User talk:142․124․55․236/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 October 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

ew ew ew

FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

? 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Such ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ. I will totally not abuse it! Thanks! 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

clever

Now I'm wondering what would happen if IP 142․124․55․236 ever did actually edit - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Then their contributions will show up here: Special:Contributions/142.124.55.236. It seems my username somehow differs from the IP address. I suspect it's something with the dots. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, your dots are a different character than a period. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

=l

U inactiv Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, was on a short vacation. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Couple things here, sonny.....

1. Never rename an article without a discussion on what it should be named on the talkpage. This has always been standard practice here.
2. Never rename an article in the middle of a deletion discussion, because it breaks all the links going to and from that discussion.
3. The article in question likely cannot be saved by a simple rename anyways, so moving it around it tediously breaking things that will be gone soon anyways.

Gooniepunk (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Whelp, a patronizing tone and assertions about how "things are done here", despite me being way more active here than you. Yeah, that's gonna get your point across. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Are you sure you're way more active here than I am? Or are you more active than this account is? There's a difference in that question as I, too, edit from IPs. And for the record, the only reason I took a patronizing tone with you is because you mouthed off to me, shithead. Gooniepunk (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And the reason I 'mouthed off' is because you unilaterally reverted me and repeatedly put annoying blocks on me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Because you were breaking a lot of things, you fucking moron!!! Gooniepunk (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Or did you just stop me from fixing those things? I wonder. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

A very convenient defense, now that I pointed out what you were breaking. Never mind the original, failed rename that added double-redirects to the breaking. Gooniepunk (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Double/broken redirects which I immediately set out to fix, which you would've known if you'd paid attention to my edits and hadn't immediately reverted me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Please be civil. This here isn't talk:Zionism 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the various expletives Goonie threw at me, I think I've stayed pretty civil throughout this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I could say something like "that's not the fucking point you shithead" but that would be a cheap joke... 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, cheap jokes seem to be your expertise. Well, calling them jokes might be a bit too generous. Ooh, pwned! Now where's my cheap joke award? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I chuckled, so that should be enough. And what exactly do you mean by cheap jokes being my sepcialty? Do I really have to add <irony></irony> whenever I am trying to be humorous? 194.95.142.180 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you make it pretty obvious. Though (re)igniting such discussions isn't necessarily helpful for diminishing the overall animosity. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Patronizing isn't so bad. Don't worry so much about it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I never! I will get uppity over whatever I feel like getting uppity about, good sir! Now if you'll excuse me, I have other business to get uppity about. (Really, it was this or something blatantly patronizing. These responses aren't hard to predict, to be honest.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any such "standard practice" WalkerWalkerWalker 22:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a BoN that needs avenging? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Always! The BoNs are a perennially oppressed people. :/ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

So I've been told... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that earlier

I am busy recovering from surgery, and was still high on Vicodin when I snapped earlier. I apologize for that. I didn't mean to be a dick (or even edit RW) at that time. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's okay; all is forgiven. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:35, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Question

Do you have to manually timestamp your posts, or is some automagic happening? WalkerWalkerWalker 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have the special timestamp in my customary signature. It means I have to sign with 3 tildes instead of 4 though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:09, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

So there's some {{}} variable dealibobber for the time and one for day and one for month or? WalkerWalkerWalker 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Thanks, oh great wiki-wizard!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Don't forget to add in "subst:" if you plan on using it in your sig btw. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I would, if there would be a plugin here allowing the use of exotic calendars such as the Hebrew, Islamic, French Revolutionary, Mayan, Chinese, and so on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could possibly make a template to act as a conversion table... WalkerWalkerWalker 21:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To do it myself would take some major wiki-template-wizardry to accomplish, so I'd have a look at the stuff floating around on the net (I'm not surely not the first wiki-user dreaming about having exotic calendar dates in his/her signature, user page and so on).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Signatures

The main object of signatures (after identifying the editor) is to enable links to that editor's talk & personal pages. How does an (incorrectly spelled) name fulfil these objectives? Scream!! (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't. That doesn't somehow change what the definition of a signature is though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Not gonna start an edit war with you, but I think you're being silly. Scream!! (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think calling something unsigned when it's been clearly, if unconventionally/imperfectly, signed is silly. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

It is surely made clear here ; "Whenever you edit a talk page, you should enter four tildes (~~~~) in line after your comment." That's probably more important than what YOU think.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think being overzealous when a newbie doesn't sign their posts according to accepted conventions from the getgo is silly, but hey, feel free to continue being pedantic. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I think politely pointing it out to the editor in question can do no harm either way... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, though I fail to see how labeling an unconventional/imperfect attempt at signing as "Unsigned" without any further comment is the same as "politely pointing it out to the editor". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Shoulda done that... Though in the absence of tagging, there is quite some likelihood (s)he won't see it if I put it into the discussion in question and putting it on her/his talk page might seem rather apropos of nothing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel blocked

For three times pi seconds, for actually funny silliness. I would block you in earnest but can't... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well i mean

would you have anything good to say about ol' destruction spirit? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought the idea was that the entity in question was to be perceived negatively to an extent. Else I would've said Ahura Mazda.
But no, obviously there's nothing good to say about the representation of all that is evil. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

What about Seth?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

His name doesn't start with an A? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

There have been religious movements that say the "good" god is the result of propaganda and the bad one is getting a bad rep as early as Gnosticism. Maybe, this is another case of that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Then that propaganda must've been really entrenched as "Angra Mainyu" literally means "malign mind" in Avestan. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I am not saying it is true, after all, it is all made up either way. What I am saying is that it is a common trope. And what the f is Avestan? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A language, maybe? More precisely, it's the ancient language the Zoroastrian sciptures were written in. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. I am after all pretty ignorant. We are stupid over there in West-East-Antarctica ;-) Also, you might take a look at the new article on the Trickster Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

french is a terrble language

just terrible--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree! But that doesn't stop me from knowing it, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

The only French i know is "Can you speak french?" Which, while useful if i feel like beating up some french speakers, isn't much else useful. Atleast with Spanish I can say I can't speak Spanish (and English, which just causes confusion).--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything against French. Some of my best friends speak French... That being said... It is one of the Romanic languages I like the least. And that includes the language I have on occasion called "drunken Spanish", i.e. Portuguese Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, "I don't speak French" shouldn't be much different from that phrase. Here: Je ne parle pas français (which is pronounced: juh nuh parluh pa fraansèhh (short uhs)). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

See, that's the problem with pseudo-phonetications: If you can decipher them at all you will sound like some ignorant redneck with the thickest accent in the world. There is not even a difference between the roughly ø sound and the roughly é sound in the way you wrote it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Which é? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Trying a pseudo-German pseudo-phonetic transcription "schö nö parle froonse pa" in essence the third of your "u"s is unlike the others Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's how you spell a j/y consonant sound in German... And you're wrong, parle is just parluh. Maybe you're thinking of parlais/parlait? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's much more ä thaen ö. Which is not at all represented by the way you wrote it down. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Say, which one of us was taught French in school? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I once said Je ne parle pas français to my sister-in-law. She told me I was contradicting myself. Blacke (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

She wasn't wrong. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

In response to the coop page. Just sayin' :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair advice. I'll keep it in mind. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Hey

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy#Punishing_malicious_editing http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guidelines

<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to state your point with more words. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:14, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Just making sure, you know about special:unblock, right? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know how to unblock myself. No worries. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Heh, the autoblock got em. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:BlockList <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, nice. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

The only question is, where is trolling an offense other than the block window (where so are many joke reasons)? I mean, I'm just saying. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's more a convention than a rule at this point. On a related note, trolling isn't always blatantly malicious or immediately apparent as being trolling, so it's a complicated topic to deal with in a guideline. The "If possible, sysops should attempt to engage the malicious editor, not block them" portion of the guideline also seems blissfully unaware of the existence of trolls. Either way, I'd say there were plenty of attempts to engage them prior to the ban(s). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I think it should be added to the guidelines. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that. Feel free to be bold and add it or propose something on a relevant discussion page. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:52, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Done, on the blocking policy page. Perhaps you wish to expand or remove anything. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (administrator) (system operator) (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine, actually. Thanks for being bold. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

HA Reverted u w/ snark at Zionism page

Thought I was reverting Avenger. Please ignore!---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ah now I get it. Treating a Zionist without respect is a-ok. But hitting a non-Zionist by mistake is a deadly sin... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, let me give you this harsh but genuinely honest piece of advice: Any time you think you "get it", think again! ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:27, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Let me give you this honest advice: Being a condescending prick tends to hurt your case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but when it's plainly obvious who's right about things, I think I can afford it. Can you? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

¡Qué me juzguen! ¡La historia me absolverá! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it you who uses Jews' history of being persecuted to absolve Israel of the atrocities it inflicts on the Palestinian population? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Isn't it you who uses a scapegoat caricature of Israel to absolve Hamas of the crimes it commits against anybody they get in their sights? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, because I don't support Hamas. Nice strawman, as usual. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So you're down with calling them a brutal dictatorial terrorist organization that brutally suppresses the people of Gaza and squanders the international aid money they receive while keeping their subjects in abject poverty? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, though some of that sounds slightly exaggerative/tautological. Either way, why don't you try documenting some of that brutalness in their article? Instead of focusing so hard on their charter for (totally surprisingly) expressing a negative sentiment towards Zionists and the ethnic group on whose behalf the latter claims to act. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

No Avenger, I thought I was reverting YOUR edit, but in fact I was reverting the restoration of my own. ---Mona- (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Coop

I am here to inform you that, due to the Zionism debacle, you have been taken to the coop due to your role in the issue. Please be civil so we can find a solution. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

'kay, thanks for the heads up. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

hey

I run a prison, and its great! the prisoners never rebel. Esp. the bad ones, they -never- cause problems, largely because they live in a dark, foodless lightless holding cell without beds and don't have the energy or strength to do so. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So, uh, what do they have? Are they even still alive? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Two benches, a toilet, and two solitary cells with no toilets for when they do do stuff. They technically have some light in that the little slot in the Solitary door lets some light in, though i goes through another small room with the same door, so not much.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And how, exactly, is it that this is legally justifiable in a nation that's all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? A nation that's been known to call itself the defender of the free world? Hmm? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Private, for profit prison. Not that it makes much profit, most of its money comes from replacing the dead prisoner population (they do randomly murder other prisoners or get a little angry, and since my guards only have pistols and no non lethal weapons, the solution tends to just be execution) --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so basically it's America defending the noble and sublime freedom of the people to enable corporations (and guns) to abuse, exploit and kill the crap out of people. ;) Also, they've basically got a free workforce, that's gotta count for something, right? (After all, isn't that what the Confederates went to war over?) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well, i have profit generating systems inside of it, but nobody wants to make lisence plates so it just sort of has this big workshop area for no good reason. Oh, i found one prison i'd made which punished prison escape attempts with 100 hours in solitary, which, upon examination, was just a one square cell with no seats, beds, lights or toilets. That'll teach em. Most i've noticed lack any punishments at all, i just rely on attrition to murder most of my prisoners it seems. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The subject of prisons was brought up in the latest saloon bar thread. Hey Avenger, which one would you say is worst, privately funded prisons in America or Israeli prisons for Palestinians? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I would say neither is deserving of a superlative. But I would hazard a guess that a place that runs on no other ideology thaen the making of money off of human suffering would be a worse place for the inmates, all things considered. Plus, Israeli prisons of any kind are so crowded with Red Cross observers that they can't even dream of any shady business. Even if such were their intention... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those pesky Red Cross observers. So annoying. All obstructing Israel in its glorious and righteous mission. Wouldn't you wish they'd all go missing one night? ;)
(Btw, I'm aware I'm likely strawmanning here, but I couldn't resist. :P) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well for starters they could go observing in Russia. Or Guantanmo. Or Chinese prisons. But of course they have an "important mission" to observe every ingrown toenail in Israel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most human rights organizations were pretty hush hush about Israel's occupation in its early years between 1967 and 1987. The human rights reports that did report abuses against Palestinians actually came from local ones such as the one set up by Israel Shahak rather than national organizations like Amnesty International. It was politically unwise to report on these abuses during this time-frame. It was only when Israel's abuses couldn't go so long ignored (such as the breaking the bones strategy used in the first intifada or the torture of 20,000-30,000 Palestinians over the first intifada as reported by HRW) did human rights organizations and the Red Cross take notice. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You sure are right. Why didn't I think of this response? L’esprit de l’escalier... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pfft, spoilsport. I could use that template for every one of Arisboch's posts if I wanted to. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well why would you do such a divisive and provocative thing? In fact, why even suggest that all Arisboch ever does is trolling? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity as to how you'd react to the cognitive dissonance. ;) And "all" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still pretty close. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Please

Reinstate my sysop status. AgingHippie petulantly removed it because I agreed with you about Ryo and gave him back sysop. ---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a coop case about said issue. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, please reinstate my sysop status.

The removal and the coop case are themselves abuse. AH didn't do that to you for the precise same activity. He simply especially detests me, almost as much as he does Ryo.---Mona- (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think unilaterally reinstating Mona before the conclusion of the coop case was a rather bad move. But what do I know? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

AH did note that it was only meant to be temporary. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Temporary as in: "until this all is settled out". Not temporary as in "for five minutes until some fake BoN comes along" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pfft, really, these cheap quips of yours. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too poor for expensive quips. Fuck the underclasses, amirite? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I'm poor as hell and let me tell you; the underclasses are already fucked. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:44, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I've been working for less thaen the current minimum wage just this past December. So trust me, I know a thing or two about poverty. And you know what we call underclasses being fucked? Capitalism. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Mona, I've found your sysop tools and returned them to you. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Thank you. I figured you or Chris would do it but that poor lad/gal has sadly missed all this. Now I need to go do my kickboxing.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey

I think you should contribute your coop vote to the "Mop him up, with conditions", as the "Mop him up, right away" is unlikely to win. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your analysis proved wrong in the end. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nice

Judicious archiving sir\madam. There is an art to determining when archiving is more likely to settle things down, you may have the gift. Tielec01 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'm writing a little tidbit to wrap things up. Let's hope it causes a new coop-shitstorm, eh. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Evening

File:It's Called Clopping, Dad!.jpg

At the risk of affronting some people's sensibilities: both are mere non-sentient drawings of butts. While anyone's free to consider it creepy/gross/depraved, what's the actual harm in someone fapping to either one? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Paravant is irrationally upset that I intended to add content to a page regarding issues of pedophilia and ableism in a subculture I had no idea he was in. So long as he acts that way (and also so long as {{User User Brony}} is actually fucking on this website), I will have that line on my user page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Because all bronies are bad? Really, Ryu, I think you're nutpicking here. Not all bronies hail from 4chan (or 8chan, for that matter) and/or are sexually attracted to the characters. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ryo: At this site there is an individual who is considered so reasonable by his peers that he's a moderator. So, if he says an entertainment activity he's significantly involved in is "Not All X, Or Even Largely X," then -- especially in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary -- I'm going to believe him. It's an asset that we have a trusted user here who knows something about this topic. He could, of course, be wrong. But where is the credible sourcing that he is?---Mona- (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the fandom because parts of it still cannot escape the 4chan roots akin to Gamergate. And the fact that I have been repeatedly accused of something akin to reactionary bigotry is really fucked up. People chose to watch a cartoon originally marketed towards young girls. I don't like how these people have acted in regards to that fact and in general when called out on shit behavior of people amongst them (as was the intention in my original changes to the page). I did not expect such an extreme pushback from what is basically the behavior this fandom is known for when criticized and I did not expect it from someone with as high a status on this site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant non sequiturs. It doesn't matter a fucking whit whether you like this fandom for favoring a cartoon marketed for young girls. It doesn't matter a fucking whit if you like how they react when criticized. What matters are facts and whether you can document them. Paravant's status is a consequence of the community perceiving him as reasonable. There is no reason not to believe him and not to regard his expertise, as a member of this fandom, as an asset. Unless and until his views on this are contradicted by FACTS.---Mona- (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I did document them. But Paravant repeatedly went #NotAllBronies on me. His commentary on the AFD page shows that considering he thinks I think Bronies want to eugenically eliminate the disabled rather than there being an ableist streak amongst the fandom.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be a presumptuous assumption to assume that they're exaggerating a bit for snark's sake (and to repay the animosity you've shown towards them in kind). And when you keep broadly painting the fanbase in one way when your criticisms mostly only apply to a particular subsection, what other reaction do you expect? When MRAs paint feminists as hating men and having totalitarian fantasies, what else would you do than point out that this doesn't apply at all for the vast majority of feminists? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

And yet the resident Bronies here got extremely defensive when their fandom was criticized, which is general behavior on their part. Stop making shitty analogies too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Given how you were behaving, the broad condemnations on bronies you were making, and the accusations of brony propaganda, I can't say I blame them. Also, as far as I'm aware, only Paravant and Zexcoiler are bronies, and only one of them were particularly involved in the dispute, so labeling all opposition you got as 'brony defensiveness' seems rather inaccurate. And what's shitty about the analogy? I don't claim it's a numerically precise comparison, but you don't seriously think the vast majority of bronies are actually obsessed with MLP porn, do you? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:49, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

We're talking about fans of a cartoon being overly defensive to having their fandom criticized.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"We're talking about fans of a cartoon being overly defensive to having their fandom criticized." No "we" are not. Only you are. I don't give a flying fuck if they are "overly defensive." If you can document your claims credibly, then fine. If you can't, they go. In the absence of facts to resolve a claim(s), I'd defer to Paravant's position because he's reasonable and he knows the phenomenon.---Mona- (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I did document the claims.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I did document the claims- Ryulong ^{Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!?}--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about human beings getting defensive over something that is dear to them getting dragged through the mud. Incomprehensible, right?

If we're gonna go arbitrarily deciding that what franchise you're a fan of shouldn't be a big deal (though some might disagree on this), then why is it so important to broadly condemn the fandom of a show to begin with? Every fandom with adults in it has their sex-obsessed maniacs; why slander whole fandoms for that? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Because this particular fandom has been the subject of enough criticism that it was completely insane for the page to be completely devoid of any such harsh criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely devoid of? Weren't there already sections on the pornography and 'Derpygate' on the page? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Also, if there's been such a huge amount of (valid?) criticism of the fandom, why does the much more sizable Wikipedia article on the fandom seem to document it less than RW does? Is there a brony cabal at WP maybe? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:50, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

The content on "Derpygate" was a victory on how the DVD had the original voice recording rather than any actual content concerning the joke's ableist origins. The pornography section is 2 sentences at best. And they seem to cover criticism fairly well which is more than could be said about the local version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how I read it, but eh. *shrugs* Be wary of confirmation bias, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:17, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Our page didn't have the word "ableism" on it. It also didn't touch on how all of the fan art porn of the show is pedo garbage because they're prepubescent girls and not young adults no matter how much fucking handwaving is done by Bronies on all those websites I found googling "how old are the mane six".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, sure, if you specififcally google a phrase like that you're gonna find a number of instances where that phrase pops up. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:23, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Every fucking page insists that the cast is the human equivalent of college age when they turn into teenage girls in a fucking spinoff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is still no proof for them being of "college age" (which is in many cases still above the age of consent even in the US (above 18), so fuck you).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

People chose to watch a cartoon originally marketed towards young girls.- Ryulong Why the fuck should the be a problem at all???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem in itself. It is, however, when that section of the fandom use their privilege to dominate fandom spaces and make the environment toxic to said little girls.179.222.133.47 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please translate this from whatever jargon you wrote in plain English? What kinda so-called "privilege" do they use how to how "dominate" a fandom and how do they make anything "toxic"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've only been aware of the MLP fandom through secondary materials like Arisboch has said, but with all due respect how does this "controversy" differ from furry fandom? Both fanbases are huge, have been ostracized, and have the occasional pornographic deviancy. Granted, there's some nuttery in the dark corners of 4chan somewhere, but a slight against the entire fanbase should be sourced with citations. Withoutaname (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added citations. Paravant locked the page up and erased everything back to the puffery version.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what a comparison between revisions tells me. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I added them later.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, just, just unbelievable. I wasa gonna say if you knew some of the charities opened by bronies, but hey, your choice, Ryu. You sir frankly disgust me! ^{Hello! Look!} 16:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some religious people also start charities, so I am not sure whether you were actually really making this argument in earnest... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there's even a biker gang association that stands guard outside of the homes of abused children before and during a trial so that nothing happens (pretty awesome actually) to him/her, but the point I was originally trying to make is that Ryu's broad depicting of all bronies is misguided if he assumes all or the great majority are pedophiles/horsef*kers, such as many people's assumptions about other topics by just sayin' that a large portion of the fanbase does some neat things like that, no matter how many 4chan posts, Horse News articles, or misogynists go the opposite way. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here!} 17:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the case of charities, the question is whether these are set up in earnest or for commercial/PR reasons. For GGers for example I'd assume it'd tend towards the latter. For religions, it can vary a lot. Some religious people really want to help the poor, but there's also an abundance of commercial churches. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Really does depend. For bronies, I remember that one big charity frequently donates to the army Toys For Tots charity, and another one does either grants or partial scholarships for art students at some California State university (CS or UC System). You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here!} 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's true that Paravant and others have deleted Ryu's credibly documented claims, and these claims are relevant and not redundant, then I oppose that. If not all of that, then I don't oppose the deletions.---Mona- (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel like making a new thread. CaptainCaptain's being a tool again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying they at one point stopped being one? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Also Carpetsmoker unblocked him (and that idiot Aussie BoN who keeps yammering about the SAT) immediately after I blocked him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And rightfully so. By the way, your comments on the SAT page simply amount to "shut the fuck up", so well, who is being unreasonable there? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read his arguments? It's all based on the lead section of a fucking TV Tropes page. And this is after he spent months shitting up Talk:Feminism. The IP is so fucking stupid. He's an Australian kid who is obsessing over American standardized tests because of shit he read on a website meant for documenting trivia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick search actually reveals quite a few results; to top one from Cato says: "seems counterproductive and institutionally suicidal", so well ... It's the Cato institute of course, but that's still fairly main stream/respectable... In any case, no matter how "stupid" he is, or where he's from, that's no reason to block him for a day. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)