User talk:

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

Check out 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? ;)  ~

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

Thanks. ;) (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 afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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


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. (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. ;) (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good edit[edit]

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

Ah, thanks. ;) (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. :/ (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? (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. (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A username of "" 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. >.> (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. (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
So call yourself User:IP Landmartian (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That only solves the latter point though. ;) (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. ;) (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Since 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. ;) (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. ;) (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. (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. ;) (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? (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. ;) (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for assuring me that I don't conform to the norm. ;) (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


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. (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Emotional plea[edit]

"Excellent voice acting."

-- New York Tim



"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. :/ (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. (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. (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. (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. (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? (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. (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. (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* (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. (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. (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. ;) (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. ;) (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... (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? (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. (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. (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. (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. :( (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. (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. (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. (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? ;) (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


  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. ;) (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
8: did I mention THE POWER
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I still find my reasons more compelling. ;) (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? ;) (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
no ;) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. :P (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. :) (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)


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? ;) (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. ;) (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. :) (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! :) (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. (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. ;) (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. (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Do you have a user account? LlamaPastor31 Tomatoes are not for fruit salads 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I am a proudly unregistered user. :) (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 (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? >.> (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. >.> (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? :( (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. ;) (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


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. (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 (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! (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You should make an account--and have it be 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. (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. (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. :) (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 FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pfft. Really? I guess buggering me to make an account just doesn't get old. >.> (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. (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Do it to get you out of the basement! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (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! ;) (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Um, I'm not sure how that would get me out of any basements... (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 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. (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. (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. (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. (talk) 06:02, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)


Poll votes are based on position, not text. Insertions rearrange the votes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 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. ;) (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). (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


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. (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


Thank you so much for noticing the horrendous mistakes I made in Ann Coulter's entry. I was using word substitution software and it ruined my edit. I only meant to swap a removed article with an archive link. — Unsigned, by: Meprise / talk / contribs

Yep, I figured it was something like that. ;) (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The inherent ability of computers to really foul things up by doing what you say rather than what you mean (and with spell and grammar checks suggesting the most inappropriate words/rewrites first). Anna Livia (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cognitive differences in sexes[edit]

While I appreciate the cooperation, the edit you made contains the passages that riled up editors in the first place. I think the revision without the brain weights and all is the agreed-on version. It's only Lankaster who has a problem with it and is resorting to unacceptable altering content along with passive-aggressive mocking ranting. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think my changes address most of the stated concerns. (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
"on average, which is partly accounted for by larger body dimensions": James Earl Cash says the "on average" should be specified to "macroscopic scale" and the "partly accounted part" seems to be complete bunk and not supported by references, according to ikanreed. I made those changes. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems fair. There's probably some women who have a larger brain than some guys, but the "on average" part is kind of implied anyway in these sort of general statements. It's funny how changing it from "only partly" to just "partly" completely changes the connotation. But if the ref doesn't support it, out it goes. (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


Lol, made my day. — Dysk (contribs) 16:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. ;) (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for ignoring small mistakes[edit]

But "Burn the jews" is a hell of an "oversight". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is, and as I said, if you want to include it somewhere that's totally fine. But straight up labeling him an anti-Semite for something he himself considers an embarrassing mistake is dishonest and dumb. (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You have demonstrated clear bad faith argumentation. I'm not unfairly assuming anything about you. Not a thing[edit]

I'm going to try to make this whole discussion without telling you to "get your head out of your ass", but it's gonna be goddamn hard.

So I've got a few hangups about your recent behavior that can't let me treat you as someone with good faith arguments from a different ideological perspective.

You demanded I reconsider my perspective, and I seriously tried, on the explicit grounds you asked me to. I didn't change my mind, which means I could be lying to you right now, and all I have to promise that I took time to seriously consider what you were asking, that I consider there being decent, intellectual, fair-minded conservatives who I gloss over in my apparently overgeneralized perspective about them. That's not something I've never done before, because hell, I recognize what mindless hate looks like. It looks damn similar to what I believe.

To that end, you supplied an example of what you considered to be the intellectual validity that can be found and respected. To that end, I tried reading every essay in their latest publication. I found barely covered-up racism, a purposefully dishonest representation of fucking tweets by one reporter, a dishonest representation, I hasten to add, that was cooked up by alt-right internet shitheads, republished with no thought, or anchor-points a standard they'd ever hold themselves to, and two very bland cultural commendation pieces not particularly worth commenting on.

I went back to a moment in history where I considered the conservative movement "went off the rails" from bad to irredeemable. The start of the Iraq war. Totally pointless, aimless bloodshed. And I told myself, "even I personally consider their arguments 'against diversity' to be obviously asinine and derived from bigotry if I find arguments for restraint against one of the most stupid mistakes of 'the right', I'd be unfair to just hold them in contempt for that." Further reconsideration would be due. What I found was pure, unrestrained, purely bigoted bloodlust. Demands for mass bombing campaigns to "make america look strong". Articles suggesting that the existence of Islam and good morals were incompatible(the irony has not escaped me). The worst, most base kind of shit I attribute to the conservative movement. Oh they used adjectives, referenced history, but then implied a need for genocide.

At that point I was angry, I'll admit it, I felt like you'd fed me something you hadn't even looked at because you googled "intellectual conservative publication" or something. For the last bit, I jumped to 1985, hoping to find something culpatory about Iran-Contra. I found something worse. A kill-all-gays, homosexuality is a crime against public health manifesto of hate. Not the one more piece of shit I wanted for my answer to you, but one that actively made me seethe far more. What fucking scum had you directed me to?

I came back to you with my findings. I had not found what I was looking for, something to reshape my view of conservatives with less contempt and more understanding, but a profound and even viscerally unpleasant to experience confirmation of my existing views. Your response, to the genuine and sincere effort I made was, irrespective of whether I explicitly described seeking the latest issue and understanding it from holistic perspectives, was a brief "you're just nutpicking and strawmanning". I don't know if you believed that, but I definitely know you didn't put the effort to have even a moment of contemplation on your own views as you demanded from. You just threw the entire sincere response I had to my "oversight" into the trash as unfair. I tried to answer your charge of nutpicking with the very real fact that I went to the latest issue as a specific method to overcome that way of biasing myself. You just went away to snipe again another day. No resolution as to whether you reconsidered the intellectual credibility of the Claremont Book Review, no hint as to whether you reconsidered the fairness of the nutpicking accusation. Just gone. Nobs, while a bit possibly literally crazy, is way less dishonest in his dealings.

This has all been a personal story, a lot of "I" and "me"; it's my perspective on what it was like trying to give you a little credit, to not toss you in a bin of shitheels, after our past interactions that haven't exactly painted a favorable image. But it's a story of how I'm not assuming bad faith, I assumed good faith, and rapidly lost it. And it's personal enough that I don't expect you to intuit that as what happened. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, alright. Let me start out by admitting I kinda gave up on having a meaningful conversation when you responded with "nah they're psychos [...] <stuff from Sarah Jeong's discredited apology> [...] made up by literal goddamn nazis" followed by more in a similar vein. You can call Cernovich and Posobiec a number of things (especially Cernovich), but literal goddamn nazis... seems like a stretch. Anyway, my immediate impression was that you were really focusing on any bad stuff you could find and (maybe unintentionally) inventing particularly uncharitable interpretations. And then you dragged out the old stuff. It seemed like a dishonest attempt to pin all the bigoted stuff conservatives used to be renowned for on me to sabotage any good-faith communication. And to be fair, the apartheid article basically just says "foreign interventions should generally be avoided + we urge South Africa to treat its black population better + we're afraid of hasty revolutions". If South Africa was replaced with Iraq here, would you object to those points? I'm also not sure where you got the "All muslims are evil" angle from. It's a history piece about Greek independence vs the Ottoman empire + relevant ideological underpinings.
But let's put all of that aside for now. And let me first clear one thing up. I recommended Claremont because I once read a couple interesting articles from it and I'm familiar with a few pretty wonderful people associated with it. It's not a publication I regularly check up on though, so it's perfectly possible that you have a different assessment. That being said, if you're really looking for reasonable/intellectual conservatives you're going to need to 1) look past the bad apples, 2) ignore perceived dog whistles, and 3) understand that conservatives are often informed by different sources than what you're familiar with. Here's a good example. Take this article about America's past decade of wars and the related decline of the ruling elite. Here is one paragraph in particular I think you'll find objectionable:
That is roughly the story of Iraq, too. Saddam Hussein supported and advocated terrorism by paying bounties to suicide bombers, and hosting terrorist organizations' headquarters and training facilities. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was mounted from Iraq. Some of its organizers, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, also took part in 9/11. U.S. Intelligence still shrouds in secrecy what it knows about the deep relationship between Iraqi Intelligence, al-Qaeda, and other organizations infiltrated by it. Saddam had made himself the paladin of anti-Americanism in the Arab world. Thus the 2003 U.S. invasion that overthrew him served the American people well. Had our forces withdrawn quickly, they would have left most Iraqis grateful to America, and the rest fearful of it. But the subsequent occupation of Iraq was a multidimensional disaster.
But if we excise this one paragraph from the piece... well, try it out. What do you make of this article when you ignore the objectionable part in this one paragraph? What do you make of the author? Do you think they're a dumbass/bigot/nazi/etc.? What do you make of their analysis? (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also 4) drop the guilt by association thing. Even if Cernovich and Posobiec were 'literal goddamn nazis', that doesn't mean conservatives are nazis for not instantly detecting it. Most don't even know who they are. It's also unhelpful to give nazis that much power over national conversations. Soon we'll be banning the dictionary definition of words whenever nazis use them too. Come on now. (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not guilt by association to regurgitate bullshit invented by nazis to achieve nazi aims, with a bullshit double standard attached. That's not what guilt-by-association means. You're not pals with the dumb assholes on unrelated terms, if you're actively repeating their asshole conspiracies. Don't you get that's why I hate you guys so much? Your always seem to step up to bat for every goddamn stupid, evil, and unrepentant idea. You rationalize everything. Stop throwing around labels for logical fallacies based on similarity and actually apply them according to their intent.
And that decade-after "no actually it's not our fault that Iraq was bad, it was technical implementation details" think piece you are now telling me gave you cause to consider them good, and especially the excerpt you quoted just makes me hate you and them so much goddamn more. It's conspiracy mongering " U.S. Intelligence still shrouds in secrecy what it knows about the deep relationship between Iraqi Intelligence, al-Qaeda, and other organizations infiltrated by it" is a lie. It became very apparent that we had no fucking evidence at all of any such connection, and substantial evidence of an antagonistic relationship of Al Qeada and Hussein. They fed you a lie, and you believed it. No nuance, no room for me misunderstanding you or them.
I wish to hell the truth was I was just misunderstanding and not giving you or them enough credit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to make an honest effort that's fine, you do you. The point I was trying to get across is that conservatives can clearly do thoughtful analysis if you look beyond the bits of misinformation they believe. You keep mischaracterizing the majority of these articles (the AIDS one is bad, not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole) based on bits you don't like. Kind of surprised by your demand for purity given your previous characterizations of conservatives. But there's no room for gray areas in between it seems. (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Fuck. You. You condescending ass. I've wasted so much time for "honest effort". The "bits of misinformation they believe" has everything to do with justifying mass murder, and gives them(and you) no pause for reflection on what they got wrong. Also I have no fucking clue what the fuck "purity" has to do with anything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
We've both put in a measure of effort, but clearly to no avail. Let's agree to disagree and call it a day. Have a good one, Ikanreed. (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but I still have no fucking clue what purity has to do with anything. A mystery left for another age. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 11 January 2019 (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.