against screwing animals to Jim Crow? Seriously? King Skeleton (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I just read that as referring to the law not always being a reliable source of morality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Emotional plea[edit]

"Excellent voice acting."

-- New York Tim

"Irresistible."

--FuzzyCatPotato

"If you don't comply with FuzzyCatPotato's demands, you will be universally oppressed and hated, just like mah boy Hitler."

--Franklin Roosvelt

My emotional plea to you. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

btw just press the little "sound" button to hear it in all its sadness Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, sounds nice. I'm sorry to inform you, though, that emotional pleas really don't work on me. :/
And from the sound of it, those puppies will be crying tears of sad no matter what I decide anyway. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
How can you say no to this?!--TiaC (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I can say "Aww" to it and rub it behind the ear. Making an account, on the other hand, isn't gonna change anything to the doggy's state of mind. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem interested in exactly the same things as David Gerard; including Roko's Basilisk and their chicken coop discussions; sock puppet investigation time.[edit]

Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol, good luck with that, since I'm not Gerard. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Conservative username troll[edit]

The conservative username troll has been around for a few years now, he regularly signs up with trolling usernames and the best thing is just to ignore him. Some of us like to change his name to the opposite of his name. BicyclewheelModerator 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't conservatives be insulted to hear that user called the "conservative username troll"? Landmartian (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
And? I mean sure we could get into "Far Right Omniphobic Conservative username Troll" as a name, but it;s a bit long--Miekal 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions[edit]

On Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge, usually I break up each claim into two sections: The claim text, with quotes from the Qur'an removed; and quotes from the Qur'an. Do you think this hurts its readability? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I include the entire section of the foreknowledge claim, such as introductions, rather than just the "X is true" portions. Is this good or bad? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. As long as the relevant Qur'an verses can be easily accessed through links, I don't think there's anything wrong with that aproach.
  2. Perhaps you can take out some of the less relevant paragraphs. But if anyone wants the tl;dr version, you usually provide a summary of the claim at the bottom of the section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your ethics[edit]

Re: "Why does coercion matter, if it produces good consequences?" "Why does slavery matter, if it produces good consequences? See what I did there?" Is there ever a point at which you would accept slavery if it produces good consequences? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh believe me, at the end of the day I'm a consequentialist all the way. But that doesn't mean we can't declare some things as being immoral in a general sense. I don't think abolishing taxation would be a good idea, but we can at least admit the coercive aspect of it is unfortunate, no? Since you seemed to be dismissing coercion as being morally irrelevant, I replaced coercion with a very similar but vastly more controversial concept. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So then, why do you believe that coercion (or slavery) morally relevant? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the enslavement of millions of Africans was a morally neutral event then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about my beliefs; I'm merely asking why you think coercion and slavery are morally relevant. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they reduce the coerceds'/enslaveds' happiness, for one thing. They also empower people who have no problem with coercion/slavery, who tend to be more likely to commit immoral acts than people who do have a problem with these practices. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So coercion is bad because it violates principles of happiness utilitarianism? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It usually does, yeah. Though, speculating where you intend to take this, I'd add that I tend to value happiness that is freely chosen above enforced happiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Glorious proposal[edit]

come support my thing pretty pls Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion[edit]

You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*sees the developing drama over the proposed John Duffield page*
*quietly backs away* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts, again[edit]

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is the third longest page on the wiki. Do you think it would be worth it to break it up? If so, how should it be done? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with long pages, but if you wanna split it up, I'd divide it by subject ("Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge of biology" or "Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge/Biology" etc.) and add small summaries for each subject on the main page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I worry that the article is too difficult to navigate for when somebody stumbles across a QSF claim, and wants to use the page to rebut it. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, no prob. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you just....[edit]

Post a comment on a talk page for an essay that was deleted over a year ago? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Rise, dead posts, and live again! FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The title struck the right nerve, I suppose. And it had an empty talkpage beckoning me to fill in the void. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Create an account![edit]

Just adding my voice to those asking you to get an account - it's totally awesome. Also, then you can get a mop and help patrol the wiki from the hordes of wandals at the gate. Tielec01 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that mop does sound pretty tempting. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
STOP. THE ;) MAKES THAT STATEMETN REAAALLLY WEIRD FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. Like I'm gonna do anything sexual with a mop. Hmm, actually... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
inb4 long wood Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that a euphemism, good sir? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not. The words of Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato are strictly literal and inerrant in all cases; any translations of his non-euphemisms are divinely protected from error and/or euphemistic language. PacWalker 11:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the argument from divinely-ordained literalism. Clearly I have no choice but to accept the obvious truth. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
However, you do have the option to start a schism by declaring his words a literal prediction of euphemisms to be used by another. PacWalker 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgot you were semi-established.[edit]

Sorry 'bout that, BON. --Madman (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Eh, no worries. But really, trying to quiet down the drama doesn't mean people're someone's sockpuppet. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I do think it might make you way too damn optimistic in this case. PacWalker 10:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, it's not like I'm expecting everyone to suddenly be best buddies and start singing cumbaya. Even if there's very little hope of improving the situation, that shouldn't mean we should throw all effort to out of the windowWikipedia's W.svg. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No defenestration of RationalWiki? I mean I suppose they have already kicked off the war... you have a point though, I guess. PacWalker 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I will permaban anybody singing Cumbaya. BicyclewheelModerator 11:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Whistling? PacWalker 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Argh! Now I really wanna sing it! But I hate singing! Oh, the conflict. :( 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You might be allowed to if you registered... ;) PacWalker 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Black in black people is usually not capitalized..."[edit]

A lot of scholarship by and about people from Africa and its diaspora does use the upper-case "B", but you're right that popular press/the newspapers tends not to. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It just seemed like a "RW article with weird capitalization" thing. And using a capital B somehow makes the differention between races seem more significant/justified (though maybe that's just my subjective perception). I'm by no means an expert, though, so if I made a mistake feel free to revert. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Missional Portuguese articles[edit]

In case the mob decides to torch them, which ones do you think are missional? Only the three you mentioned?|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg In a few minutes, bitch 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Those 3, Ensino doméstico and Homeopatia. There's a few others with missional subjects, but they look too stubby or focus too much on that Olavo fellow. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

if oyu havent gotten the hint[edit]

CREATE AN ACCOUNT Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Seriously you deserve sysop ship, you make good edits, and know your stuff, all you need to do is create an account. Bubba41102 CUMON STEP IT UP 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You're aware that sysop is considered a demotion on RW, right? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

REASONS TO MAKE AN ACCOUNT[edit]

  1. sysop
  2. this section title is huge
  3. sysop
  4. also patrolling your edits is annoying
  5. sysop

FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

6. I will unban you if you're caught singing Kumbayah. PacWalker 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Reasons to not make an account[edit]
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.

Also this section title is tiny. PacWalker 19:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

And see the blue notice below: if you feel like this comment shouldn't be directed at you, well... PacWalker 19:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reasons not to make an account[edit]

  1. People keep badgering me to create an account. :D
  2. Keeps me mysterious. :)
  3. Allows me to break the stereotype of anonymous users!
  4. I don't need to come up with a good username.
  5. Lets me have numbers and dots for my username without it seeming weird. :)
  6. No responsibilities!
  7. No drama about abusing sysop powers! :D
  8. Did I mention the numbers and the badgering?

I can think of some more reasons if you'd like. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

1: galileo syndrome
2: masked man fallacy
3: rationalwiki was always at war with eastasia, and does not stereotype bons
4: your username should be "One-Four-One Dot One-Three-Four Dot Seven-Five Dot Two-Three-Six"
5: see above
6: you're responsible for breaking my heart
7: THE POWER
8: did I mention THE POWER
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I still find my reasons more compelling. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Think of all the winky faces you could be adding to the block log! PacWalker 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but wouldn't it be more of an achievement if I managed to sufficiently popularize the winky face to make other people use it in the block log? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
no ;) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. :P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
141BoN already has an account--FedTruther (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, #9. The baseless IP-of-established-user accusations. Those always crack a smile. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Man, who haven't you been accused of being? PacWalker 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, I don't think Hitler knows how to use the internet, or time travel, so probably not him. CorruptUser (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, my IP addresses are usually either (a) registered to AT&T or (b) in the 131.204 range, and are never static. PacWalker 20:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooh...[edit]

I just remembered that I don't have to disable account creation if I block someone. I shall remember that. PacWalker 21:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Planning on blocking me? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
What? No, you're generally helpful, friendly, sysop-worthy, and certainly don't merit a block. PacWalker 21:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Moar reasons to create an account[edit]

What if you move, or are logging in from out of town, or on your phone, or many other things where you arnt at home Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's convenient then that I don't use my phone to access the internet and that I'm at home most of the time, being unemployed. Though having a different IP could be an interesting experience. It'd kinda be like sockpuppeting. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
But if oyu had an account we would never know............ Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! The perfect sockpuppet crime! :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, making an account might prevent you from being mistaken for one of my many supposed socks. PacWalker 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Which definetly dont exist, this is a lie truth Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did i mention editing protected articles Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 19:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not previously. Though protecting articles for long durations is rather the exception than the rule on RW, so not being able to edit them isn't a major limitation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
But the todo list and ht eother list related articles Bubba41102 Taste the shortness 19:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
A disincentive from getting too fixated on RW isn't necessarily a bad thing. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

to be fair[edit]

It is possible to be for something and against the movement for it, I support socialism, the environent and animal rights but not china, eco-terrorists/anti nukers and peta. Doesnt justify him but it isn't that countradictory--Miekal 23:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant "the movement" in a more generalized sense. E.g. "environmentalism" is the name for the movement that seeks to protect/preserve the environment, or the movement fighting for animal rights is generally known as "the animal rights movement". I support both of these movements, but that obviously doesn't mean I'd automatically support all organizations or ideologies that are tied to the broader movement.
And his statements seemed to suggest feminism in general was 'poison', not just any particular form/wave/strand of it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Meeble[edit]

Do you have a user account? LlamaPastor31 I don't prefer balsamic vinegar. 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I am a proudly unregistered user. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

can you plz make an account[edit]

your goddamn edits aren't autopatrolled, and so recent changes looks like !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and it really spooks me oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

also think of all the ;)-ing you could do in block logs oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

and also plz oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But I like my edits being emphasized by red exclamation marks. :D 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
but i cry proportionally to the exclamation marks. *sniff, sniff, sob* Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound very healthy. :( Do you know where this strange reaction to red exclamation marks/IP edits originated from? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
it probably started when you made 3,00,00,0,00 edits and they were all marked red Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
That... doesn't seem to be a proper number. Also, a fair warning: people putting all the blame on me tends to make me less responsive to their suggestions. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
but this situation is cleerly ur falt FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So my edits are that bad that they made you hate red exclamation marks? :( 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

for your opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy[edit]

I see you've kept Jimmy busy while I was gone. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You could say that. Seems I've so far failed to teach him humility, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. He was a Conservapedia sysop, and that's not their forte. Jimmy, for some reason, decided to summon me via email notification. He hasn't changed a bit. I don't know what he's talking about now, but I wish she was my "dame" as he put it. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Chicken Boy, you've admitted to being an imbecile in love with Taylor Swift. Can you defend yourself? I was also banned from Conservapedia because they are obviously too liberal. --Elvis is King (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You got blocked by the edit filter[edit]

Apologies; unblocked. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking into what happened right now. I should have a solution shortly. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I changed some of the rules to the edit filter and, also, archived the offending material that was on FuzzyCat's talkpage. You should be free to edit without hassle again. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop vandalisming[edit]

Thanks. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the edit filter[edit]

Try again. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe you could just make an account and not be pestered by petty edit filters[edit]

FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 21:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

First I tried to edit your talkpage to point you to this and then I tried to edit your talkpage to thank you for unblocking me. Is your talkpage haunted? o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly it is an organized attempt to give you an account.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems plausible! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You should make an account--and have it be 141.134.57.236. Just sayin'. --Maxus (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
We wouldn't even give you any rights! It'd really be the simpliest solution: Avoid the issues that come from not having an account while still maintaining the same level of whatever you're maintaining now. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sadly though, it doesn't accept IP addresses as account name. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel sure that I recall an IP address user name five or six years ago. ... Yup thought so. Scream!! (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, how about that... I guess RW has different username requirements than most wikis. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Good boy. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on me staying logged in all the time, though. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Which thread did you want to keep?[edit]

The "Obligatory SCOTUS" one still seems active, but which prior Saloon topic did you want to keep? The page is getting huge, and pibot is AWOL. SmartFeller (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You also deleted some recently added comments. It's all good now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Was wondering where all those ~3k bytes went. Thanks! SmartFeller (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

good lord[edit]

this page needs an archive. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And a username. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Didn't ya hear? I got a username now. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, you're not officially impossible to distinguish from that other user. I think banning you until you register seems like a good idea. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

can you make a *REAL* account[edit]

Name it "One-Fourty-One" and it'll seem hip and new Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pfft. Really? I guess buggering me to make an account just doesn't get old. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've a million reasons why! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm only counting 12. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do it to get you out of the basement! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Awh, leave him alone, FCP. 141 is cool as he is. --Maxus (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Um, I'm not sure how that would get me out of any basements... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

About Syria[edit]

I made the edits I did because I thought the way the internationally-recognized official government of Syria was being represented in the article was biased. It is true that a lot of people (almost entirely in America and Europe) call the government "the regime", especially if they want to make it look bad. I know we don't have to have neutrality here at RationalWiki, but this is not a clear-cut case of right and wrong. I think the use in the article was biased against the government and that the word 'government' should be used instead to avoid giving people the wrong impression. A compromise move would be to call the government 'the regime' as long as the opposition are called 'terrorists', 'jihadis' or 'Islamists'. What do you think? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, it makes little difference to me whether we talk about "Assad's government" or "Assad's regime". But Assad's government de facto isn't the only one in Syria anymore and de jure it's lost a lot of its international recognition. As for calling (all of?) the opposition terrorists/jihadis/Islamists, take a look at this map and tell me the Kurds and Syrian oppositionWikipedia's W.svg forces don't control a bunch of territory as well (also take note that, though there's a lot of dark gray on that map, much of the ISIS-controlled territory consists of barren land/desert area). That the media likes to focus on the extremists doesn't mean they're the only ones there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your last point. I said the thing about Islamists in a slightly sarcastic way to deliver a larger point: this article shouldn't use the biased word regime. We don't use the word regime for Israel, so why do we use it for Syria? The western media uses it because they are against it.

If we're really going to argue over semantics, I could say that the Assad regime isn't the only regime in Syria. There are others: ISIS certainly is a brutal regime, and Al-Qaeda controlled areas also constitute a regime. So let's drop the word altogether and go with the less biased one.

Also, I said what I said about Islamist and jihadis because this. The Kurds don't really constitute opposition. For the most part they have gotten along quite well with the Syrian government in Qamişlo‎, Hesîçe‎, Aleppo, and Kafr Nubl area, rarely clashing and sharing control of governmental institutions. The Kurds have fought the rebels several times in Efrîn and Aleppo.‎ Also note that on that map (which I helped contribute to for several months) the grey color is exclusively for al-Nusra. The green color includes very extreme factions like Ahrar al-Sham (wants an Islamic State, worked with ISIS), Jaish al-Islam (leader called for genocide and they have used human shields), and other Islamists. If you look at the wiki pages, FSA totals about 55,000; whereas the Islamic Front has 55,000; al-Nusra alone has 11,000; and ISIS has at least 55,000 in Syria alone by conservative estimates. And also not all FSA members are devoted secularists. The moderate rebels are outnumbered 2-1 by Islamists and Jihadis. So to summarize: the green color is really misleading. The majority of the rebels in that green are frankly not nice guys, and they have a view of Syria's future closer to that of Saudi Arabia than that of Tunisia. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about semantics. At the start of the whole affair, you could've referred to Assad's government as the Syrian government and been speaking completely neutrally. But with the current reality being what it is, that is no longer the case. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I'm sure the rebels include a lot of factions that aren't nice guys, but to say 2 out of 1 identify as Islamic, thus they must be extreme Islamists, thus the majority of the rebels are bad guys makes a couple assumptive jumps too many for my tastes. Either way, what you're making it sound to me is like you've given up hope of Syrian rebels achieving positive change/fear the bad factions getting the upper hand and achieving negative change. If you think Assad's regime is Syria's best bet for peace and stability right now, there's nothing wrong with that position. But it doesn't mean you should rewrite our RW article to assert Assad's government as the one and only legitimate government of Syria. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:59, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

So what do you propose? I gathered you didn't care all that much. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if the word 'regime' bothers you that much you're free to change it. Just don't change the tone to being Assad-apologetic. I think your most recent change is acceptible. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Polls[edit]

Poll votes are based on position, not text. Insertions rearrange the votes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Floof!~) 03:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware. Depending on what you're referring to, I either inserted something when there were no votes for the rearranged options (so nothing got mixed up) or I intentionally rearranged the votes so a particular option got more votes. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam Smith[edit]

He's badly abused by free market fundamentalists. But leaves them wide open to attack with the man's own words.---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a lot of issues with the broader ideology of classical liberalism (aside from the laissez-faire capitalism associated with it), though I do think 'social liberalism' is more relevant when it comes to the usage of "the regressive left" (going by what people using the term typically accuse their opponents of). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Snark?[edit]

I have no problem with it but I hope this is cheeky.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say cheeky is putting it lightly. :) It's also interesting to note how no one (including Le Pen herself) seems inclined to point out that she'd be France's first female president. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)



Information icon.svg This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.

We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.