User talk:Armondikov/archive1

Archive 1
In which we blame creationism on Heroes, Nick Griffin leads to the joys of the BBC and we see, for the first time, the poor standard of trolling on the site.

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Armondikov! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

human 15:43, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Italics

Hi, I don't know if you know, but with the wiki code, you italicize something by putting two single apostrophes around it, for example, check the code on this. When you made this edit, you broke the index..... However, I won't abuse my sysop powers and block this time.....maybe I'm just kidding SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 04:58, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry about that, I must have stopped paying attention for a minute. Armondikov 05:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

No big deal. It happens... you should see some of my early edits, my Wiki coding sucked to hell :) SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 06:17, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll get used to the code one day... :P Armondikov 06:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I keep telling myself that as well, but I never really get to it..... SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 07:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Very Short Article?

Are you worried about your short article? new Megastub will increase your article to a size the girls will love! only $84376384763847634589.98 per month - reply TODAY and get a free goat!

Maybe {{megastub}} is something that's needed for some of the Wiki4CAM articles. :P Armondikov 10:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Re: Evolution of Heroes

At first when I read that I thought "well clearly he's wrong, since I've never met anybody (in real life) who actually believed in 7-day creationism". So I looked it up and realized why: I don't hang out with high school dropouts. JazzMan 12:59, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... those stats are fairly well known but it's good that they provide the wording since that can alter the results; results for "Evolution was simply the means God chose to create life on this planet" I would certainly combine with "Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact" as in practice they say the same thing! Though it's not just "high school dropouts" that you're talking about as it's still remarkable how high belief in near-literal creationism is even up to college level! Scary stuff, truely. ArmondikoV^narchist 14:47, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Sig

"20% less Conent"? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

There's a reason that Human has to follow every single one of my edits with a spell checker. ArmondikoV^narchist 15:09, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Why thank you for welcoming me

Hey Armondikov... now that I have an account, what do I do now? I'm from Uncyclopedia, so I'm interested in humor. Do you guys know about the crazies at Conservapedia? Cajek 12:39, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Know about the crazies at Conservapedia!? Check Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?, the article Conservapedia and the whole name space dedicated to it. If you're mostly interested in humour, try the fun namespace as that has very few standards. ArmondikoV^narchist 12:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

RE: Your intercom message

An interesting idea, but Good ol' Ken has a huge online history of his continued idiocy. So if he's not legit, he's so far into his character that even my hero Freud couldn't bring him out of it. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 13:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... good point. He'd be so far into it that it would be taking method acting to extremes. ArmondikoV^narchist 13:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's son

no, he doesn't have one. He has two daughters ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:37, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Definitely no more strong cheese for me... Thankfully I forgot the rest. ArmondikoV^narchist 09:39, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, he ALLEGEDLY has two daughters. If he can't even prove where he was born, how can we trust that those two kids are his, and that he doesn't have a son from somewhere like Russia? He can see it from Jakarta, you know.--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 09:55, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, ha, ha, you're a butt fucker!

Fall down 09:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

What a lovely sentiment... I presume that was intended as an insult, though it actually came out with a note of envy for someone who actually gets action. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 09:28, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, I am a butt fucker. I get anal sex with my girlfriend regularly... really. -.- Anyway, looks like Foster did a full 3 year block on this one. Fine by me. ArmondikoV^narchist 09:43, 5 December 2008 (EST)

LOL! Fall down

Good call on the start of the fib block. Kid's a menace.-caius (tailor) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Indeed, though one or two of the edits weren't completely off. We'll see in a month or so. If it happens again, we'll see him in two. Simple, effective and applicable to everybody as far as I'm concerned. It's there as policy, people just need to start using it rather than just going with the gut. It's tempting to say that's okay to just wing it, but it can lead to accidents and HCM so an actual policy and procedure that works regardless of what someone is feeling is a good thing. ArmondikoV^narchist 10:41, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Hey, man

I don't think I really derserved to be banned for adding one sentence to Perverted Justice that is still up there, do I? Such is my supposed pro-paedophilia! Fall down^{— Unsigned, by: 85.25.151.22 / talk / contribs}

Yes you do. You're not helping your case, we have enough people who are more than happy to just revert and even outright delete your entire presence. Go away, live out your ban and we can talk later. ArmondikoV^narchist 08:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

You perfidious liar, son of Satan! I know you are lying! You're part of the left-wing, feminist conspiracy against truth. The enemies of free speech are the enemies of truth, indeed! Fall down^{— Unsigned, by: LOG / talk / contribs}

Holocaust Denial

What are you doing? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's on the talk page. The references weren't working and I was wondering what the hell was wrong. ^{d hominem} 18:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a dpl bug. You can't fix it. Nx (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. ^{d hominem} 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the bug on the dpl home wiki running dpl 1.8.7. I'll try to upgrade, but because of the major code rewrite in 1.8.0 it's not that easy. Nx (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong, it was the Cite extension, which apparently isn't part of MediaWiki, and we never upgraded from our ancient version. Nx (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Open Mind

After I made the Conservapedia:Open Mind article and you made the Open mind one I kept my eye on both of them and I've just noticed you added my Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness to the See Also section of your open mind article. Genuine thanks, as it's always nice to know people read your stuff. SJ ^Debaser 18:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's what the see also sections are for. The open mindedness stuff I think is where RW can and should excel - Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't and couldn't) say anything at length on the subject but we can. ^{d hominem} 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an open mind is a main ingredient of a rational mind. I just like laughing at Andy Pandy with my essays (as well as debunking and refuting the anti-science and anti-crank movement, etc, etc). By the by, your sigtalk link just read "I'll voice your calculator" which I thought was quite pleasantly amusing. SJ ^Debaser 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits

An interesting set of page edits you're doing at the moment. Got something on your mind? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Am clicking more-or-less randomly on the human sexuality template. I occasionally do it if I'm bored but not in the mood for science or politics. ^{d hominem} 10:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm done. ^{d hominem} 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My rollback on Conservapedia:Banwatch

Hey there. Was the revert I did okay, or was there something odd about it? It's the first revert I've done, so wasn't entirely sure how it worked out? --Concernedresident 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It was fine actually - although "rollback" doesn't let you leave a comment unfortunately, so, unless it's obvious vandalism it's often best to click "undo" instead to leave a rationale. However, I didn't notice that the page had been "archived" and shouldn't have been changed or edited, so you were right actually and I rolled back my own rollback... if that makes sense. ^{d hominem} 16:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was no option to leave a comment? I'll save rollbacks for vandalism - thanks for the tip. Is it worth me protecting that page if it's not intended to be edited? --Concernedresident 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, protection doesn't tend to happen with RW. Mostly it's pointless as you can only protect it from non-sysops and everyone is a sysop. And if someone with an interest in logging Conservapedia bans wants to keep an eye on it and start it up, they can. Rollback is good for vandalism because you can do it so quickly without having to load up a new page and leaving the comment, but undo is the method of choice. I it that also lets you do an edit to the previous version while you're at it if it's a worthy change, but messed up somehow. ^{d hominem} 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it might actually be better to move the banwatch link in Template:Conservapedia to a different location (e.g. under an archive header or something), since a link in the Guide & Notes section implies that the page is semi active. --75.119.248.134 16:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Appreciate the advice. --Concernedresident 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

a shame......

...But i know ho wyou feel. Don't be a stranger! Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

JuperSosh?!

BASTARD!!! (although I do like it, in time I may change it to that again...) SJ ^Debaser 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did say you liked it... I had to oblige. ^{d hominem} 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

hour block

you can block me for an hour now if you want, i'm going out anyway. SJ ^Debaser 14:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Nice edits in the Peer review article. Your peers are pleased. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Time

If you missed the first couple of minutes, it's here on iPlayer. I watched the whole thing there earlier today as I'm too poor to own a telly. SJ ^Debaser 16:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was only a few minutes. I might go through it again as I missed some of the mumbling, but considering that it was 95% devoted to troll-baiting Nick Griffin it's probably not worth a second run through. ^{d hominem} 16:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

...too poor to own a telly... Surely you can save up the funds at least for a small one? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TV license, nearly £140 a year. You don't need one for iPlayer, though. At least, so long as you're not using it to view things that are going out "live" (not live in the usual sense, but stuff that's on TV now, rather than just using it for repeats or catch-up). ^{d hominem} 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Over here you just buy the television. On the other hand good programs are few and far between except on PBS, and half of those are imported from the BBC. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Though the license fee is really just a £10-a-month subscription to the BBC - it's cheaper than Sky and arguably much better value for money. I'm sure we should have an article on it, it's an interesting subject when you get into the odd reasons that people protest against it, the actual position it holds in law and the adverts about it that can only really be classed as mis-informative propaganda. ^{d hominem} 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cable television here can run upwards of $100 per month. I hear it is less expensive over in the U.K., or at least I saw a flyer to that effect when I was there. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think for a full package with Sky, which would include phone and broadband (a lot of companies do this combined) plus installation costs, wouldn't be far off that figure, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen it go above the equivalent of $100. ^{d hominem} 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I own one of those small TV/DVD combo player things but I leave it in my family home as I can watch DVDs off my laptop. After moving in to my uni house (a month ago today in fact) we shortly got letters telling us about TV licensing and how paying £142 pa would keep us out of jail. I didn't bother, as a) I'd left my telly at home, b) there is absolutely sod all on telly nowadays anyway and I only watch DVDs. If there's something that I want to watch I can just see it on iPlayer, i.e. this weeks Question Time. SJ ^Debaser 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You could get one of those digital USB dongles which allows you to watch TV on your laptop. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My 'good point'

I feel compelled to use an internet meme here to express myself - LOL. Methinks that the mob will have their fill again tonight. If you ask me peoples reactions to very innocuous things is what makes RW interesting. Even this post will somehow be construed as trolling. Even me messaging you will be considered as the great crime Toast accuses me of (Of seducing people to get on my 'side' - whatever that means on the internet. The drama of it all!). It really is remarkable what a reactionary mindset can do when given fake internet authority. Ah well. Should be interesting. MarcusCicero 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that your last edit was 666 characters makes me highly suspicious... ^{d hominem} 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Calm down MC - that's just the mental illness talking. Pop a prozac/lithium/valium and come back soon. Ace^McWicked 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when do you hate to agree with me?

I always thought you were alright. RaoulDuke 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just dicking around having an abrasive "Dr Cox" moment, really. Sorry for any offense. Come to actually think of it, I do have a tendency to agree with you - Operation Move On, for instance. ^{d hominem} 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry myself--a little sensitive today I guess. RaoulDuke 00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be. My fault. Anyway, time to check the fallout... ^{d hominem} 10:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You have earned an exemption from hostile attacks due to long standing service to reason. A number of these exemptions will be handed out over the next couple of days to worthy members in preparation for the RW/MC War of attrition. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

JeffD (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My "beliefs"

Let's see - I'm the one who actually examined the scientific literature about the issue, I was the one who bothered himself with reading encyclopedias and articles, it was me who sent letters to expert, and as it has turned out, every single source has stated exactly the opposite of what your beloved article says.

You, on the other hand, have presented really marvelous "evidence": "I could ask ten people around me and they would answer differently" and "We should not question what Scott Gilbert says, no other source is needed".

The question is: Who is actually "believing" and who is trying to find out the truth? --Earthland (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)