User talk:Aloysius the Gaul/Archive1

stop it

stop it--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You were told to stop and did not. Enjoy not editing for 9 hours. You can have your toys back when that's over. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should I stop pointing out bunk? this place is supposed to be rational - not ranting--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

pointing out bunk and editing other peoples wigos are not the same thing.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wigo's added by you =/= your wigo. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you ace for interjecting a comment with no relevance as I didn't add that WIGO and never claimed ownership.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added it, you or anyone else, they can be edited for clarity or to correct errors by anyone. There is no my or your WIGO. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But sabotaging WIGOs because you don't like what they're saying is a shitty way to behave. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

When does correcting a factual inaccuracy become "sabotage"???--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So is a nine hour block for a minor editing dispute. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I take Ace's point - but WIGO's should be factually correct should then not? Even critical/humourous ones in the clogosphere are not supposed to be bunk?? I have edited a few WIGO posts, and had a few of mine edited - I am not aware of any rules says that is not allowed - which of course doesn't mean there isn't such a rule..... --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule, Paravant is being a knob-end. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

this assumes you fixed them with your edit. You personally disagreeing does not make the WIGO wrong--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course me disagreeing doesn't make them wrong. Them being wrong makes them wrong. Or are you telling me that you think the comparison is valid? I have outlined the FACTS of the 2 cartoons and why they are different as I see it - perhaps you could discuss those rather than your opinion of what you think my opinion is??--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at the refugees themselves. Note the number of rats. Does anything bout it scream "fair and reasonable presentation" or does it say "about half dees durn Muslams is rats"? WalkerWalkerWalker 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A cartoon is rarely a "fair and reasonable representation" - but he message is complete different - the DM cartoon says "Refugees are NOT rats - terrorists ARE rats" - if the cartoon did represent the numbers "accurately" there would be no rats at all, and it wouldn't be a cartoon at all!! To make the point there needs to be enough rats to be easily visible (because a cartoon is a visual communication), and it has to be obvious what their context is and what they are depicting.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The WIGO doesn't say the cartoon is identical to Nazi uses of the rat imagery. It says "rehashes," which is accurate (tho I'd have said "recycles"). But more to the point: You, Aloysius, persisted in trying to undermine a WIGO in several different edits and were reverted repeatedly by more than one other editor. You would not stop. Paravant is a moderator and was reasonably acting within his remit to block you for 9 hours under those circumstances.---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker, and when something is "rehashed" it means "repeated" - from google define: " Rehash: reuse (old ideas or material) without significant change or improvement." So yes, "rehash" means substantially the same meaning - and as above the DM cartoon does NOT have substantially eth same meaning, nor is it substantially the same image - terrorist rats among refugees is not he same image as refugees BEING rats because of their race. What is the rule about the number of editors that can make changes before correction becomes vandalism?--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker also, and here's the thing: it is a very direct repetition, especially since the rats can't even be meant to specifically be terrorists: (1) count their numbers v. those of other refugees and (2) see the well-armed men in the background? WalkerWalkerWalker 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean those obviously armed men who are not in any disguise at all?? As a native English speaker you should be more accurate with your language then! And how about all those people who are not in "moslem" dress, but are in "Middle Eastern" dress - what religion are they? how can you tell?? Note also that the WIGO mentions ONLY rats crossing the border - not the people - i'll go further and say the WI"GO post is racist - not the cartoon!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"how can you tell who is Muslim " isn't a question you should be asking as far as the cartoonist cares.its all "Muslim terrorist clothes" to them--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to allow you 1 more post to provide some actual evidence of that - otherwise please feel free to take your bigotry elsewhere.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

your new to the islamophobia thing aren't you. They all dress that way and if you dress that way you must be a Muslim and thus bad. It's a big problem for sihks--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So no actual evidence then. K - got it. and no, I am not.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You must be if you are going to be charitable like that and go "clearly the cartoonist intended for some of these middle eastern dressed people to be Yazidi or Arab Christian or syrian church and not all just muslims since this is what muslims look like". And again, I guess citing the whole "Sihks and other people "who look muslim" getting revenge attacked because of islamophobia and arabphobia isn't evidence? right on you then. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It is becoming obvious to me that at least some people on here are more interested in taking pot-shots at the DM than actually conducting any rational (sic) analysis of my objections to the WIGO in question, and that an accusation of racism must be true if it is made and apparently is not to be challenged on mere factual grounds. So be it - I can't stop you being jerks. But I don't have to read your crap for longer than it takes me to delete any further "contributions" along those lines on this page.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

more than enough users have been told not to make these sort of statements and then punished when acted on them. Don't add yourself to that list, I actually like you.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You were edit warring. Period. Your edits were rejected by several other editors. Period. You still persisted. Adding: you may not delete comments on this talk page unless they rise to trolling, which none of these comments do.---Mona- (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There was only 1 other editor (other than the originator - Paravant) - that is not "several". And I persisted exactly ONCE after Paravant reverted - I don't kn ow when he blocked me - it was night here and I was asleep for most of it! :p Am I to take it that you can post anything you like in a WIGO and as long as someone is will to revert to it then it will be sacrosanct from correction - regardless of how much BS it contains?? you're not really making a fine case for rationality here. --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The difference between you and Galileo is that when everybody said he was wrong, he was actually correct. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah - here's the RW Blocking Policy: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy Please justify yourself from there - anything else is your opinion which is worth exactly what I paid for it.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

People who edit war and are in the wrong, and when told to stop don't, are problem users who get temporarily blocked. You did all of this. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

People who edit war and are in the wrong, and when told to stop don't, are problem users who get temporarily blocked. You did all of this. Woooow....Aceⁱ⁹ 23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean we should just declare me king of Rw for that 9 hour temp block and then my reopping after it was done, clearly i've gone mad with power and am only letting people I like in. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Having grazed here to see what all the fuss was about: Fucking hell, what a bloody stupid edit to a WIGO. What a fucking idiot you are for trying to restore it after it was nuked. What fucking idiot Ace is being about the usual response to pointless, self-important edit-warring. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Which may all be true, and is pretty much irrelevant to my point, IMO.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

stop being a child

You were called out for being wrong. deal with it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There are rules about talk pages, or somebody who admonished me for not following blocking guidelines you should know them. Stop it, you're a good user, don't be defined by this one moment. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page,"

Stop it. Seriously. We've already had enough old timers get up and leave in a huff because they were called out for being wrong. Don't join that crowd. Regardless of how it is worded in the Standards, it has been enforced as a "don't remove comments you don't like" statement.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We've already had enough old timers get up and leave in a huff because they were called out for being wrong Baaahahahahahaha...yeah,that's why they left...idiot. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ace, you've added so much. And I was being charitable, i could have mentioned they left because of the much more petty reason they didn't like that nobody agreed to not keeping a obviously one sided vote they started up for an entire week.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But seriously

You're a good user who made a stand and was wrong, don't make this be a major point of your RW time.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to accept your unsupported assertion that I was "wrong", nor to hang around any place where a whiney jerk with a god complex gets to play moderator. I repeat my invitation to your to fuck off. Most people can understand that - even those who don't speak english.--Get fucked 04:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You inviting me to piss off doesn;t mean i have to listen, or that you can then just do whatever you want. If you find that RW is not a place you feel like staying at, esp. because your salty that you got called on being wrong and won't admit it, then leave. Its your choice, I'm not making you do it.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah - I get you have no intention - I'm just going to use the opportunity to point out what a jerk you are. You keep SAYING I was wrong, but you can't back it up - no-one like you should even be a sysop at a place that prides itself on (supposedly) being RATIONAL.--Get fucked 04:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Of course with your god-given moderator power I also expect to be banned occasionally - since you cannot construct a rational argument it is pretty much your only recourse now - argument ad censorium.....or something like that --Get fucked 04:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Brings up sihks and other "people who look muslim" getting attacked because of anti muslim hysteria, gets told it isn't a legit example of people looking at clothing as a religious outfit regardless of the religion of the person. But please, go door to door, show them a picture ofa arab christian in "middle eastern dress" and, with no context clues, see how many guess it isn't a muslim. Please whine about my supposed and non-existent dictatorial reign over the wiki as well. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Other people who look muslim is irrelevant to the comparison with Nazi imagery - which is what the issue was - yet another strawman from you. I haven't said anything about your "reign" over this wiki - just that you are a bigoted jerk who is clearly unfit to be a moderator - but since you don't see the difference in hte cartoons I expect you won't see the difference in that either.....more justification for my loathing of your idiocy.

I am a professional - I am used to being wrong.....but when I am wrong it is because there is a cogently argued reason that shows it - not because some snotty moderator says so. I thought rational wiki was supposed to be above such dictates - isn't that what religious sets are lambasted for - group think, slamming dissent, believing what people say not what hte evidence shows? Taking someone's word that some mythical spirit exists and not looking at he evidence?

Yes - you just cot logically compared to a cult leader - have a nice day :)--Get fucked 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You say a lot of words and yet very little is said with those words. Also christ learn to format--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 07:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not writing for you to understand - that's clearly a hopeless task. Heck - yo don't even understand "Fuck off". And no.--Get fucked 22:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

there is a difference in not understanding " fuck off" and not caring--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, Weaseloid and Paravant both disagreed with you. Yet you persisted in trying to make a point in that WIGO to undermine it. Almost no one else has expressed support for your position on the edits. That's just the way it is, and you can like it or lump it. Now, myself, I would have blocked you, the first time, for only half an hour. But you did have to be coerced into talking it out instead of continuing to make edits that, at that point, neither the author now Paravant accepted. (And most discussing it here, on this page, don't accept your arguments, either.) This is just the reality of the situation.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who else is even looking at this page - I'm not writing anywhere else, this is not a publicity campaign, and I did stop changing the WIGO. 2 poeople disagreeing with me makes me wrong?? Really? When did that rule happen?? The only reason this page exists at all is that one fuckwit won't let me vapourise it - if he wasn't such a jerk the whole thing would have been over ages ago and I wouldn't have to worry whatever sort of head it is you have about trying to do..well...whatever it was you thought that post of yours was going to do. Did you have a point, or are you just being a busy-body?? :puz: Either way you can fuck off too - have a nice day :)--Get fucked 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)