User talk:AgingHippie/Archive10

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Did you see the discussion of protection on various Israel-related pages before yourt talk page was just archived? In these instances at least 2, sonetimes 3, sysops want the protection. User:ChrisAmiss wanted 3 months, whihc I agree is too long. But we need some. Please don't change without discussing it with the rest of us! Thank you. ---Mona- (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit summary Aging Hippie provided when archiving indicates he/she does not want to be towed any deeper into this whole mess. But that might just be my guessing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's his perfect right. But then he ought not be reverting protections other sysops have placed and should leave the whole matter entirely. But I don't think you are his spokesperson, so I'll wait until I see what he might have to say.---Mona- (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The person can speak for themself. I just wanted to throw in my worthless copper coin (or two of them in countries with illogical small change) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection is a solid solution for pages that are targets for vandalism. The proper solution for regular editors who can't agree on the content of a page is not to lock the page, but for those editors to work together like adults and find a consensus. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I agree with Aging Hippie. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

My interests[edit]

Look, right now there's a bit much going on in my life. For that reason I'm sticking with the areas I know a great deal about -- or if I don't know it, I know precisely where to find it. Israel-Palestine is an easy issue for me because I know tons o shit on the topic. Additionally, and obviously, I have strong views on the matter.

But that all said, I do have an interest in anti-woo stuff and will eventually get to drafting an article on those freaks -- "Targeted Individuals" -- who believe governments and corporations worldwide are directing "touchless torture" microwave beams at them, planting voices in their heads, "gang stalking" them at home and work & etc ad ridiculousum. But while I know enough to start researching an article, it isn't enough to draft a proper one. It will take time and energy of a quality I don't feel prepared to give that right now.---Mona- (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Man, that's the kind of bullshit I signed up for! Sounds fun. I mean, the last article I added to RW was on Roger Leir (check its fossil record). Go figure. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, please stop it[edit]

Hey, Paravant, I and other sysops have deemed occasional, brief blocks limited to sysop edits are needed for Israel-related articles. I asked to leave a fucking 1 DAY block on it. As you've preferred, most often individual vandal-binning can do the triuck. But if we are to get any fucking work done sometimes we need a brief window of peace in which to do it. In the future, please leave us be. Short blocks that other sysops want, well, you shouldn't be stopping us. It's hardly collegial.---Mona- (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

i never deemed anything, I used blocks because I wanted to avoid having to use bans and bins. I'm much more in favor of them now however.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried using Pacwalker's Zionism page or your own space rather than the mainpage? This is a wiki; you are not the Chief Editor here, other people are allowed to edit articles. CorruptUser (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, I assume when you take an action, you "deem" it indicated. You have taken those actions. Brief blocks allow reasponable people (which sysops, by definition, are) to get work done uninterrupted. I am sure I will again have occasion to seek a 1 DAY block, and would hope to be left alone in my judgment, just as you were Paravant (for much longer blocks). As for PacWalker's draft page, that is obsolete. Most of it is incorporated into the main article now and has been greatly changed since. Moreover, CorruptUser, the universe of sysops does not = me demanding to be "chief editor." ---Mona- (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Sorry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"Nope. Sorry." Is not a sufficient rationale. ADDING: You, AH, have made it abundantly clear -- including advising me in the block log , you wish I'd not pay attention to Israel-related issues and do something else. You don't like it causing turmoil here., Well, what chutzpah! This site contains myriad articles that touch on that topic. Nor am I alone in the POV I hold -- it is sweeping over the progressive movement, including in the U.S. And, when I try a friendly explanation in the above section, you do not even reply to me. Well, unless it becomes clear I am outvoted, I will employ a breif block as I feel indicated. You've done nothing to indicate you are reasonable on the issue; indeed, you've been downright uncollegial.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona, step back and look at what you are asking. You are asking a WIKI to prevent other people from EDITING. This is not your personal blog. Sysops are NOT given any special privileges over anyone else beyond the job of preventing/removing vandalism; we are not supposed to lord ourselves over the content of Rationalwiki. CorruptUser (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Why should anyone on the RW give a fuck about your anti-Israel jihad or a so-called "progressive movement" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean). Not everyone likes or tolerates the abuse of sysop-tools or mod-tools as a means to push opinions.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Abuses like AgingHippie protecting the page after IP-Avenger had started editing it? (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Could u fucking please explain[edit]

Why you paroled Avenger from the 1 day block I properly imposed? I don't run around conter-manding you, but I can start if you'd like.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your tears are sweet. Cry some more.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend that, it isn't a fight you'll win. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh Paravant, I seldom lose. I'll change tactics if I think I'll lose a particular battle, but I will win when I am certain I am right. And I am here.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Pride commeth before the fall. You also won't get anywhere with those kinds of statements. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's heaping lot of bullsbhit going on here. If *I* protect a page, well, that's an outrage and simply not done. But you, Paravant, well, you can do it. Why, you and others can impose one standard on Arisboch and other editors by allowing them not to source, but another, well, s/he can't be given a chance to. Policies have to seem fair and evenly applied to me, or I will fight it. Every time. You either stop it, or give me a rationale that makes sense of this different treatment of similarly situated users.---Mona- (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch made no edits besides reversions, so i'm not sure what all this complaints about Arisboch adding in unsourced statements is coming from. As to why i'm holding them accountable to sourcing - because you said they'd "add it later" and yet they made no indication they would do so - they declared the previous statement a lie and added their version in as the truth, no promises around. Stop using AH's page for this, btw. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Show me where Avenger engaged in block-worthy behavior. Bear in mind that "being a jerk" doesn't really count as such. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Mona, step away from the blocking tools for awhile. If someone is being sufficiently tendentious a neutral sysop will block them. Tielec01 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This has died out, but I really have to express how I absolutely agree with Paravant. Hubris of this kind is not often seen. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


Give it back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You blocked me three times in order to edit war. Ask Gerard when it's daytime in the UK. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
How the hell am I supposed to fix anything I wrote when you keep reverting the older shit version?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
AgingHippie, I gave it back to him. You are edit warring with him over an article you utterly hate. Why do you even care? Leave him be.---Mona- (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I care because it is a high-traffic article that deserves to be well-written. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It is well-written. Why don't you leave the free speech point in? I don't see why you are giving him such grief? This is really about your fierce devotion to the quality of writing in that particular article?---Mona- (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree that it's "well-written". It uses gross generalisations such as "The video game community is toxic towards women", full stop, goes in way too much detail on unimportant events, and reads more like an anecdote (after X happened Y and then Z) rather than an actual description. It's more like a conservapedia article from the early days without the snark and humour. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Complaints about content doesn't really have much to do about how AgingHippie demopped me without a coop case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is about that. Freedom of speech still appears. The previous version is better-written. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. But if so don't be an ass about it.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Ryu get his sysop taken away by Coop? (And no, don't BS me about how he took it away himself: the votes were all for it.) Who's giving it back, and why aren't they getting a face full of shit? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It was given back a month or so later because someone thought it was useful. Now you give it back because AgingHippie shouldn't have done it without a coop action themselves. I shouldn't have to go to the coop because I couldn't properly edit a page due to AgingHippie's edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The question came up in the coop of when Ryu could get their sysop tools back and the answer (by some old established user, according to one not-well-known policy or other) was after 2 months. It's somewhere in the archives. (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A mop[edit]

May I kindly inquire as to what is keeping my humble self and Arisboch from being given one if we so chose? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I can think of. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait. I see that Paravant/Miekal is the one that de-mopped you. That kid is generally on-point, has been here a while and is and not someone I would undermine without good reason. suggest you take it up with him. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I fear that - for some reason or other - a personal dislike for my person has developed with Paravant... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Work it out with him. I am really not sure what kind of editor you are, but so far you haven't pissed me off. I can act as a neutral mediator if required. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Headless Chicken Mode[edit]

We're there, so I'm unplugging, walking away, and coming back in a week. Let the n00bs deal with it. I have a manuscript to edit. Seeya in a week. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Links to external funding sites[edit]

Hi there. I think I remember that you deleted a link to an external funding site recently. Is there a RW policy on not having such links? There has been such a link on the WikiLeaks page for a while, for example. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You were[edit]

Actually not blocked or without power :p --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete Article[edit]

Hello sir, I need someone to delete an article that I accidentally made, it is titled Joe Clark.S.H. DeLong (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Following what you said[edit]

You said not to protect the page, so I VBed him for his bullshit edit warring on BLM page. He keeps revert int there and elsewhere where he knows he's outnumbered. What is your problem?---Mona- (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC) ALSO: Avenger is basically on parole. Paravant just let him out of patrolled status. He's constantly doing shit and never learns.---Mona- (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

He's a regular here, and not engaged in vandalism. Mop up as required and move on. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus I actually did provide a reason in the edit summary for some of the things I edited. For instance I don't doubt that racist Fox News commentary exists, but I would like to see a link to one, for the benefit of our readers... Also linking to WP in a way that looks like internal links is not something that benefits our readers, unless I am much mistaken... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 on the Wikipedia linking. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
you are not at all mistaken on either issue. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey AgingHippie, remember when you locked the Zionism article back in July after an IP tried to whitewash it into a pro-Israel puff-piece? (No prob if you don't of course, it was many months ago.) Well, that was Avenger before he registered. He still tries whitewashing articles at a somewhat regular interval. Someone unfamiliar with his edits did mop him up, eventually, but due to ceaseless edit warring and other abuse, it was taken away again. Just some background information that might be worth taking into consideration.
(Though I don't think he needs to be vandalbinned for significant durations.) (talk) 23:33, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
He was edit warring. Whether you think that is "vandalism" or not, that's what you SAID tyo do. Except, you do not unlock a page when PARAVANT locks it. You never overturn Paravant. Fucking stop it, AH. I've re-binned him. You don't like it that I'm here but I demand that you not undermine me any more than you would Paravant.---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC), what is the right amount of time if he still hasn't learned? I truly don't know what more to do?!---Mona- (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring is generally a two-person process. My appreciation for Paravant/Miekal's work is not relevant to your needless binning of a user who is not a vandal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Paravant also locks pages and VBs when he's engaged in wars with others. Read what 142 has to say. You de-mopped me and could have been cooped for it. You need to stay out of my shit.---Mona- (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a wiki. There's no such thing as "your shit" people have to stay out. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I TAKE A FANCY TO THE STRONG 23:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh great, you just opened the floodgates. >.< I thought you didn't want to conflict with Paravant's moderator decisions? (talk) 23:45, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was your wiki. I'm still not used to the fact it's Gerard's wiki, and sometimes still think it's Human's wiki. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A technical problem[edit]

I can't seem to unbin myself (which is strange as you seem to have mopped me) and I think it would be helpful given that you have cooped me... As a matter of fact, I was rather close to cooping myself, but refrained from it because I hadn't found a precedent for that... Edit Ah well, I see it's resolved for the duration of the coop. Thanks.Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My input[edit]

Eel free to put this in the above, I just don't wanna be eced while on my phone: I undid avengers initial oping due to his actions at the tine ( in particular being a twat over a petty dislike of British english)showing a complete lack of understanding of rw culture, and this had wide support despite avengers complaints to the contrary.

Since then, besides being mostly wrong on zionism and prone to slap fights and trying to hard with sections in the bar, I think he has become better at understanding the wiki and our ways. Whether he deserves to be moped i'll leave to other people as I simply don't v have the time to really say, so imma say no contest.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, my fighting over British v American English was a bit stupid. Another thing I ans Paravant had disagreements on was whether Footnotes on talk pages in general or my user talk page in specific should be a thing. I think Paravant's way of enforcing his opinion of the rules (which at the time were unclear) was rather heavy handed, but I am willing to adhere to the rules even though I'd prefer them to be changed. As for my opinion with regards to Zionism, I think it should not influence the opinion of any member of RW, but I fear it sadly does in some cases. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I in no way share your opinions on the Israeli/palestine thing, but that should not be relevant to your role on the website. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
On the latter we are in agreement. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be relevant if Avenger didn't have a history of inserting propagandist bullshit into articles. (talk) 02:03, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I am sure you have ample evidence to back up your claims, haven't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You can be quite sure indeed, as you've provided me with plenty. (talk) 02:10, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
One can remove bullshit without binning a user. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but what do you think happens after someone removes the bullshit?
Either way, my comment was more in reference to whether giving Avenger a mop is a good idea or not. (talk) 02:22, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Evening (or other time of day)[edit]

You've been cooped. Just letting you know. >.> (talk) 00:15, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Lol, wow[edit]

A couple hours and you're closing the vote? Not sure if you're being serious here... (talk) 04:07, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

well, most of the "vote" is taken up by Mona talking about me, and people are now dragging in unrelated articles and Israel, so it seemed as good a time as any.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Then you can move all that stuff to a 'Goat' section at the bottom, or to the coop about you if it fits better there. No reason to close the vote after such a ridiculously short time. (talk) 04:11, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


I think an apology is in order. I think I let my passion in a disagreement of opinion get the better of me. I'm glad that I did utter not any words that are hard to take back Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all good/you're fine/no worries/whatever is your preferred regional way of saying "no problem." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Any of these is fine with me. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

About the coop[edit]

Things've gotten pretty silly, looks like. I could archive part of it and turn it into something serious, but I'm kinda ambivalent at this point. I'd be fine with withdrawing the whole thing for now and keeping the various occurrences of questionable conduct I could raise as leverage for the later future. ;)

So, you have any preference? Want to see if I can turns things around? Or rather save the wiki the drama? (talk) 04:36, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I just read this now after archiving AOTB's case. someone else will have to deal with the case about me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
So, no opinion? (My comment was mostly in reference to your coop btw. I see how that was probably not apparent in retrospect. >.>) (talk) 04:42, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
As the accused, I can't really say anything about what should be done with the case. Act boldly, if people disagree, they will let you know. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think I'll just archive it for now. I can always open a new one at a more strategic time, if the need ever occurs. ;) (talk) 04:53, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
It's all about timing, and strategy. At least you know that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"None of this is really true, is it? You are all making this up and trolling us with it, right?"[edit]

Ah, if only they were, if only they were... Alas, it is not so: Lightning Dust (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Account Deletion[edit]

I request that my account be deleted. I have nothing further to discuss. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I can block you for life, a Mod can change the name of the account, but, AFAIK, it is not possible to delete an account from the Mediawiki software, I'd imagine because your contributions are all over the database and cannot be undone. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
See the link in question for what I am referring to, please. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that Step One in that link is re-naming the account, you'll need a mod. Go see Miekal or Gerard. I cannae do that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Just want to acknowledge that you do have strong editing skills. The brouhaha over the BDS section of the BLM article aside, your editing it as to form is good -- at other articles as well.---Mona- (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sorry we have gotten off on the wrong foot, especially given our apparent shared political values. I hope things go better between us in the future. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ditto.---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

An odd request[edit]

Could you restore my various bits? Paravant seems to have gone to bed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think your bits are a fairly consistent issue here? Why do you think most users go years without having their bits brought into question, while yours are a semi-regular topic of intense and fracturing debate? Maybe, as my old girlfriend once said upon leaving me for the last time many years ago, "it's not me, it's you." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Because this time around I've angered a moderator of this website who isn't taking kindly to the fact that the original cordial nature of our interactions soured beyond repair and my intent to put it forward that I would like some time without having to interact with him directly was met with overzealous and strict applications of this community's rules.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
"This time." That's kinda my point right there, kid. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you[edit]

Consider running for mod? N.B. I'm not asking if you want the job, since that is the prime criterion for not getting it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with alec, you should run to become a mod.--S.H. DeLong (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I will accept a nomination. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thou can "campaign" for higher office here.Serocco


AgingHippie! I choose you! Because why not? CorruptUser (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Moderators need more grumbling! Just like the NFL needs less grumbling (yes that was a dig against Belichick and the Ratriots) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Not much of a sports guy outside of my relatively newfound love of cricket, so the reference went right over my head. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess trying to explain it would be about as futile as trying to explain Cricket to me... ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Is the, "peace" part of your signature, or do you type it every time? 'Legionwhat do you want from me 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of the sig. Was thinking of changing it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicken coop[edit]

Good edit deleting that. I was about to do it myself after reading Carpetsmoker's post. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A simple request[edit]

Would you mind undoing the title-change you made to my essay, "Confessions of a Pilot". You were quite quick in making assumptions about what it should be called, based on your, at most, 4-minute scan of the contents, so I don't think it's too much to ask that you be quick in undoing the changes. Thank you. Onychoprion (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all -- As I said on the relevant talk page, I wasn't all that sure..., Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving to I/P forum[edit]

Are you sure that's a good idea? It leaves missing part of the record of editor discussion and thrashing it out over edits. If someone wants to see if their objections have already been addressed, they won't find it there. The BLM talk archives also have discussions of BDS, Palestinians & etc. This just seems weird.---Mona- (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure it is a good idea. Bad enough our articles on apartheid and BLM are, soon enough, going to have more content on Israel than on South Africa or on police violence against African-Americans. No need for the talk page of one of those articles to be dedicated entirely to discussions of Bibi. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
But that does not address the point that you are removing the record of how the content of the article was argued/negotiated on the talk page. Why is that a good idea?---Mona- (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the archives for the BLM talk pages contain I/P-related discussion. So does my user talk page, as to the talk pages of a number of other users. Are you going to also move all the I/P-related content from the Apartheid talk page to the I/P forum? How about the Jeremy Corbyn talk page? Perhaps you could provide some guidance to your fellow editors as to why some I/P discussions on this or that talk page get moved, while others do not. Or do you intent to start moving them all now? If so, will you be including the Zionism talk pages. The Israel talk pages? Perhaps also the Hamas talk page? I do think there should be some agreed upon criteria for this new policy that all I/P discussion gets removed from the record and sent to the I/P forum, don't you?---Mona- (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing -- not a word -- in what I moved that was relevant to BLM. When a topic metastasizes onto completely irrelevant pages, it is reasonable to move it to a place where it is more germave. A discussion of Susan Rice, John Kerry, and Bibi, has no real relevance to BLM. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, the Susan Rice quote was about Netanyahu stopping short of calling Obama the N-word. All of that discussion pertains to material in the article, that pertains to BLM. What is the specific policy about removing the talk page discusisons about text in the article? And, again: What about the other articles that have I/P-related discussions, such as the Jeremy Corbyn article??!!---Mona- (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
There is none. There aren't a lot, so that's a boring question. I did what RW culture prescribes: I saw something that I thought needed fixing, and I used my own best judgement to remedy the situation. The Mob will either show its approval by moving on from there, or register its disapproval by returning things to the status quo ante. That process may go smoothly, or it may degenerate into edit-warring and acrimony. Hopefully the former. That's pretty much how things work here. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, when talking to people online, I tend to read over anything they bold or put in italics, because I assume that means that it's something that the writer has to convince me is impoortant -- I only worry about things the importance of which is clearly self-evident. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


Before making major changes to established articles, please discuss it on the talkpage first. (talk) 19:25, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Why so hostile? >.> (talk) 19:34, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Lack of caffeine. noob talking to me like a noob, R/C full of the same shit again. Take your pick. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, was that policy only supposed to be applied to noobs? I'm sorry, being a noob, I wasn't in on that yet. (talk) 20:06, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
For the record, I think reducing the amount of content on articles that is not about the supposed subject of said article is always a good thing... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your position of wanting to remove any mention of Palestine is well known, Avenger. No need to repeat yourself. (talk) 19:34, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
This is just crazy. There had been no trouble until AH began it today. And now he's telling another respected editor to "go fuck yourself." Wow. Just wow.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You're doing it again: you don't like an article, so you deliberately fuck it up. You did this before on Gamergate and Sophisticated theology. Learn to leave shit the fuck alone - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
While not particularly enamoured by AgingHippie's attitude here (sorry AH), I agree that the section that he removed... We're not a LiveBlog. I also don't agree with 142's remark that this is a "major change to an established article". The paragraphs that were added were added the day before... Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC at topic page[edit] — Unsigned, by: FAMAS / talk / contribs