User talk:AgingHippie/Archive8

Railway troll

That guy is worshipped by me. He is the god of all the Internet. I look to his writings for advice. LlamaPastor31 ^{Over 109,601 served!} 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong

As much as I fundamentally disagree with your (collective) beliefs, in my limited experience this appears to be a healthy community of generally well-meaning editors. The same can not be said for Wikipedia which is less about collaboration than about acquiring power and control. Don't allow Ryulong to import that toxicity here. For one's ideas to progress it is necessary to have healthy opponents challenge them. Remain healthy. Sarah (HH) 06:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's rich to hear you talk about "importing toxicity" when one of your first acts in here was to take pot-shots at Ryulong by making your userpage a parody of his on Wikipedia. You're obsessed about Ryulong, the toxicity is coming from you. Typhoon (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is "obsessed with" in english. And pot-shot, singular, for which he blocked me, then deleted my user page, then restored it upon my urging but with the revisions that offended him cleverly hidden - restored only once I brought my complaint to the "coop" where he realized he might suffer consequences for his misbehavior. I would say he and I are even and it's time to stop these complaints about an objectively inoffensive user page. And in point of fact I am Gamergate so it is he who followed me here.
AgingHippie, my concerns are sincere. I hope I haven't given you sufficient reason to doubt that. Sarah (HH) 07:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Going grammar nazi? Really? When you don't have an argument, you fall back on that? You've been doing pot-shots at Ryulong since the day you registered here. You're completely dishonest and simple-mindedly focused on Ryulong. You think we don't find it suspicious that you suddenly, after more than a month of inactivity, woke up so that you could vote in the coop against Ryulong? Your vote was deleted because you failed to meet the rules on voting. But the rules don't matter when you're fighting your Nemesis, Ryulong. You, who came here to pick a fight with another user, have the nerve to accuse your object of obsession of being "toxic"? Typhoon (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir (or Madam) I believe if you check the revision history you'll see that I re-appeared after stumbling upon an interesting conversation in Talk:Gamergate. It was after engaging Ryulong there with no signs of animosity from either of us that he decided to delete my user page. My first response was not to report him but to ask, in response to his "gloat" on my talk page, that he restore it. Once restored (partially) I was forced to again ask that he un-hide the hidden revisions. He did not, and went on to edit several pages. Only then did I comment at the coop. So no, I did not come here to pick a fight with anyone. I came here and was picked upon. Sarah (HH) 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's just a coincidence that after a long time of inactivity you returned to the talk page the same day /r/KiA and 8chan launched another attempt to harass and troll Ryulong. And if you were honest about not wanting to fight Ryulong, you would have removed your mocking of him from your userpage a long time ago. Instead, you opt to cling to it as if it was the most important thing to you. You're a bully, no matter how polite you pretend to be to others. Show to us that you actually mean what you say and remove that shit from your userpage. Until then your dishonesty and obsession will be transparent to everyone here. Typhoon (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked 8chan today but I've followed KiA and saw no threads mentioning Ryulong or any "attack" - do you have a link? My user page will remain, precisely because I dislike bullies. I'm free to keep my page as I wish, as he is his. As this discussion has progressed past the original point perhaps we could move it to my talk page and spare AgingHippie. Sarah (HH) 09:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"My user page will remain, precisely because I dislike bullies" <- This is the "Stop hitting yourself" argument bullies use. You're intentionally sidestepping the main issue which is that your userpage was made by you to attack Ryulong. Now, I realize that I'll be repeating myself when I say this, but if you honestly didn't want to pick up fights with Ryulong you wouldn't make a parody of Ryulong's Wikipedia userpage. If you honestly didn't want a toxic atmosphere in here you wouldn't cling to your pot-shot userpage tooth-and-nail when you were criticized for having it. If you honestly meant anything you said you would start with yourself. But you're not honest at all. You came here with ulterior motives and are determined to continue until the object of your obsession, Ryulong, is completely ruined. You are a massive hypocrite as your claims of wanting a non-toxic environment on RationalWiki are completely contrary to your current actions against a user on RationalWiki. Typhoon (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong is being extremely thin-skinned in this. It is just a silly poem. Ryulong should just learn to ignore some things... go for a walk in the woods or something. Maybe Sarah whoever is a troll, but if she is, she is an very mild troll compared to what has happened on this site in the past. Storm in a teacup. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What poem? Sarah's current userpage isn't that. A short while ago the mob at /r/KiA was once again getting angry about Ryulong's continued existence on the internet. Vulgar insults and calls for his banning where mixed with mocking of his username. What followed afterwards was a brigade that went on vandalising Ryulong's username on talkpages on RationalWiki. Sarah here is showing the same pattern of mocking his username with the parody userpage that he/she stubbornly refuses to change, as if it was the most important thing for him/her. Yet he/she has the nerve to come here and warn about "toxic" behaviour? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Typhoon (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So we're clear what you're saying here: after this "raid" a short while ago (which despite my involvement in Gamergate I'm not aware of) I travelled back in time to May 1 and updated my user page to mock Ryulong? I posted here yesterday because I saw an interesting conversation I thought I could contribute to.You and your wonderful friend have made that experience unpleasant. Say whatever you like, I will not be responding further. Sarah (HH) 15:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

the poem. And "My username is a combination of Husky and Harlot because for some time I had an interest in salads" is a reference to Ryulong's explanation of his username, but it is so weak it scarcely seems to even deserve the title of "mocking". And who cares if people mock him - hey, I've been mocked by people a helluva lot more than Ryulong is being. Ask Ace McWicked and NuttyRoux if you bump into them. And what actual evidence is there that Sarah has anything to do with people attacking Ryulong at Reddit or wherever else? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Zack, glad to see you're jumping in without any context of anything at all. Before I was booted from Wikipedia, there was someone who decided to sign up with a userpage practically identical to HuskyHarlot's but different words in the mix. It's still a reference to all of that. Also, HuskyHarlot has said that she is a Gamergater, so that pretty much proves Typhoon's points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, no doubt some people are trying to get you wound up - but you are letting them succeed. So what if someone at Wikipedia created a similar user page? Why do you care? Gamergate is stupid, but the way you talk about it you make it sound like it is the new Red Scare. If someone says they like something idiotic, that may well be evidence that they are an idiot, but it doesn't mean they are part of some nefarious conspiracy out to get you. That's just paranoia talking. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So have you been living under a rock for the past year too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

First: I don't know why you're bringing up that old revision, as this has nothing to do with the current problem. Second: Saying that "who cares if people mock him" is hilarious since the current discussion is about how Sarah in here, who's been continuously trolling Ryulong, is right now pretending to be concerned about toxic behaviour on RationalWiki. Third: Sarah here admitted to browsing /r/KiA and that place just recently went on another warpath against Ryulong. Sarah may feign ignorance, doesn't change it's extremely suspicious that he/she suddenly resumed activity on here around the same time. And immediately Sarah got into another fight with Ryulong and then attempted to vote in coop against Ryulong despite not fulfilling the requirements. And last but not least, I highly doubt you ever had to endure even a fraction of the harassment and doxxing that Ryulong was targeted with. Typhoon (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hiding block log from watchlist

I realized you might not see this over there, since it's been so long, but I posted a reply at RationalWiki:Technical support#Block log appearing in watchlist -- any way to have that not happen? that should hopefully be of use to you. Let me know if it acts up too badly/doesn't work. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you undone my edit?

Hello?ClickerClock (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Which one? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The one on Autogynephilia? Is crossdreaming more suited to a different article or a new one? Is that why you undone my edit? ClickerClock (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably because it read as if English wasn't your first language - is it? The section header here and your comment above would seem to indicate that it isn't. Pippa (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, English is not my first language. I will use spell check and check my grammar next time. ClickerClock (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

sweatie (:

I mispell it because it is a joke.—Ryulong (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Really?

I'm trying to fix the "Ryulong situation" once and for all, if possible, by not focusing on an incident but on a general pattern of problems, and you vote because you "like being on the winning side". As a long-term user, do you want to see this site run into the ground? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

AH, If you want a solution from the moderators you aren't gonna get one voting like that. Why Don't I try a more direct solution to Ryulongs issues? Because negotiations are dead and David will revert any punishment of Ryulongs bad actions, so I have to somehow get you people to provide us a solution we cannot ignore, and you are not helping if you only vote "let this keep happening" because "nothing will happen and i'm tired of coop cases". no, it won't change if you don't help us, and there will just be more coop cases. as the wiki spirals into a burning unfun mess.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The site was run into the ground years ago, probably around the time PalMD made his last meaningful edits and jokes about Denmark were the hippest thing going. If this site gets further run into the ground, Ruylong will only be a small part of the problem. And I can guarantee you that, by next week, this will all be forgotten and Ruylong will have pissed you off at least one more time. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, and my vote is meant only to bring bus closer to the closing of this particular chapter and hasten the opening of the next one. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And what next chapter is this? How many more coop cases do we have to endure, how many ENDLESS argumentts because we refuse to do anything to solve the issue now--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)... I am ... quite speechless... I'm not sure if I should be insulted as my edits are apparently not meaningful, be worried about you, as I fear you may be having a psychotic episode, or just give up and find another site to contribute to, as I'm not willing to put up with all of this indefinitely so giving up now might be best. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Some people just want to watch the world burn. Tielec01 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And I refuse to let it burn--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Paravant will DG seriously revert any punishment of Ryulong? Would that include any punishment that was the result of the Develop pledges ect. option in the Coop? SolPyre (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I want to find out if that's how a vote goes.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

even from essentially 1 year of raising this issue, so far the max punishment to Ryu that's stuck has been sysoprevoke status Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also

Feel free to add in oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 06:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please restore the Targeted Individual article

I knowingly capitalized both words, and it is a proper noun. See, e.g., This WaPo interview with the WaPo reporter who has written about them:

Sharon Weinberger: Hi, thanks for joining me here to talk about my article on mind control. It's clear from reading some of the comments that people have a variety of reactions to the story, and I think that's a good thing. Just a note on abbreviations-many of the people who claim they are targeted call themselves TIs, short for Targeted Individuals. There are a lot of great questions and comments, and I'll try to get to as many as I can.

---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed whatever happened with the move. See Talk:Targeted individuals. --Ymir (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk)

Ymir, please revert the deletion. I chose to have both words capitalized consciously and advisedly. Thank you. Having me try to figure it out for myself would be a disaster, believe me.---Mona- (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

___ AgingHippie, with regard to what you said on Carpetsmoker's page (which he deleted), I do not think, and did not say, that you deliberately set out to "mess with my stuff." You made an impulsive decision to delete an article that was being actively worked on by multiple editors without first asking about the capitalization issue, or even alerting us. Someone was in the middle of an edit when you did that. It would not have been a big deal had you simply said "oops," and undone the thing rather than treating me like a toddler and advising me to "do it right next time" if I didn't like inconvenience.

It would be very difficult for me to restore the article to the title I chose, and I'm asking you to please do so.---Mona- (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've broken enough stuff today and don't want to risk doing something else that pisses somebody off. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The deed is did, and done dirt cheap. I don't think I broke anything, and if I pissed somebody off, it won't be the first time. Kum Ba Ya, Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To continue our discussion, if you're interested

Here's what I wrote to CarpetSmoker (the decision of whom to stay out of this I naturally respect);

Read the entire TI page. Get a feel for the entire concept; of invisible rays, of mind control, of the engineering of moods and the pseudohistorical mentions of MK Ultra and other telekinetic/remote viewing military projects. CTRL+F the page for terms like "psychic", "psychotronic", "parapsychological"... Pay attention to the sources where these words appear. Differentiate between where they've been placed by editors, and where they're actually in the literal quotes that we just reproduce straight from the mouth of the TI community.

Question: Do you think the psychic nav arguably belongs on the page? Not the paranormal nav, mind you (which I have never suggested should be on there). But, the psychic nav.

I think it clearly belongs on the page to help orient users around these topics on the site - the nav is to aid progress between topics. Mona thinks it has no place on the page whatsoever. Thoughts? :)

From what I can tell, this isn't about people having psychic powers, but about using technology to mess with people's brains/psyches/consciousness. If that's the case, the "psychic" box is misplaced in this case. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you feel like it, follow the instructions I gave above to CS and just... give it an honest thought. The literal word "psychic" appears several times in their quotes. And the technology claim appears to be trivial; yes, they suggest that MK Ultra and other military projects on humans with telekinetic and remote viewing capabilities were secretly continued into the development of technology that wirelessly interacts with the human mind, to the point of inserting false images, controlling emotion, erasing memories and literally spying on people out their own eyesockets, almost like in Being John Malcovich. Besides, no such technology exists. This isn't how anything works.

But the TIs are not attempting to provide explanations on how this works (e.g. like creationists do, badly) - they mean that their experiences are proof that remote beamed mind control is going on. Psychotronic is their buzzword - that's a parapsychology term.

Now, I think this warrants the insertion of a simple psychic nav to help orient readers as to which topics they are approaching - it's a helpful and graphically pleasing addition that broadens the territory in which a topic is relevant to the benefit of the reader. The conspiracy nav explains the TI assumption of conspiracy to explain all this. The psychic nav explains the TI assumption of remote mind control working (and existing, mind you). To me, this makes sense. Your thoughts, if you feel interested in providing them? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources I provided on the TI talk page, if nothing else than for the fact that Mona considers you to have voted against me on the psychic nav. Check those out first - telepathy clearly belongs to that nav, as far as I'm concerned. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, scratch the psychic nav - just look at the talk page, if you like to at all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

TFYC

AgingHippie, Wikipedia seems to have had the same problems with identifying them. See here. Typhoon (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks

can you delete what I posted on Egyptsearch talk page? Since you removed the other, this issue is now solved. Croll Duncan (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Trio '64?

Great album. Trio '65 never did it for me. The interplay between Evans and Motian, Evans and Peacock, perfect. Do you have Waltz for Debby? Portraits in Jazz? Great albums. Good to see another Jazz fan! Sarah (HH) 07:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes to all. Often wonder what would have come along from Evans had Scott Lafaro not died so young -- as much as I love Peacock, Lafaro was pretty much from another planet. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Amen. Our conversation made me check out wikipedia's article on Evans, then LaFaro - lots I didn't know, interesting and sad. I got into jazz before wikis were a thing, it never occurred to me their biographies were just a few clicks away. – Sarah (HH) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho

Hello. It is registered here that you have twice deleted the page Olavo de Carvalho (about a Brazilian right-wing essayist). Did these attempts of other users to create a draft violate some of the wiki's rules? Or any particular reason? Just asking for curiosity. - Student (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Who were you previously?

"...users who have been here since roughly a few weeks (me)..." - I missed the name change along the way. If it's not a state secret, what was your previous user name? ħuman 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

PF Pippa (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Pippa! Nice to put a name to the name... ħuman 02:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh! I too "have been here since roughly a few weeks". Pippa (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspected as much. I am thinking of calling roll on my talk page. ħuman 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that comment at the Saloon Bar

You might wanna vote on stuff (or add stuff) at RationalWiki:The Great Conservapedia Cull. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I edit pages and make jokes and talk with folks at the bar. Not getting involved in any real policy stuff, policing community members, or voting on anything any more. Leave that stuff to the new guard. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas; a vital votegiver, lost forever. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what happens when we have nice things. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

C'mon man

That thread was just starting to get interesting as we got to the meat of the matter. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

107.178.104.*

Hello AH. I noticed that you unblocked 107.178.104.43 at 1951 today. If you will take a look at the block log, you'll notice I placed a 3.14 month block on the 107.178.104.0/24 address space last night at 0157. This address space is used without exception by some morons who are (presumably) using a proxy sitting on that network to massively vandalize the wiki and attack the contributors. I blocked the same address space about a month ago for the same reason (3.14 weeks), and he/she/it/they came back with more pointless abuse. That's why I justified the 3.14 month block this time around. Just a heads up. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"If Donald Trump is elected president, he will be the last president of the United States"

What kind of doomsday scenarios could happen to make Trump (if elected) the last president? World War III breaks out, thanks to the never ending turmoil in the Middle East which has a cluster of alliances including Russia backing Assad? Could Trump take over the government and make a dictatorship/monarchy? Or something completely different, I've seen some fearmongering that it'll be the Fourth Reich under his iron hairdo.

It can be interesting to think about worst case scenario/alternate history things like that. :) A more interesting exercise might be to think of what could happen if a 3rd party candidate ever managed to win the presidency, but that might be on "when pigs fly" level. Lightning Dust (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

While the prediction was largely tongue-in-cheek, A Third World War b/c of the Middle East might be a possible scenario; I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of extreme government paralysis akin to the debt ceiling crisis, but in a more protracted and prolonged way, exposing and exacerbating all of the faults and fissures within American society, leading to massive political and social upheavals ranging from armed Bundy-style nonsense (but with way more shooting) to racial uprisings a la Ferguson, but more intense than what we saw in Watts and Detroit back in the day (ask your parents) to a way more militant version of Occupy (or the love-child of Occupy and Chicago 68). Not incredibly likely, but America I think underestimates how pissed off various factions of its society are and overestimates its social and political stability and immunity from the kind of internal pressures that have beset most empires over the course of the past couple hundred years. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you feel the US government would do if there were 'Arab Spring' style discord happening in the US? Even if the feds chose to do nothing but try to control it, it seems it could end up a bloodbath due to the militarized police forces. Lightning Dust (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump 2k16!!!брэндэн (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You only need look at the disproportionate nature of the state's response to the relatively minor uprisings in Ferguson to get a sense of what kind of reaction a general uprising would engender. The militarization of police forces in the US is very real, and to a man with a hammer, as Mark Twain noted, every problem looks like a nail. The Bundy-ite uprising in OR was solved relatively peacefully, but I don't think that is guaranteed to be the norm. One nervous trigger finger and that all would have gone downhill very quickly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalbin

Should I parole the IPs Bongolian and Pbfreespace vandalbinned as well?--Owlman (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

30 days

Good god. I guess that's the same as {{retired|retirement}}, then, eh? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The way you guys currently run things? Yeah. 50.201.38.210 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)