User talk:Avengerofthe BoN/Archive

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proudly allowing Footnotes to be used on this talkpage

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Avengerofthe BoN!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

If you don't stand up for poor helpless BoN, who will? Pull up a goat and make yourself at home. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:
Thanks. I hope to prove worthy ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Make a userpage[edit]

Fight the RED menace. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You hate british people.[edit]

You monster. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What? How does the blimey gov'nor draw that conclusion? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
That's "bloody gov'nor"!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Potato, patata... as long as it's not potatoe... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been smitten by a bunny in accordance with the community standards for... no real reason. Feel free to revert this odd edit.

— Unsigned, by: [[User:|User:]] / [[User talk:|talk]] / contribs

What do I owe the honor to? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear for your moral well-being[edit]

I gently advice you to reconsider your views on the value of human lives. (talk) 23:36, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why? Because I value the life of a Palestinian civilian higher than Hamas does? People die in wars. Everybody knows that. And everybody knows that it is never pretty. I do not however like the way some people tend to exaggerate stuff that happens in a particular war. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't come to your talkpage to hear you repeat your silly whataboutism and flawed non-justifications for the so-manieth time. If you'd rather dismiss my sincere concerns, so be it. (talk) 00:00, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Didn't Ike say at some point that only those who have seen war can comprehend its cruel madness and stuff? Well I have seen enough war on TV to know how maddeningly cruel and senseless it is. And as a matter of fact saying "things that happen in war" is an even more horrific wording than "obscene carnage" if one thinks of it. Anyway, the whole Steven whatshisface article was only ever created to smear Israel and spread the glory of Hamas... And of course how the evil Zionists censor everything and everybody... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Or probably as a sideshow to the Zionism article.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well so after my hatred for British people has been well established ( see above) whom else do I have the pleasure of abhorring? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You know, I'm starting to wonder whether you're not just a troll. It would explain a whole dang lot. (talk) 00:20, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
How so? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Your whole way of arguing is severely dishonest, that's how. (talk) 00:35, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Please divorce yourself from the whole Israel Palestine mess for a short while. Have you seen the way I argue on other topics (if I get to it - recently the Zionist issue has gotten a big to big for my taste)? Does it appear to be dishonest to you as well? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're only a troll when Israel's involved? Then you're still a troll. (talk) 06:53, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
No. You perceive me as a troll when Israel is involved because of your preconceived notions regarding the subject. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha, that's rich coming from the person pretending to have blatant preconceived notions so they can troll us all. (talk) 12:40, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, there not enough ethics in video game journalism talkpage editing ('cause why not mix on shitfest with another?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a crap about Gamergate one way or the other. I find the whole issue tedious. TV tropes is a better place to argue tropes imho. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Me neither, I wrote it for teh lulz snark.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Because writing lulzy snippets is all the new hype when oppression and killings of civilians are involved apparently. Well, a particular ethnic subclass of them, at least. Oy vey! (talk) 06:57, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

You should give Finkelstein’s essays on Byline a read through. Great forensic analysis of Amnesty's whitewashing in its attempts to put a false balance on last year's conflict, including deaths, property damage, ammunition fired, etc. The lack of balance in all of these cases belie the grounds of what's normally expected in a war. You can find it under exclusives. Source: ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So not even Amnesty is good enough for you anymore? To whom will you run? Al-Aqsa TV? Al-Manar? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
He was being blatantly sarcastic, silly. >.> Thanks for making your derailing/strawmanning strategy so apparent, though. (talk) 12:13, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Poe's law in action, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't to question Amnesty's evidence Arisboch, but to highlight the absurdity of putting a false balance between two groups in an attempt to gain some level of PR salvation, even though the evidence says there's no such balance in terms of death, ammunition fired, property damage, etc. Would anyone realistically put the war crimes of the FSA on the level of Assad? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the DAESH managed to be worse than Assad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unsigned" template[edit]

See Template:Unsigned/doc. It works much better if you add a pipe to the username. Even better, copy/paste the date stamp after the template. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't always know who the unsigned stuff is by Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's right there in the fossil record. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh-. Hadn't thought about that. I will make sure to check the FR in the future... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding! CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Always. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Say, Avanger,...[edit]

...what do you think of this and this user templates?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I for one welcome our Zionist overlords! Oh and a minor thing: it's Avenger, not Avanger... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oooops, thanks for telling me!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But there is one thing we can hope for: to be bombed first. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
By whom and why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello.I recently edited the politics section, and you left this on my page: 'The short of it: Yes Obama is a centrist, especially on economic issues. And also on some social issues such as drugs. Yes the Tories are to the left of the GOP. The only conservative Party of any significance in Europe to the right of the Republicans is - arguably - Fidesz in Hungary. I shall revert in accordance with this shortly. Cheers.' The reasoning for my edits is because what I saw was a very juvenile understanding of British-American politics. It said the Democrats are to the right of the conservative parties in the rest of the world. No offense, but this is laughable. Are you actually suggesting they are to the right of the openly racist parties in Swedan, Finalnd, Turkey, the Middle East, Asia, etc? It sounds like by 'the rest of the world' you mean 'Western Europe', which is laughably narrow. Even then, it's still inaccurate; are you seriously suggesting the Democrats are to the right of David Cameron? Again, I hope we can come to civil consensus on this.--Harvardian (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the US Democrats are certainly not to the right of Svergiedemokraterna or Perussuomalaiset, but those are not the main conservative parties of their respective countries. As for Turkey's AKP, I don't know all that much about the details of their domestic policies, but they are probably downright progressive on some issues compared to the US. As for Cameron: He is for universal health care (although he wants to cut it), he does not feel the need to express phony religiosity at every turn, his foreign policy has thus far been downright dovish and he was both willing and able to tolerate a guy like Nick Clegg. So in at least some respects Cameron is to the left of the Democrats. I sure as hell would never vote for the guy, but what is needed is not a parsing of whether or not the statement is true on the face of it - and thus revert fests - but rather a context as to which issues European Conservatives are to the left of the Democratic Party. And there are quite a many. However, amazingly enough on the issue of gay marriage the US are now among the more progressive... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
David Cameron often speaks of his devout Anglicanism (remember there is not separation of church and state in England), and has made strict censorship laws against pornography, as well as requiring those on welfare to work. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, combined left and right wing ideas in the budget, including cutting inheritance tax while . Also, Cameron is considered a moderate in his party; there are plenty of Tories who oppose gay marriage, regulation, etc. The UK Political party closest to the Democrats are The Liberal Democrats, formerly run by Nick Clegg (who did not get along with Cameron at all). Also, the rest of the world is not just Europe. The reason European Conservatives may seem a bit more leftist is because they must compromise with more leftist parties, while the GOP has to compromise with the centrist Democrats. --Harvardian (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Do your thing. Just be sure to provide equal or more context there as here. However, if other disagree, you will have to convince them as well... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I want my mop[edit]

As this recent one day block for daring to call "Israel Lobby" the blatant dog whistle it so obviously is shows, I will not be taken seriously be the likes of User:-Mona- unless I am able to wield a mop. Furthermore, having a mop would enable to engage in a friendly block back instead of awkward talk page messages. And things like the Glenn Greenwald disaster would not rely on the goodwill of other people reverting other people's blatant attempts at whitewashing after the page is protected to shield the guilty from harm... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WTF are you smoking? You have yet to demonstrate even a smattering of a sense of proportion and how to justify an edit. If you're not being taken seriously now, it's due to the quality of your edits, not the presence of absence of a mop fig-leaf. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well on the Zionism issue I will probably never be taken seriously by the likes of User:-Mona- and her apologists. However, now I am even attacked for daring to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Glenn Greenwald and blocked for daring to suggest that antisemtic dog whistles do in fact exist. But unlike User:-Mona- I do not assume this to be the result of a "conspiracy" I just fear that my style of debate - inspired in no part by Hitch, though I will never even come close to approaching him - raises a few tempers. I am willing to accept this, but I am not willing to accept to be treated worse than User:-Mona- Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The only intellectual dishonesty here is yours. (talk) 17:07, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, a world of fiction in that weird self-justification there. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(these edit conflicts are getting slightly annoying) Had I written this... Oh well let me not even go there. The point is: Greenwald does precisely the same "If we call X Antisemitism that cheapens the word Antisemitism" that would be called out as intellectually dishonest if we replaced Greenwald with some other person and "Antisemitism" with some other type of bigotry. Other than ad hominems you do not in fact address my point. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring all the other issues, you only edit one topic... CorruptUser (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I addressed it the first talk page post - "Calling X Y cheapens Y" is only intellectually bankrupt if X and Y are sufficiently similar for the statement to be an attempt to deflect reasonable criticism. "Calling the removal of disabled parking spaces a form of eugenics cheapens eugenics" would be perfectly reasonable, for example. The burden of proof is on you to show genuine anti-Semitic argumentation in his statement, not on anyone else to prove its absence. If you can't handle that, tough. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC) When self-styled SJWs call out "blackface" when a girl puts on slightly darker or metallic (which would seem like a non sequitur thing, but you know, people) make-up, I'd say that cheapens the charge of racism. Luckily, this isn't a widespread phenomenon in regards to racism. When we're talking antisemitism though, it would seem some people—you, for example—really like abusing that charge. (talk) 17:21, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(those edit conflicts are all the fault of <insert group here>)I do not in fact edit only one topic. If anybody does that, that would be User:-Mona-. I have edited several topics in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The main reason why I have so often edited on certain issues is that there is just so much stuff I don't agree with - Most of it peddled by User:-Mona- and her ilk Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think, that editing only one topic is bad per se (and Avenger doesn't only edit stuff about one topic).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have in the past edited topics as diverse as Kopi Luwak and US Presidents. But sure "I only edit one topic" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Does use of the term "Israel Lobby" necessarily have to be a dog-whistle? I can understand if people are concerned about the use of the term Zionist being a dog-whistle among far-right groups, but I think the use of the term Israel lobby is not as problematic. And that is not to say they are a shadowy cabal. They're no more different than some ethnic group lobbying for politics swayed in their favor (CAIR lobbying for policies related to protecting Muslim civil liberties for instance. Plus, the term was used by two respected IR scholars, so it's not like there isn't some legitimacy to the term. I mean, for those who live in the US, how else do you explain the rabid advertisements against the Iran deal? We shouldn't deny that there's a lobby group in favor of pushing policies that compliment the Israeli government, anymore than say the Saudi lobby who pushes for a better PR image (see the recent Wikileaks cables on this). And the unanimous voting record on Israel by Congressmen would seem to confirm that there's some lobbying, at least with recent polls showing a good portion of Democrats do not look on Israel as favorably. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a dog whistle term in European discourse. And it is also often used as a dog whistle term in US discourse. After all, there is hardly any politician or lobbyist who refers to herself as a member of / influenced by the "Israel Lobby". The NRA on the other hand would hardly object being called the "handgun lobby" or similar terms. Of course "Israel Lobby" is often used interchangeably with "Jewish Lobby" and sometimes they are both combined into the famed "Jewish Israel Lobby" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is calling any use of the term a dog-whistle shuts down legitimate criticisms of the lobby for its politics, whether you agree or not with them. The NRA isn't immune from criticism when they push pro-Gun legislation. The same goes for Israel, regardless of whether there's a Jewish identity. Well, it's used inter-changably because the Israel lobby does happen to be composed of Jews (some Christian Zionists are included, but they're a minority). And saying that there exists a Jewish lobby is not antisemitic in itself considering there are plenty of Jewish organizations like the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center that lobby against antisemitism. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess you would say different things if you had had opportunity to observe the way the term is employed in debates in e.g. Germany Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Germany tend to be more pro-Israel than its European counterparts, including among the government? ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Merkel may be, but the public debate employs the "das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen" trope so often that you get a vomiting spell every time you hear the first words of that "sentence". The common succession of tropes is
  1. Say something outrageous and antisemitic about Jews /Israel
  2. Backlash by some of the more reasonable people, including Jewish organizations
  3. "I am being oppressed" "The evil Jewish Lobby is censoring me" booo hoooo waaaahhhh waaahhhh
  4. one of several things: either the debate dies down, or the "critic" is celebrated for "breaking a taboo", or even mainstream people acknowledge that this particular bit of insanity was beyond the pale.
Interestingly enough, almost the same happens when somebody makes similar statements about (people whose parents or grandparents were) foreigners or other commonly marginalized groups. Unfortunately, the right wing and the anti-Zionists are slowly but surely gaining the upper hand in public debate... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My "trolling"[edit]

As I can glean from the discussions about my "case" I seem to have been found guilty of "trolling". Might I be informed of which of my contributions exactly constitute trolling rather than sincerely held - if controversial - beliefs on contentious issues? Surely if I am a troll, there must be sufficient proof that all sides will be able to easily accept. And if not, well I shall not finish this sentence. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it trolling. Just wilful stupidity coupled with a lack of introspection when it comes to your pet topics. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It might help not being perceived as a troll if you didn't strawman, go full-out denialist or spout blatant bullshit every other post. (talk) 17:24, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
What makes defending Israel's right to self-defense and putting things that happen during wars in context "wilful stupidity"?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait what? When did Arafat become a strawman? And what am I "denialist" about? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User rights problems[edit]

Avenger, I see a red exclamation mark marking your posts (as a Sysop) despite that you belonging to the group of autopatrolled users, according to the user rights management page. So can I remove you from the autopatrolled group and re-add you right afterwards?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that solves whatever problem this apparently outdated software has, sure. Just remember to re-add me ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I see you did so. Did it work? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(SCHEIß DIE WAND AN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111 edit conflict) Allrightythen, problem solved. We had this problem coupla days ago, too, when a user couldn't access his Sysop-tools despite being a member of the "Sysops"-group, so the same solution I used now (trying to switch it off and on again) was applied and it helped.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Glad it worked. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It;s a general lag in the system atm it seems.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears as if the outdated software[1] is causing more and more problems... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Most of the English speakers of the world don't use Webster's 'u' less spellings. (Also manoeuver's quite OK in most of the world) Scream!! (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well they are better. And more rational. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


I decided to try and make a funny. I think it may have worked. If you like, you should simulate an argument with me on the exploding pplz talk page, where you say that "this is preposterous and a sham!" and I say numerology proves that you're a shill. Or not, in case you just get a migraine from my antics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Page Edits[edit]

Hey dude. I am so sorry for that edit on teh Mexico page. Looking back, it is pretty crankish and unsupported. I just made that edit from personal experience, and I have nothing against teachers. Also, I repent greatly for my mistaking "capitol" and "capital." I am a disgrace to the English language. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Nah, capitol and capital are more often confused by native speakers... All's fine. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why. I always see "capital" even in textbooks, and "capitol" when the Capitol Building is referred to. Is this an American thing like the absence of "u" in 'labor'? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I guess it is originally just the name of one building (or complex of buildings), namely the Capitol in DC. And as the word looks and sounds awfully similar to (in some dialects indistinguishable from) capital and the Capitol is in the capital confusion seems rather understandable. As for the more logical spelling of "labor", that was an American of the name of Noah Webster who proposed a number of spelling reforms (in that day and age English spelling was a bit more malleable). Some of these spelling reforms were universally accepted, some were only accepted in his native US (such as "center" and "labor") and some were not accepted by any one. His story of even a well known and respected lexicographer unable to get widespread acceptance for (all of his) rather moderate changes is instructive as to the conservatism of English orthography. Ultimately - to get back to the capital issue - both words derive from Latin "caput" (whose declination form is "capitis") which means "head" - used in a figurative sense in Roman times already Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is "labor" more logical? It's not like it's pronounced "o" or "oh"; it's pronounced "uh". (talk) 15:46, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well first of all the Latin word it comes from is "labor", declinated form "laboris". Hence it wins out on etymology alone. Second of all, the superfluous "u" in words like flavor gives off a strange French vibe and hence makes one think it should be pronounced pseudo-French like "flavuuur" or something. The same applies for "center" which is way closer to the actual pronunciation thaen "centre" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you're gonna apply argument by etymology to this, shouldn't we start pronouncing it la-borr again instead of this silly ley-burr stuff? However you put it, which spelling is to be preferred is an arbitrary choice. (talk) 16:07, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
There's bound to be a dialect of English that actually does that. One of the problems of English is that its spelling does not reflect the standard dialect; it reflects that standard dialect centuries ago. Hence every dialect spoken today has the same right to say the spelling represent their pronunciation or not Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
English is basically a hybrid of different languages. As in: by current standards, it's unique in that it isn't like any other out there, and by those same standards, doesn't make sense. That is why most non-native speakers have such a difficult time even learning the basic skills. Cracked put it best with: Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Actually the "one written language, several spoken languages" bit is also found in Chinese... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that a mix of nationalism, sailorspeak, and language reform attempts have shaped the so-called American English of today is frightening. Or the other way around. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sailorspeak is a very big foundation for many of the slang and regular words that we would use today. And nationalism changed many words during the First World War (i.e. "liberty cabbage," which idn't stick around, and the change from the -Stein prefix to -stine or the last name Smith. And then Webster. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
This is a weird one: „ current standards, it's unique in that it isn't like any other out there...“. This applies to every language, otherwise it wouldn't be a separate language! In any case, due to the history of English, etymological considerations seem to be pretty useless. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hygge and Gemütlichkeit[edit]

As it happens I speak both languages and those words are very close - as far as I've experienced it, it means quiet, nice coziness at home or perhaps at a pub with warm feelings and a feeling of well-being and friendliness dominating the atmosphere. Of course each nation claims their brand to have "das gewisse Etwas" discerning their way from the other, but from a neutral point of view they are about the same. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That helped clear it up. A minor issue, you can and could also respond to other people's messages on your talk page on your own talk page. Cheers. Or shall I say Ein Prosit der Gemütlichkeit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My current block[edit]

As the block justification explicitly puts "blame" on me and Mona equally, why is only one party blocked? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Because neither of you have sysop rights but -mona- has a better chance of complaining about a "shut up and look at this" block than you do. I trust you more in that respect. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
So in essence I am being "punished" (I use this term loosely and advisedly) for being less known to throw temper-tantrums thaen Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
More or less - I would have given you both 5 minutes if I thought it wouldn't get some amount of complaining. If you were a sysop you woulda got a hour long.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I shall keep that in mind. Though I do admit it is a rather strange way of showing trust. I hope you won't be offended if I don't say "thanks" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Saying thank you can be substituted with finding a solution to this endless multi page feud. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Which feud? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't be that way now.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess you mean the general edit warring nastiness and uncivil behavior (not to mention temper tantrums) of one certain Mona. Well the thing is: If the smarter person gives in, the stupid people reign the world. Unfortunately Mona is very good at hitting all our buttons and I fear at some point either she will have to go (unless she is indeed capable of tuning it down a notch) or one or more of our current editors will significantly reduce their amount of editing or even leave altogether. I mean, I am not the only one Mona has provoked reactions from. She has at times basically accused the whole site of being a Zionist shill and worse. But what do you think? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm tired of night-RW being a edit war. I find Mona personally more confrontary than the established users, but it isn't like either side is roses.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well there is one rather facile solution to this whole mess, but I am loath to propose it. And no, Mona's "Journo-buddies" have nothing to do with that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

One minor thing[edit]

I see it as rather ill-advised to "end" an edit war by locking a page down and thaen immediately turn to make a change based on - seemingly - nothing but personal preference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this version had only Mona arguing in favor of it prior to your stepping in and it has a factual error that has been pointed out several times by now. If it were true, the reaction would predate the action. Something Newton's laws indicate to be unlikely... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I dont even want us mentioning true Lies as I don't see the relevance (although I find our old justification for why it cannot be in reaction to TL, that it came out before the movie released, to be stupid as it isn't like anybody had no idea about what TL was about until it came out, I just wanted to see how it looked .--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also think given the shortness of the article (and some of its claims like distributing free Qurans somehow being "good" instead of neutral or negative being problematic already) the true lies bit is not really relevant unless it immediately led to their founding (which it didn't) or their activities against the movie were particularly noteworthy (which they apparently weren't). In short, the true lies bit is incidental at best and the article could well do without it in my opinion Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My signature[edit]

You know, what the last character group in my signature means?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't. And up to this point I have paid the squiggly squishes little mind. Care to enlighten me? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Platitudes to the great goat to block Aris?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Text-version of the infamous goatse.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For the hell of it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Say what you want about him, but every proctologist in the world wishes they could have him as their patient.CorruptUser (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Proktologen sind für'n Arsch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ohne sie wären wir im Arsch (auf jeden Fall die, die nen "pain in the ass" im wörtlichen Sinne haben) :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Enough with the German already! Free sprekken? SCHTONK! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice how his hands only have 3 digits. Arisboch is clearly a Reptilian! (talk) 20:15, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Onozomg.gif Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


fight over pacwalkers version of the zionism article, get the one we do have to be better if you don't want people swayed to side with mona. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't understand either[edit]

Keeping my word, I won't be going back to that particular page you-know-where, but honestly, I have no idea what the guy was talking about. And, yes, I rarely get angry but when I do, it takes me a while to simmer down. To be fair to me, I have a cold, haven't slept and am exhausted, so my defenses were weaker. But I did apologize and got another patronizing lecture for that as well as a ban on stating my opinions. I am just explaining my side. I'm not running to mama crying, just clarifying my side. If the Emerald wants to he can explain himself too, but as I said, I rarely get angry, but when I do it takes time. And I am emphatically not asking for mediation. But I wanted to thank you for taking a level headed view. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you either avoid each other or avoid what ever it was that brought about the confrontation. And as mothers everywhere will probably say: A good night's sleep may do wonders ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll avoid him since we write mutually unintelligible English. I'll have forgotten about it in a couple of days. (Yes that's how long it takes, but it has nothing to do with holding a grudge which I usually don't and won't in this case either.) It occurred to my that as I've been relaxing writing a bit here and there, that I have been cheerful and angry at the same time. I don't know if that's part of the American (I'm guessing) psyche, but here it's pretty normal to, well, „compartmentalize“ like that. Just another psychological tidbit of national traits. :-) Cheers (Actually cheers - I don't have school tomorrow and will have plenty of time to grapple with the fairly light assignment in Latin due Thursday, so I'm relaxing, sipping a beer at the rate of one per hour or hour and a half or so - not the stereotypical Icelandic way of drinking I'll admit. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
PS: Sorry for continuing this, but when I don't understand something it doesn't leave me in in peace until I do. Still sleepless, so don't expect anything deep, but the Emerald seemed to regard it as a cardinal sin to tell strangers about your beliefs. Since this is an open forum, I can't imagine how that can be strictly avoided - read at your own peril. But in the banana article we weren't discussing beliefs but opinions. I did mention once, by way of introduction, that I'm an atheist. Could that be it? Or is there a belief as opposed to opinion buried somewhere in the banana discussion? It would give me some peace of mind, if you could clarify. That's just a personal characteristic. Unresolved questions can easily keep me awake until the body surrenders. Or is there such a thing on this wiki as being overly familiar? I would like an honest answer. I am an insomniac anyway and I can't shut my brain off, like some can - and I hasten to add that I envy them and that not being able to turning the brain off does not mean that I'm thinking anything worthwhile - it's just that the bloody thing refuses to quit. :) Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You could do me a favour by giving an honest answer[edit]

I sometimes write myself to sleep as I am trying to now, so mistakes are bound to happen. I also have the irritating habit of being too hasty in clicking „Save“. That also leads to unfinished trails of thought, repetitions and so forth. But on the whole: Do you understand, generally speaking, what I'm saying without too much guessing? I'm not fishing for a compliment - I'm too arrogant for that. But do I - to a noticeable degree - post something incomprehensible? This is for my benefit, so don't be shy in answering. You're the native speaker so I'll take your word for it, and I can promise not to be upset by any answer. I've already filled this year's quota. And if I can be easily misunderstood, wherein does that lie? I really do prefer to write clearly albeit often with a grin. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk)

I am right now too tired to respond with any real degree of clarity. I'll get to you tomorrow Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Take your time. In the meantime I had a look at the Emerald's paged and had to look up the meaning of "bloviate", which was apparently what I was doing. Having found out the meaning, I tend to disagree with that. I've also gained the label of "crank" as well as one "Death to Sorte Slyngel". I'm rather proud of having managed this in my short life on this wiki. :-) Environments always take a bit of time for assimilation. I'll just have to get used to counting to twenty before I press "Save". :-) Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Assimilation" was not a typo, but should have been followed by a smiley. :-) Resistance is futile as we all know. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please not, I'm afraid of piercings and nanite-viruses!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Piercings are obligatory, I'm afraid, Arisboch, but based on insider knowledge the process is absolutely painless :-) But Avenger, I forgot to tell you, my call for an analysis has expired. I've vented all I need to. I was even taught a new word, bloviate. As stated, I don't think I'm a blovitator (that might be a new word, I don't know). As for the dictionary meaning of another thing I was called, I hereby swear by Egils saga that I'm not „a machine part with a handle that can be turned in a circular motion to move something“. :-) And „Death to Sorte Slyngel“ honestly makes me proud. :-) I hope we'll meet again. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

but no seriously[edit]

If you're so adamant that the Mona et all version is so terrible, get the RW version up to snuff then because the RW version is shit regardless of which view of the debate you hold. Otherwise i'm half tempted to just replace that one with theirs because atleast they are -trying- to make a good article instead of sitting on their heels saying "fuck you"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm too afraid of Mona's Journo-buddies to do that. No honestly, I'll give it some thought, though writing on my own ain't gonna be much fun and is unlikely to influence the ultimate outcome much, I gather... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's one thing I'm curious about[edit]

In one of your posts, you said your fervent support of Zionism is to make sure something like the Holocaust can never happen again. And you talked about making sure the conditions that enabled the Nazis to rise to power don't arise again by doing everything completely differently. So I'm wondering... why do you support an ethnic nationalist ideology focused on securing territory for its favoured group of people? I'm not saying Israel's and Nazi Germany's goals and policies are super-similar, but as for "doing everything completely differently"... Well, I hope you see my point. (talk) 17:16, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm not saying Israel's and Nazi Germany's goals and policies are super-similar, but[...]- 142․124․55․236 You started or just continued taking pointers from Mona?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Except I was actually being sincere in that part. If it helps, imagine "(they're really not)" before the but. (talk) 18:02, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
They bear important and disturbing similarities. Distancing themselves from a confusing equivalent isn't a "not racist but" cop out. It bears no similarity, other than being a caveat. "Not racist but" is a statement intended to protect one's reputation as they say something racist. This was a clarification and moderation. Try to treat arguments as they are instead of pulling out vague parallels that don't really apply. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well this "debate" has died a natural death without my getting involved. Of course I find your comparison entirely BS, so I won't try to dwell on it. Just one thing: Every nationalism necessarily tries to assert some territorial sovereignty. Given that almost all US states are bigger in surface area thaen Israel and most of Israel is desert anyway, it is quite a moderate form of nationalism, compared to - say - "manifest destiny" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't making comparisons or looking for a debate; I was just wondering why you say you want to do things as differently as possible and yet you support a form of nationalism. There are also non-nationalistic ideologies around that provide strong opposition to genocide, you know. (talk) 16:56, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
What we need is not "strong opposition to genocide". What we need is something that makes the next genocide impossible. The two things that have historically shown to discourage genocide the most are boots on the ground with weapons to keep the killers from killing and a place of refuge. As we can see now in the case of Syrian refugees, there is no guarantee for a place of refuge in general terms. For Jews, Israel is this place of refuge. As we have seen in the case of Rwanda, there is no guarantee for boots on the ground, even it is a low risk high reward endeavor (who would really think the US would've gotten themselves into an intractable Vietnam-like quagmire had they intervened?). If I were a Jew, the only logical conclusion for me would be the need of a state like Israel. If it weren't there, it would have to be invented. That is why I support the existence of the state of Israel. Ultimately, all nation-states have to disappear from the face of the earth. But Israel cannot and must not disappear before Antisemitism disappears. Which will probably not happen before capitalism ends Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
So, 2 things: 1. I make note of the fact that the main kind of genocide you seem concerned with is one of Jews. 2. Are you sure that just because the state is run by Jews, for Jews, that the system can't devolve and eventually result in a ruling elite willing to commit atrocities towards other Jews? Aren't Ethiopian Jews already notably discriminated against in Israel? (talk) 17:17, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Antisemitism is not just any other type of Racism. See Stephan Grigat of the University of Vienna for a in depth discussion as to why. In fact Antisemitism and Racism are quite different from each other. And while racism is showing signs of going away, Antisemitism does not. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Jews were not even considered "real" Jews by many other Jewish groups. The state of Israel still saved them and brought them to Israel under significant risk and cost, as the question "who is a Jew?" has been answered thusly (I don't know who coind the sentence, but it is very concise) "A Jew is anyone willing to call themselves a Jew in this world". Israel is (and usually understands itself) not only a state for the Jews according to some definition, but also a state for all that are persecuted because someone says they are Jews. If they are after you because they think you are Jewish, Israel will accept you, regardless as to whether you think you are Jewish. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Which was the reason, why the Law of Return, since 1970, also includes people with at least one Jewish grandparent and their spouses (since a few years even if they have the same plumbing! Awesome! #lovewins). Converts to Judaism also fall under the law. People, who did bad shit (crimes), though, ain't allowed in (unless these charges are trumped up as a means of persecution).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not saying antisemitism is just another type of racism at all and that question's not even relevant here. I thought we were talking about making the mass slaughter of Jewish people impossible. There are many more reasons besides just antisemitism why Jews might end up being killed. Maybe it's hatred towards a specific group of Jews. Maybe it's hatred towards all Jews that don't belong to your own 'pure' subset of Jews. You don't even need ethnic hatred; throughout history, many repressive governments have indiscriminately killed members of their population for little to no reason.

And all of that assumes that some of Israel's controversial actions don't draw it into an ugly murderous conflict like the Syrian Civil War, destabilizing it into a hellish battleground. I'd say this raging unstability in the Middle East is actually a strong pro-Jewish reason to reject Israeli Zionism. (talk) 18:03, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

To conclude: My point is that, going by the Zionist solution, you don't just need a Jewish state, you need a nice Jewish state in a nice, stable environment. (talk) 18:14, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

From what we can see today, that kinda possibility seems far too much out there. Israel has risked the tuches of quite a bunch of soldiers to rescue many African Jews from various places in Africa. Of course there is racism in Israel, I'd never denied the existence of such dipshits in Israel, but there is no indication today, that anything like what you did describe could conceivably happen from what is visible today.
As of now, Israel is a relatively stable country, despite the Syrian-Israeli border not being as calm as it was in the past years and recent reports of DAESH-activity in the Gaza-Strip.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Some of these possibilities might sound "out there", but Avenger was talking about making genocide of Jews impossible. And an impossibility is not what I'm seeing here. (talk) 18:26, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
OK, it would be also possible for Bibi to play strip-poker with Mahmoud on national TV in Israel, but nothing anyone would consider...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it really that far-fetched that the already right-wing regime of Israel that's already committed atrocities towards Palestinian civilians might develop into a government that might treat certain subsections of its own civilian population with the same disregard? And with the latter, Israel being a Jewish state is a noted disadvantage in this context, because it means such disregard is inevitably gonna hit a lot of Jews. (talk) 18:41, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes. The Civil Rights situation has improved in Israel since it was founded, not worsened. E.g. the Arab Israelis have still the same rights as the others (private discrimination does still exist, but the state can fully prevent people from being assholes, they always find a way), spouses of a returnee get an Israeli passport, too, no matter, whether they're Jews or not and so on. Of course, there is still much to do (e.g. civil marriage, gay marriage conducted in Israel itself, improvement of the situation of African refugees, better integration of the ultra-orthodox into the job market and society as a whole and many other things), but alarmism is uncalled for.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not proposing alarmism, but we're talking about the long-term evolution of a country's government. It seems rather overly optimistic to say things can't take a wrong turn just because there've been some good developments recently. (talk) 19:12, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Long-term evolution"? Probably we should ask Uri Geller, he may have a crystal ball :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one purporting to have an at-all-clear vision of the future, that's what you were doing. (talk) 19:19, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
No snark: Above I read Avenger saying Israel's nationalism was "moderate" and spewed iced tea all over my keyboard. Jesus on a crutch. Nationalism there is on steroids. Much that I DOCUMENT about Israel demonstrates that. As a start, read this book. Seriously. To understand the Israel fierce Zionists don't want to be seen, read it. (If you are reluctant to pay for it, borrow it from a library.) Many, many Zionist reviewers hate the work, but Eric Alterman was compelled to concede it is "technically accurate." Which means, accurate.---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you personally been to Israel? CorruptUser (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
She probably threw a tantrum at the border control and was told fuck off...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"Have you personally been to Israel?" I doubt they'd let me in. And even if they did, I wouldn't go unless I could also visit Gaza. But my favorite sources -- Abumnimah and Blumenthal -- have been to both Israel and Gaza many, many times. You know, I was never in the Soviet Union, but trusted sources convinced me it was quite grim; a civil liberties nightmare, among other things.---Mona- (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hitchens went to North Korea, Iraq and Iran. He never let hating the regime (and saying so publicly) keep him from getting the story at the source. As any good journalist should. He also went to observe Hezbollah rallies in Lebanon. And while he said that "Zionism would have been wrong even if there were no Palestinians", that did not keep him from denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah as the religious fanatic totalitarian antisemites they were. Say what you want about Hitch, but you have to have a great deal of respect for the drink-sodden former Marxist popinjay (Galloway's words, not mine) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

To summarize:[edit]

And to state my point more blatantly: Avenger, the whitewashing and downplaying of atrocities committed by Israel encourages the corruption of your honourable and righteous cause of protecting Jews from genocide and persecution. Corruption which could potentially endanger the lives and well-being of many Jews in the long run. So please don't do that. (talk) 21:59, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and wish to state for the record that the constant deligitimization and demonization of Israel that many self-proclaimed supporters of the "Palestinian cause"[2] engage in is not only dangerous to the state of Israel, but dangerous to Jews regardless of where they live or what their stance on Zionism in general or any specific policy of Israel in particular is. Furthermore, it is my believe that it enables the radical elements on the Palestinian side and harms the peace process as it diminishes the chance of Israeli leaders believing in a better security situation through peace instead of deterrence. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder which part you disagree with, though let me end on this note: A corrupt repressive government[3] cannot be relied on to adhere to any moral code.[4] Laws can be bent, and people can be swayed. For the sake of your cause, you should strive to contribute to securing a deeply moral, humanitarian character within the Israeli government. When a government considers targetting civilian areas for simple deterrence, I think that shows just how direly this is needed. I hope you agree that proudly supporting fair and humane treatment for all really oughtn't be a difficult thing to do. Not only is a moral, humane, compassionate Zionism the most desirable Zionism, in my opinion, it is also the only viable one. (talk) 22:50, 3 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So seeing as you've yet to offer a proper rebuttal, can I conclude that you've taken my words to heart and will no longer act as a roadblock whenever criticisms of Isreali policies come up, Avenger? (talk) 19:02, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Go sealioning somewhere else. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. (talk) 20:38, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Are we done yet? Go knit a kufiyah with your Hezbollah buddies at al Quds day... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Pfft again. (talk) 23:09, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I have an ingenious idea about how we can exchange our e-mail addresses, if you wanna[edit]

You enter the address in the appropriate section in the preferences, I send you an e-mail and you delete the address right afterwards. Since there is no CheckUser here (I checked), no-one's gonna know unless by sifting through logs, which is too much of a pain in the sphincter. So, how about it?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have one in preferences (it exists and I can access it), but I have never gotten around to confirming it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
'kay, so confirm it, it's easy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
How long should it take until the confirmation email reaches me? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Dunno. Not more than a few minutes, I guess. I don't remember, how long it took for me.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's wait and see. And I guess this here conversation need not be neither preserved nor visible for future generations, does it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I can conceal edits or revisions only from those below me on the user-rights-ladder, so an other sysop, mod and so on could see this, if s/he wanted to.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I can live with that risk for now ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hold it right there, you handsome devils. We don't allow talk pages to be erased here, to prevent conservapedia-style rewritings of the past. Especially not now that I'm a member in this conversation. Aah, conversing. Isn't that nice? Anyways, just saying. Carry on *swings baton aimlessly* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There must be some secret Zionist interwebs you can use, no? :)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Letting the goyim know, huh? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That you are calling me a devil, I can live with. But handsome? HANDSOME? How dare you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The real question in this is - which one of you and Arisboch is the number one handsome man? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that a subliminal way of trying to find out whether I am male or female? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Come here and french me, boys Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Which country has an explicitly racist citizenship law?[edit]

Which states among other things that a citizen is any person born in the country in question who is X or of X descent. And which states in the section on naturalization that among other things a person wishing to become a citizen of said country has to be X or of X descent? Which country am I looking for? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the reason why you bring it up to be honest. :P (talk) 01:45, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Because I am against Racism wherever it occurs and whoever perpetrates it. Are there no people willing to guess? I even give you a hint: The country has had a lot more immigration in the 19th thaen in the 20th century. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe I know.... and it's a odd country. What's even odder is why am I reading this on your talk page?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Awright, spill it, I don't know.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Try Liberia. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Liberia is indeed correct. See here. Furthermore, the law explicitly says "Negro", which is an indication that it needs to be updated asap. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Does it really? I did not know that terminology was still used. So X = negro?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep. See also the linked wp article Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You do realize they're only trying to create a place of refuge for black people, right Avenger? ;) (talk) 14:16, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I thought several countries had jus sanguinis naturalization laws. (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few.Wikipedia--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
A critical difference is obligation. Nations using Jus sanguinis laws do not state that an individual must have bloodlines to justify citizenship.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, from the Wikipedia page:

  • Article V, Section 13 of the 1847 Constitution which states: "The great object of forming these Colonies, being to provide a home for the dispersed and oppressed children of Africa, and to regenerate and enlighten this benighted continent, none but persons of colour shall be eligible to citizenship in this Republic." The phrasing "persons of colour" was changed to "Negroes or persons of Negro descent" in a 1955 revision.

Shouldn't you support this, Avenger? This is basically Zionism but for black people. ;) (talk) 20:30, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

And by the by, it's not because "negro" has become a dated, potentially offensive term in American and British English that the same is true for Liberian English. (talk) 20:46, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

*cough* Any reaction, Avenger? You're usually a lot more talkative. >.> (talk) 19:04, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Does Israel exclude non-Jews from citizenship? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Israel is more inclusive of others in that sense. But the ideological basis is the same. And Liberia still allows non-citizens to be permanent residents. To be honest, maybe it would've been preferable if Israel had limited citizenship to Jews from the getgo; that way it could've peacefully co-existed with a non-Jewish Arab/Palestinian government instead of seeing non-Jews as a 'demographic threat' to Jewish rule. (talk) 19:20, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well outside its legally recognized borders, Israel more or less grants citizenship to the Jewish settlers while denying this benefit for Palestinians who live next door under occupation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we currently mention the explicitly racist citizenship law in our article on Liberia? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We do now! ;) (talk) 20:29, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Thanks! Now if we could only make Mona aware of this Apartheid state with its openly racist ideology that used to be governed by a string of war criminals. She and her journo-buddies would be up in arms to fight this injustice in no time. I am sure of that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You may have missed this part, but Americo-Liberians and the original population of the area both meet the "Negro" qualification, so your comparison doesn't hold up. (talk) 21:19, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Most Jews[5] and most Arabs are white according to most definitions. And even while the minority regime of Americo-Liberians is over, it is baffling to see still no denouncing of the openly racist citizenship law. After all, Mandela did not fight Apartheid to replace it with discrimination against non-blacks. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Um, non sequitur much? Zionism is focused on Jews, not on the white race. "Negro", for that matter, doesn't include all people of dark complexion. It typically only refers to black Africans. (talk) 21:30, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

A simple, perhaps stupid question[edit]

You're an Avenger, all well and good, but what does BoN stand for? I'm not up to date on acronyms. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not him, but the Bunch of Numbers in an IP. BoN is in the lexicon here. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Another dumb question: Where's the lexicon? In my defense I did read a bunch of material for newcomers, but I must have overlooked this one. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright, first off I meant it was the lexicon as being the local vocabulary. There is an actual page right here amusingly titled RationalWiki:Dyslexicon. And last but not least, please refrain from using Limey terms when responding to me. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I learned Her Majesty's English in school, but what I have read since is probably more American. I mix them up all the time. I'll try to remember that but which offending Limey terms did I use? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Forget it bruv. Cheers mate. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, „Cheers“ it was. I habitually sign off that way, so it might be difficult to change it - it's automatic. Let's try something else. Godspeed, frater in spiritu :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ich hasse Hitler. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Das steht nicht unbedingt im Zusammenhang mit dem oben Geschriebenen, aber wer haßt ihn nicht? :-) Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Wo wir sind herscht Chaos, aber wir können nicht überall sein. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Nur ein Genie beherrscht das Chaos! :-) Prost Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Je ne parle pas allemande. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you did give a good impression. Since I don't speak French, we should perhaps revert to the lingua franca here. But your User page seems to indicate an interest in Latin. I hope that is the case - I'm taking Latin I this fall and will take Latin II in spring. (I'm quite a bit older than that might indicate. :-) Skál Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's take this to my talk page or your own, this is quite odd on Avenger's. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well for once, neither the issue of Israel, nor personal attacks arose. That's a first for my talkpage, I gather... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't tempt fate.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you can rest easy regarding this discussion. I moved it to Fedora's talk page, so this discussion has come to an end here, unless somebody reads the discussion and finds something offensive. That's unlikely, but still, knock on wood. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious[edit]

This is the RationalWiki. That was one of the things that attracted me. How come Israel or Zionism can't be mentioned here either without provoking a war? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to use the RATIONALWiki-template here, if I wouldn't think, that this template is the biggest piece of shit eva.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't know why, but currently I am of the opinion that any explicitly or implicitly political group or movement can be divided and put into endless discussions by taking a stance - really any stance - on the issue of Zionism or Israel, as half of the members / supporters will hate it. I fear the same has happened here at RW, as a quick look at recent changes over the last month or so shows... I think (part of) the problem is that the topic is highly emotional and that there is no simple answer that can be easily arrived at from a fact like "I believe in science" (consensus over here) or "I am left/liberal/not-right/whatever on most issues" (near consensus over here, though you'd be surprised how many conservatives are around). There are clearly scientists who have vastly different stances on Israel and there are people of all political stripes who have vastly different opinions on that issue as well. As for the why of that, I can only speculate, but I guess Antisemitism plays a role, as does "third worldism" (i.e. the opinion that a "resistance movement" or "national liberation movement" is automatically good if it originates in the Global South and/or fights against a European or North American power or somebody supported by them). But as I said, the whole issue is a complicated mess, to say the least Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I read that template, I don't think my question qualifies. Or maybe I'm just learning the ropes. In any case, Arisboch, I beg pardon for overstepping whatever I did. Thanks for the explanation, Avenger. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, you did nothing wrong.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's just that "this is supposed to be RATIONALwiki" is a thing often said by trolls and you inadvertently echoed this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't use it, but explicitly refused to use it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I know. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of moving the footnotes to the bottom. I hope that is not unethical. And now you have another venom-free thread. :-) There are rational people out there however much one may despair reading the papers. :-) It's been my pleasure getting to know you two gents, I hope we'll continue having fun. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

More unwelcome than unwelcome[edit]

There should be a template with a stronger message than just unwelcome.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There should. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I made one (warning, the links are all replaced to a NSFW-image for trolling purposes), not sure, if it be used all, to be honest.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No, there shouldn't. The unwelcome template is mild for good reason. Escalating adversarial shitfests does not help the wiki. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
For the statistically interested: How often, approximately, is the unwelcome template used? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I use it every so often, but most of the time the people we could use it on burn the bridge before we can consider welcoming them.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

go talk[edit]

to Gerard some more if you want tagging, mods cannot do that.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I see what can be done. I don't really know how difficult it is to do sth. like that from a purely technological standpoint. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a story[edit]

The PM I mentioned once stated his opinion of the EU, almost verbatim (hence the almost accurate quotation mark: „The EU is just the Germans' means of doing what they couldn't do in WWII by other means. A man in Portugal told me so.“

In conversation this quickly mutated into: „The EU is just the Germans' means of doing what they couldn't do in WWII by other means. I was told so in a men's room in Portugal.“

So, as you see, we've had to endure our share of really dumb politicians - or is naive a better word? Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, "dumb" is the better word for it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I have heard this turn of phrase more thaen once. A men's room in Portugal was never among the places I heard it. Anyway, I still dimly recall a high ranking Austrian politician (I think it was the chancellor or the head of the SPÖ) who was fed up with the whole Waldheim-mess (or the way it was handled in the media) saying "Let's conclude: Waldheim never was a member of the SS, but his horse was." - At least that was moderately funny and shows the Austrian sense of humor... If you look at German chancellor Kohl, on the other hand... The way he ended the cold war was by serving inedible "food" to both Gorbachev and Reagan, so that they decided: Let's get this over with, so we will never have to visit Germany. Maybe that is a way for Iceland to achieve world peace? Rotten shark, anybody? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I happen to like shark, and have liked it since the first bite. Don't disparage the shark. :-) (But don't eat fresh shark either - it'll kill you.) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think (living) sharks have gotten a bad rep, whereas living dolphins have gotten off scot-free for nose-raping one another or torturing robs to death. Any way... If (if...) I visit Iceland, we might talk... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to talk. As for this turn of phrase, it's real this time, since I saw the interview at the time. The men's room part was of course der Volksmund. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear James from Miss Sophie[edit]

I watched the clip and had a good time. I suspect there is no lesson in there but if you're James, I'd suggest having your liver checked. :-) And, for somebody to pick up on. Cheerio from your frater in spiritu Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I were James, I would probably have to get my eyes and/or memory checked out as well. Hitting that damn tiger all the time should be serious cause for concern... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Not quite understanding the message, if there was one, I thought the video was good on its own, If I'm Sophie (not all that flattering), then you're James. Anyway, I'm sure you know it, but „frater in spiritu“ means „Bruder im Geiste“ (I'm not giving it all away to others yet) so this was a test of being accused by association to you or something like that - if, say, M should read this. I doubt she understands. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually read most of the talk page of the user in question. There you find the claim that writing is among its strong suits. The rest of the page convinced me otherwise. It's worse than that of many non-natives. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to explain. Writing is actually a strong suit of mine when it comes to my native language, and I think I've developed a feeling for good or bad writing in English, due to constant exposure to the language. I don't claim writing in English is a strong suit but I think I can separate poorly written pieces from good ones. Keep on the good fight Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I now understand. Well as for me addressing you as "Miss Sophie", this was mostly due to the sentence "Cheerio Miss Sophie" having acquired a meaning of its own unrelated to any person really being called Sophie. If you must know, "Dinner for one" is strongly associated with a certain date[6] in Germany and hence any person with a more or less strong connection to Germany has seen it at least once. Hence quoting tidbits from it (like "the same procedure as ev'ry year") is somewhat common. And as for your judgment of M's writing; I reached the same conclusion. I furthermore think that her legal skills (which she claims to have, though I don't know to which degree) actually hurt her, as she thinks this place works like a court of law. It doesn't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I remeber that fact now, but I never spent Silvester in Germany, so I hadn't seen it. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You can watch it or download it here, if you want.Wikipedia--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I shall see, whether I will watch it this year as well or whether I will be too busy consuming Ethanol or smooching a person of my preferred gender to care much for the screen it is put on. Depending on the company (and the place) I am in, someone will probably put it on some screen, regardless ;-). It really is strange that this program, which is next to unknown in Great Britain has such enduring success in a country that loves to dub everything (badly, I must say) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit that dubbing is something you have to get used to. But if you stay there for some time you do get used to it. That was always interrupted by trips home, where dubbing is mostly optional. But to the foreigners' relief, there was a Kino called Schauburg in the city, which only showed originals. We went there quite often to relax. Unfortunately, many of the films of choice were unwatchable - Pasolini's „100 Days of Sodom“ springs to mind - we walked out feeling sick about half way through. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


If you activate something somewhere, users should be able exchange email without the community knowing. If you'd like, we could do that, I'll just have to be told how to activate my settings. How about it? I've taken a liking to some of those around here, who seem to be as crazy as I am - and no, you're not alone in that category. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That'd be a good idea (validating your e-mail is easy: click on preferences and see the e-mail options below).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Does it work like i Wikipedia? That is you can be mailed, but nobody sees the address until they have sent a mail? I'd be glad to speak personally to a few around here - you're included, Arisboch, of course. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It does, but you need to validate you e-mail address first.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to ask, feeling like an idiot, where do I find Settings? Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's at the upper right corner of the page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd found it under Preferences, and as I'd left it, I should be able to receive mails. Would you care to send me a test or should I look for the option on your page? Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The link to the e-mail function of RW is in my signature.--Arisboch ☞✍☜ ☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I sent a test mail. Did you receive it? Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Worked without a hitch :) --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Clicking on the mail symbol produces an error as to no valid email address having been presented... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pls activate the e-mail, Avenger[edit]

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As the one I had been using for this purpose up till now seems to not be working, I created another one specifically for this purpose. Let's see how that works... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on what I learned today, there should be an option "Mail This User" or something like that visible on your user page, but it isn't. If you want to speak to either of us, Arisboch or me, you can use the links we have - thanks again Arisboch. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well maybe it is the mail thingy I am using that somehow conflicts with this here wiki. Arisboch, out of curiosity, is it possible you tell me what sort of mail thingy you are using? Googlemail? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm using Googlemail. Why you ask? It shouldn't make a diff, what e-mail provider, though.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, two different addresses hosted at [fill in the blank] did not work. And yes I double checked for typos... I am loathe to create an account at googlemail, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That's really weird and why'd you hesitate to create a Googlemail account?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No good sensible reasons in any way shape or form, but google has enough of my data as it is.[7] Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You've seen Sarah Connor around lately? ^_^--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
One more reason to refrain from using Chrome. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, you mentioned something...[edit]

about cracking open Linux after having forgotten one's password...? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to do the following: Boot the computer from a Linux Live-CD, mount the Linux system partition, open /etc/shadow with an plain text editor, and you'll see something like root:BLAHBLAHBLAH:0:0:0:0::: (or your user name). Just remove the characters between the first and the second colon and the system should start to think, that the account has no password. This should work (it worked for me, when I needed to crack the account of my old laptop).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I shall ask the resident computer expert if/when they go time for that. As the two of us currently only communicate online, I won't be able to contact you if it doesn't work ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So judging from you being able to write here, it worked?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not tried it yet. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Good sir, there is nothing to slander about the male appendage, it is a tool of evil and oppression, used by men worldwide to hold down all women. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And what's with the men, who have no interest in using their appendages on women, but on only men?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the mentioned part is not only the source of great problems but also of great pleasure... Or so I've heard. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


You can email me without making your email known here. Just send me a test mail, the address is accessible, and thereby I will have your address and nobody else. I'd like to talk to you in person. I suspect that you could mail without having your address here. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Where would I find that? Part of the problem is that RW says that in order to email somebody I myself have to have a valid and confirmed email address registered with the RW system... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but have you tried accessing from the e-mail notification system? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
The who with the what now? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any active pages on your watchlist? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt


When you learn how then/than works, then I will be more inclined to take your advice about English. MaillardFillmore (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

potato, patata. As long as I get my they're/there/their and my your/you're right... Plus, Shakespeare didn't get it right either. And he invented the word Assassin. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Back-pedal all you want, you still are not Shakespeare, nor Galileo, for that matter. MaillardFillmore (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If we take the surviving handwriting by the Bard himself as evidence, Shakespeare could not spell his own name the same twice in a row. So that's that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Come on, don't be so hard on the dead guy. English at that point was still inconsistent with all the dialects and spellings blending in cultural hotspots. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Which makes the spellings they eventually decided on all the more ridiculous. Spanish is way more consistent in its relationship between spelling and pronunciation... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


OK, now you've done it. Here's your mop. MarmotHead (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Just tread lightly with your newfound powers, eh? Be a dick sometimes (paraphrasing Tielec01 from somewhere below), but less often, please. MarmotHead (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


is "the prime minister of Israel" missional?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't have an article on the Prime Minister of Jordan. And Jordan has more people in it. Why is the one on mission while the other isn't? Is it because Tel Aviv has a gay pride parade? (Or so I've heard) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Possibly because nobody has written it. Yet.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Israel has a population of (I would have to look it up, but let's just say 1<x<10 *10to the sixth power) people. How many countries with a similar amount of people in them do we cover? About how many of these countries do we describe the Prime Minister in any detail? Why? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
if you feel the article is not missional, then nominate it for deletion--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I shall in due time consider such a move. I at first wanted to gauge the will of the mob (or as Voltaire calls it the "volonté générale") before acting too rashly with a vfd (which I consider to be not necessarily the first resort). Given the way the discussion was quickly hidden and even a short edit war occurred as to whether some statement by me was allowed into it, I might refrain from vfd, as it might seem to get shot down by the people who shot down said discussion. But I will see. Maybe a siesta will make up my mind. Cheerio Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
In a flurry of edit conflicts, it is quite common for biggish blocks of text to go missing. The timing of Paravant's restoration of your comment suggests that this was such a case. You are not being persecuted, at least not for putting a comment into a collapsed block on a talk page. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm sorry if you understood it that way. I was just trying to say that the way the missionality was not even addressed (it has been somewhat addressed here, but this is not where it belongs) bodes ill for a vfd. But that does not mean the option is off the table. Also Mona's slanderous libel of writing is horrific, but I'll get to that if and when the page is unlocked and still in the state Mona left it in (which I fear to be the case) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Israel is the number 1 recipient of U.S. military aid, and loudly touts its purported status as "the only democracy" in the Middle East. Moreover, a movement to boycott and sanction Israel is sweeping the Western world and taking a frontline position in Western politics. Today it was Reykjavík.---Mona- (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
To Avenger. My condolences of now being a janitor. As for Reykjavík, I happen to live there, and you will be hard pressed to find a more revolting gathering of bottom feeders than our City Council. This embargo of Israel is just the latest in a long line of stupidity and hypocrisy and rest assured that they do not have the people with them, except perhaps for a portion of those 50% who are dumber than the average. It was in the news today that the association of European Jewry (I can't remember the precise name of the organization) will sue the city for breach of trading agreements. I sincerely hope they do and win the case. It was also in the news today, that a respected American specialist in Old Icelandic law had cancelled his lectures over here this summer. He's Jewish and I mailed him in support. I hope other Jews follow his example. But rabid racists like Ms. M. probably have different views. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't look at the other link until now. But only the really braindead take Jeremy Corbyn seriously. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"American specialist in Old Icelandic law" Do you have a link about this cancellation? Google didn't bring up anything.---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is my talk page[edit]

If I want Mona's diatribes to be hidden, I would kindly ask for other editors to respect my decision. After all, one of my discussions was recently also hidden and I grudgingly respect that, as well. If and when Mona enters into reasonable debate, I shall address her. But as she throws childish hissy fits every time I ask her a tough question, I won't accommodate her every whim. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Monas post is a valid reply to "how is Israels leader missional" and just because you disagree doesn't give you right to be a prick.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So why again is it okay if somebody decides to be nasty on talk:Benjamin Netanyahu and I can't even keep my own talk page clear if I want to? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Because your discussion on the missionality of the controversial right wing leader of israel was in bad faith and you being a twat. Mona is not being either.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Honestly. Why is a certain politician noteworthy enough for us and another isn't? Why don't we have an article on Werner FaymannWikipedia for example? Or on Frauke PetryWikipedia? The latter is even arguably on mission, as she is a well known crank in some parts... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Us not covering a certain nations politician is not indication of that politician not being missional, it means nobody has written it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Go for it sir if you think the examples you give warrant a RW article. Missional political coverage is a bit thin at RW (especially outside of North American and European subjects), and that's just because, well, it is.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
My point was actually that we are not "prime ministers of the world wiki". I don't think we should cover any political figure just for being a political figure. Their missionality should be the core issue. And I don't hear Netanyahu endorse Homeopathy, for instance. Also the current state of said article (I know, not an argument in a vfd) is very sad, especially with the drivel Mona saw fit to add Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So stop pussyfooting around and nominate it for deletion. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to have a serious and honest debate about missionality. But apparently once Zionism and/or Mona gets involved all hell brakes lose. I apologize if my passion for the defense of the right of the state of Israel to exist comes of as radical or angered, but it is only ever intended to hit and hit hard ant the Antisemites out there. Sometimes a stray shot hits an unintended target though. If that is the case or the perception, I am deeply sorry. As for vfd, I will mull it over for a few hours or days. As I said above. I tend to err on the side of anti-delitionism, so I don't vfd out of spite or pettiness and I don't do so easily. On the Salaita thing for example missionality was established by him being a total kook lunatic. Maybe on Netanyahu we can also establish missionality and polish the turd[8]. That would be the best way to annoy Mona. Getting a truthful missional high quality article out of it instead of her tired propaganda. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
[ec]You are either trolling or being obtuse about why Bibi's article is missional. Mona addressed that, and without pitching a hissy fit. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaders of any notable country should be missional for one of two reasons: (1) either, said leader is spreading irrationality,hatred,idiocy,etc (e.g. Putin's anti-gay rhetoric), or (2) said leader is being targeted by those who do so (e.g. Obama birth certificate conspiracy). "Notability" involves many factors, including population, wealth, political/military/cultural power, number of disputes with neighbours or other world powers, etc. Israel is arguably more notable internationally than many larger countries are. Israel and its supporters may or may not like that fact, but it is a fact. Blacke (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Our criteria are not notability but missionality. Something can be more notable thaen this very site and it does not necessarily merit its own article, as we are NOT WIKIPEDIA. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I never said notability was the criteria. Missionality is the criteria. But notability can, in some cases, be an indicator of missionality. A notable contemporary political leader is probably going to be missional in some way. But a notable archaeology professor is unlikely to be missional, no matter how notable they are, even if they are the greatest archaeologist of our time. (They could end up being missional, say if they went after proponents of archaeology woo, but not for simply being a brilliant archaeologist.) Blacke (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


Try not to annoy to many people. KOMF 03:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem seems to partially be that I don't always know beforehands and thaen often stick to my guns. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Being a dick is fun, I respect that. Just try not to fuck up articles. You've been doing a bit of that.Tielec01 (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well you know what the best response to weedy undergrowth is (unless it is a particular weed). Slash and burn. Unfortunately some of the Mona apologists don't share this view, when it comes to her drivel.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Such nasty anti-Monaism. Good thing you're not in charge of a country or else we'd have a Monacaust on our hands. And in the aftermath the nations of the world would give the Monas their own independent country to sorta try to make amends as well as hole up that ugly part of history in some faraway region. Okay, that's a pretty silly comparison, but really, your abject intolerance of Mona is rather disconcerting. (talk) 13:32, 18 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I think it might be love. But I have not ruled out infatuation.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hate-love, the best kind. I feel like the Germans should have a word for it. Tielec01 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is actually a German word for it, it is called "Hassliebe" and "hate-love" is a literal and correct translation.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Well your amateur psychology may be amusing, but it does not really add anything of substance to the debate, does it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Fjandvinir is a word in one language, guess which, which means enemies+friends. It comes up in the context of two people being enemies but both needing the other for their spiritual wellbeing. Does German have that? If so, I'd love to learn. Cheers (litterally) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There's sections on that sort of thing on TvTropes, but I ain't linking that in case people I don't dislike are reading this. CorruptUser (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't quite understand your last sentence, Corrupt User Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


are you going to keep this up, or are you going to stop?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Endless edit warring.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Wars have two sides. As for the Jeremy Corbyn article, none of my concerns have been actually addressed in any meaningful way Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That you only find fault in the other side is telling--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Care to address any of my concerns? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Really don't care.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So you in essence agree that you have reverted my edits without even attempting to provide a reason for said revisions? Do I get this right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because when you stop an edit war, you gotta pick a side to protect the page on, and I trust David and the others to be right more than I trust you to be. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you really expect an edit that changed a section header to "So he won a lawsuit Whoop di do" to be seriously considered for inclusion? Ha, please. (talk) 00:32, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
We are not talking about the salaita article. We are talking about the Corbyn article. If you can't find the section in question, it is found below. And the section header you disparage would have been in line with SPOV if it were any other crank. Unfortunately he is not a racist but rather an Antisemite... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody else thinks your version is good, thats why it isn't in the article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You seem to get involved in a lot of edit wars lately. Perhaps a symptom of a larger issue? And as to your penultimate sentence: Bwahahaha, sure. (talk) 01:28, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To be clear: Salaita is an Antisemite. He said as much in the tweets that got him not hired. I never said, nor implied that Corbyn is an Antisemite. If you understood it that way, I am extremely sorry. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A section that is currently bowdlerized and not even allowed at talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

If you look at the Jeremy Corbyn page, you might notice a certain bowdlerization of his abhorrent association with the worst anti-Israel scum in existence. Here is the rather tame original version of the section in question, in case you don't like to dig through the fossil record for hours Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  • He consistently shares the anti-Israel position of much of the European far left that often borders on Antisemitism. Going so far as tacitly endorsing[9] Hezbollah and Hamas as somehow "legitimate" resistance organizations[10]. In one particularly misguided statement (which he later walked back) he even mentioned a meeting with Hezbollah representatives he planned to hold in a way that sounded as if he were calling said Hezbollah members his "friends"[11]. Corbyn has also attended openly antisemitic[12][13][14][15] demonstrations like the 2012 "al Quds[16] day" where members and/or sympathizers of Hezbollah were present carrying the Hezbollah flag[17], leading to one photo being taken which shows Corbyn in the foreground and a Hezbollah flag immediately behind him. The photographer who took this shot has made it very clear that the flag bearer was randomly walking past Corbyn as he took the photo.[18][19] Still, even being at a place where such a photo could conceivably be taken is a major PR blunder at the very least. After all, Corbyn must have known that people carrying Hezbollah flags would be in attendance[citation NOT needed]. The Al Quds dayWikipedia being organized by the Iranian regime and its proxies (Hezbollah foremost among them) since 1979 and all...
You appear to have missed the point - anybody who gives two shits what your version is can easily find it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"My version" as you call it was perfectly fine with everybody who read and edited the article until Mona came along. The only thing that was missing was proof of the al Quds day being openly antisemitic. So I provided the proof in refs. For some reason you and some other started a giant revert shitfest. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


I'm having trouble finding the alleged three or so coop cases in the archives. I can find the Blacke incident, which was just paranoid foolery. Please link them if they exist. I hope they do exist, and this is not more calumny because...<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm only aware of one, very early in my tenure here, and it was initiated by, I think, Arisboch who was told he was full of shit (by others, not by me)and he said he regretted it. Or something like that. Have no idea about these alleged other two coop cases---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


please stop.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop what? Please be more concrete! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood for games. Stop being stupid. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not stupid. And I honestly don't understand what you mean. Am I supposed to stop having the opinions I do? Am I supposed to stop daring to put refs on things? Am I supposed to do what exactly? Or cease doing what exactly? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Lets look at the two times i've banned you for half an hour now, and go from there. It'll be longer if I have to do it again. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretending you are a neutral arbiter and not a party to the conflict is intellectually dishonest. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So you don't plan to actually learn from the fact you've had your sysop bit removed -and- blocked twice for long times?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't pretend you are some wise neutral arbiter standing above things. You're not fucking King Salomon. He had thousands of concubines. All you have is sysop tools and a grudge. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I could use my mod tools, if you think this is about me waving my e-dick around. Yu're being a nuisance and edit warring when you're in the wrong, so stop.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Just stop. This is completely ridiculous. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
(A couple edit conflicts) There's several things you should probably stop doing. Here's just a few of them:
  • Edit warring
  • Being defensive about everything
  • Being so damn vindictive
  • Denying your mistakes
  • Denying, downplaying or even actually trying to justify atrocities committed by Israeli forces.
Take your pick. (talk) 23:14, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Okay so a couple of rebuttals seem to be in order. No edit war is fought by one side only. In recent times the mere connection of my user name and the rollback button seems to arise tempers where none need be. That goes especially when you become Mona-apologists of the worst kind. I am not defensive about everything. In fact I take pride in being offensive. Mistakes have been made, there is no denying that. My opinion with regards to Israel should not be ground for anything, much less me having or losing a certain status or being blocked or unblocked. Mona is one of the worst apologists for Hamas Hezbollah and other sad excuses for human beings. However, this should not be grounds for her being blocked. Her highly disruptive and childish behavior on the other hand... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that last one wasn't why Paravant blocked you. That's just a personal touch I added as a nice climax to the list. (talk) 23:44, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The user who fought a fucking edit war over a petty dislike (you still never gave a legitimate reason why we shouldn't use it) of British English has no room to ever talk about how " highly disruptive and childish behavior" somebody else is. I'll repeat my statement from the AFD: Words cannot describe how black you are calling this kettle. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So that's what ticked you off? My daring to prefer proper English and Muslim with a capital m? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, forgot a few:
  • Constantly intentionally misrepresenting your opponents' positions and the whole debate
  • Constantly painting yourself as the wrongfully victimized party
There. (talk) 23:28, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
... I don't even know how to respond to that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Not to start this whole shitfest again, but there still hasn't been any real reason for Bahrain to supposedly speak British English. And on an unrelated note: When did I misrepresent someone's position and how? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Look no further than the post you made right before this last one. (talk) 23:34, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Because you've not presented reasons to not use british English besides some of the most amazingly innane and idiotic reasons ever such as "I don't like it" and "it's not Proper English!". Shut up. Just shut up.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
[ec] Your "daring" may be one single element of an entire pattern of behavior that many may see as tendentious. That leads you towards oversimplifying Paravant's position here. Also see psychological projection. MaillardFillmore (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I know some guys who always claim to be innocent victims. Not saying anybody is particularly chummy with them, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you. You keep illustrating our points splendidly. Keep it up and you can marvel at what the end result of that will be. (talk) 23:39, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Does it violate the rules here to say another user is a fucking moron? I mean, it's not my usual approach or behavior to make such a comment, but for some reason the urge is upon me.---Mona- (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. I've been called worse. Most of it by you tbh Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the only widely accepted conduct "rules" are pretty much common sense. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
"Common sense"?! Shit, man, I've seen seldom more vague rules than that!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Vague rules are good for those that enforce rules. It makes it easier for them to punish people at will and let people off the hook at will Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hey the wiki doesn't seem to like Refs on talk page, in particular or things that aren't references to anything. Let's keep being a twat and add them anyways and edit war when people undo my shit" --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you read my edit summary? It would have been fair and decent to let Arisboch decide what he wants his talk page to look like. I think he can tell me himself whether or not he wants refs at his talk page. I will respect his decision. I won't respect your decision to edit in other people's contributions to other people's talk pages. Also your recent block and removal of even the autopatrolled status is just ridiculous. Good day sir (or madam, I really can't be bothered to look it up tbh) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I did kind of warn you about this sorta thing, you know. (talk) 00:01, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict 3)It's generally agreed you shouldn't: harass, vandalize, dox, edit war, ignore the format, sock puppet votes, abuse powers, etc. If this is not common sense to you or activities you wish to do, I'm not sure RW is the best place for you. I'm going to ignore what looks like a jab from Avenger. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? My adage about unclear rules? That's a general observation. True in any country and circumstance and at any time. There's a reason why the Romans came up wit nulla poena sine lege scripta (the last word is often omitted but crucial) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you say, Avenger. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related tangent[edit]

I am neither a Man nor Woman, atleast fully. Use male pronouns.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall - If I remember, that is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Now the feud Paravant vs Avengerofthe BoN has culminated in the former blocking the latter (and even removing him from the autopatrolled group... Talking about going overboard).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a justified response to Avenger's behaviour. Blacke (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Arisboch! Welcome to the party! Where've you been, man? You've missed so much drama and edit wars. I wouldn't even know where to begin. (talk) 00:03, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I more or less have a picture of what happened now (this is a wiki, after all, all documented).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't want Avenger around I would give longer blocks. I want Avenger to learn from this, not get longer blocks. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Man[edit]

You're a decent editor besides this shitstorm, why do you choose to continue acting this way (and refusing to accept that you do)? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think right now an initial kernel of conflict that most of us don't even know about anymore is blown way out of proportion. In addition to that the whole thing is needlessly conflated with my sincere views on the issue of Israel Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Besides leading to the reasons you are being punished, your views on Israel have exactly fuck all to do with why this is happening. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You know, that's just like, your opinion, man. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Being the person who has desysoped you, blocked you thrice and deautopatrolled you, I can confirm to you that indeed, you are not being punished because you hold shit views. What those shit views are leading you to do is why you are being punished. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Well someone has watched a good movie. Right on. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note: Calling the opinions of someone "shit" is not bound to make said someone sympathetic to the rest of what you are saying Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you choose to ignore the rest of what I say, you will surely enjoy the consequences of doing so.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, you-you big bully meaniehead. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No hyperbole: pretty much everywhere Israel is argued online some Zionists act like this. Raising unpleasant facts about Israel and/or Zionism drives them to grossly intemperate behavior---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A minor point about Footnotes on talk pages[edit]

I was not the first one to start it. If I recall correctly it originated with User:Arisboch. And I have yet to see a compelling reason (besides appeal to tradition) as to why not Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you are either deliberately ignoring what people are saying, or are lying.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the compelling reason to outlaw innocent little footnotes[20] when they can bring so much joy and well-being to a page? Also in some cases it is a good idea to hash out several possible wordings on a talk page. Of course some of those will come with refs[21]. Why shouldn't there at least be a ref subsection? The compelling case has yet to be made. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Incase you don't get it (you keep doing it) Paravant is trying to bring attention to what he views as non-sequiturs you're using. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it was either that or just repeat the same thing a second time, but fish doesn't get used enough these days.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the fish template would be funnier if it were "gefilte Fisch" instead of fish... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So your block is up.[edit]

Have you learned anything yet? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

To avoid upsetting you at all costs. Though that's going to be tough. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That is ideally something you shouldn't do, but no. That is not the lesson.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Never to revert holy Mona for she is my better? scnr. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Here we go. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
My only regret is that there is none who supports Israel and has both power and the cojones to use it on this wiki. The anti-Zionist mainstream that has taken over this wiki is tiresome. And with the advent of the Mona it has only gotten worse Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. Please, tell me more. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So it is no then? All we get is whoop-whoop, it's the anti-Zionist cabal?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
All problems are only because of Mona. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
What does Kosterortiizbrock do, except crack unfunny and provocative jokes? Seriously. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, it's true. There is an anti-Zionist conspiracy, which I am proud to meekly serve. We have targeted you to be silenced, and we are succeeding in our plans. We are taking over this place, and next we'll take over Wikipedia, and then we'll take over the Internet, and after that world! Mwahahahahaahaha! Paravant is one of my many agents, he follows my orders precisely. Mona is an alias of mine. I am the master of many puppets. Blacke (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a stupid question: Is it okay to have a "spelling" subsection on a talk page if someone reverts edits to the spelling? I.e. in a debate of American English versus stupid coloniser[sic] drivel[22]? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, that's called trolling. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If you are attempting to be funny it is failing, if you are being serious i would recommend rethinking your usage o a wiki populated by many, many british english/offshots of it speakers--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
American English is Best Korea English! (talk) 01:16, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well being in favor of American spellings is a perfectly acceptable opinion, isn't it? And the question has not yet been answered. Is it okay to have a "spelling" subsection? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
not for "murican english best cause murica"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should American English be preferred over Commonwealth English in articles? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I shall in due time write an essay going into more depth on that issue. But not today Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I need to know, are you trolling taking the piss? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there are serious reasons why American English is better thaen British English. It is in no way the perfect way to write down the sounds of the English language, but it is better thaen the royal BS Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the American nation was still founded and controlled by colonists; they just didn't take orders from the British government anymore. So if you wanna use the English of non-colonisers, try African American Vernacular EnglishWikipedia, Australian Aboriginal EnglishWikipedia or any of the many English creoleWikipedia languages. (talk) 01:28, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The Brits were doing the colonizing. The Americans only did very little of that. Mostly in states like Wyoming. And who cares about Wyoming? Also most differences between British and American English in its written form arose with Noah Webster, who died an American citizen, so that's that Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The British did very fuck all for colonizing with what became the US, almost everything done was by the Americans compared to what the brits accomplished in the entire time they owned the coastline.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that so? I think a couple of Native American ghosts would like to disagree. A couple million, that is. (talk) 01:38, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Most of the Native American dying happened either at the very beginning of contact (mostly through disease) or in the 19th century when the US militarily moved West and did things like the trail of tearsWikipedia that are very similar to Genocide if they aren't genocide outright. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So why would we want to use their version of English again? (talk) 01:43, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Should we write everything in Navajo instead? My support of American English has little to nothing to do with politics Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm just saying, if you don't wanna speak stupid coloniser drivel, that includes American English. (talk) 01:56, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Isn't it obvious. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Poor eagle, being appropriated as the symbol of a supremacist regime. (talk) 01:58, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's not just a British vs American thing. What about Australian English? Australian English is mostly closer to British than American, although in a few cases it prefers American words to British ones (e.g. truck vs lorry), and in other cases has its own words for things which are different from both the British and American (e.g. capsicum instead of peppers). Or New Zealand English? Or South African English? Or Irish English? The Anglosphere is a big, diverse world, and the best way to respect those differences is to allow different spellings to coexist. Blacke (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth English is usually the all-compassing term for the languages spoken in the Commonwealth. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, serious linguists do not recognise the term "Commonwealth English". I believe it was an invention of American editors at Wikipedia. It is a very American-centric way of viewing the world, USA vs "everyone else". It ignores the fact that, Canadian English for instance, is in many ways closer to American than British, but still prefers British usages in some cases; or, as I've already mentioned, Australian English mostly prefers British terms to American ones, but in a number of cases prefers the American one instead. In reality, there is no such thing as "Commonwealth English", it's just a rather arbitrary and misguided agglomeration of related yet distinct dialects of English. Blacke (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
My issue is mostly: Do you say "flavor" or "flavour"? Do you say "center" or "centre"? In that there only two variants. In the words we use almost all English speakers (especially the second language speakers) at least understand American terms. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And, they don't understand Commonwealth ones? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Big part of the problem is that the Commonwealth shares scant vocabulary. Lorry or flat are virtually unknown words, whereas apartment and truck have perpetrated many non-English languages. And that are just words that I can think of off the top of my head. Motorway to hell anybody? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I question the accuracy of your claim that they're virtually unknown....<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is, American words have a higher penetrating power into other languages thaen the words of other English varieties. Especially when it comes to weird words like croreWikipedia or Eh. Eh? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's still not clear why this rules out using non-american english.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
What you seem to be missing here is 1. Spelling doesn't need to correspond precisely with pronunciation. 2. American English doesn't precisely correspond with pronunciation anyway. It hardly does any better than British English.
And about your example, the -our sound people actually pronounce is much closer to French -eur than to Latin -or. (talk) 02:08, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Only for people unwilling or unable to reproduce and recognize the sound represented in many languages as "ö" or "ø" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the funny bit. That French "eu"? That's [øː]. Guess what the Latin "o" was? A completely different frigging sound. (talk) 02:28, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's what I am saying. The French sound is no where close to the Latin or the current English pronunciation. However, the American usage has etymology on its die (which is really the only thing that works at least sometimes in English spelling) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the English "ou" in -our is pronounced as a short ø or a schwaWikipedia, which is very close in pronunciation to ø. You saying it's nowhere close just tells me you don't know anything about this stuff. (talk) 02:53, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
And since the -our words come directly from the French -eur words, I don't see how British English wouldn't have etymology on its side. (talk) 03:32, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
The French words (if they are the direct predecessors of said English words which is hard to establish tbh) ultimately derive from Latin "labor". And after all some Brits even inserted a "b" into debt that had no place there just because they thought it should look like "debit", the corresponding Latin word. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's as big of a dilemma as Avenger makes it seem. "Oh GOD! Someone put colour! Will someone think of the Americans?!?! Oh, the humanity! WHATEVER WILL WE DO!??!?!?!" <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not even a marginal dilemma. It is trolling though. This only became an issue after Avenger did not get his way in a juvenile edit war at Bahrain where he refused to follow RW policy.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Even tho dated, this 1986 PBS series The Story of English is absolutely fascinating. The segment on Black English is memorable and taught me that what can sound illiterate to whites is actually an internally consistent and utterly respectable English.---Mona- (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely. It's a very well known vernacular and although it evolves it's pretty similar to School English (not standard, as I don't believe most English speakers "white" or not refrain from Jargon) and is fairly constant. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Any language spoken by actual native speakers is internally consistent and fairly complex. Denigrating one variant of a language over another is usually just (not-so) subtle racism, classism or other dog whistles. As the old Yiddish saying goes "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So about those British...--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I change the way I speak drastically depending on who I'm talking to simply to seem educated (which I am, but if I speak informally others may think I am in fact uneducated). Language and vernacular are very interesting. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking Formally is annoying and I hate whenever I have to do it, in particular in writing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The phenomenon of code switching is rather common. Just like the politician who talks "folksy" when it Texas and "all big city" when in DC... I am rather more comfortable in the less high standing variant in both German and Spanish. The Castillan lisp just makes me go bananas. Same goes for some of the things that are supposedly correct German. As for English, I possibly curse fucking more thaen the motherfucking average native speaker of my demographic background would... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't code switching only when it changes in the same conversation? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to look it up but I thought no. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

you should[edit]

archive most of this--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall, in due time. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. I am right on that count, am I not?
  2. whatever that may be and who ever its representatives may be
  3. I'm not saying that Israel is currently notably corrupt or prominently repressive by the way, though I have reason to believe it could be headed down that path.
  4. That includes moral codes that value one people above all other by the way.
  5. Most Ethiopian Jews are of course an exception
  6. Sylvester
  7. yes I know, don't even start the objections, they are all true.
  8. Meaning the article, not Bibi
  12. the old "river to sea" to drivel at the 2012 al Quds day in London
  13. Corbyn's speech at the same event
  14. a speech by the Dinner jacket on Al Quds day
  15. speakers at the Al Quds day in Toronto - it looks and sounds very similar, no matter where you go
  16. "al Quds" is the Arab name for Jerusalem and is often used to stir up irredentist sentiment and religious fervor in the Arab world and other Muslim countries - The Iranian "elite" forces are called "al Quds brigades" for instance
  17. See the yellow flag in the video? That's the banner of Hezbollah, which has been designated a terrorist organization in the UK
  20. like this one
  21. as they should
  22. Hey, that's a technical term!

Aha! So that's why you want tagging enabled.[edit]

So it'll stand out less when you're drumming up support. (talk) 21:22, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)