User talk:Bongolian/Archive2

Hate fun

Why do you hate fun? :-( Martin (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not hate fun, to wit: Fun:Photo funnies, Fun:Didit generator, Fun:Trump synonym generator. That was a pointless fork that you made. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Haha, of course it was pointless; doesn't mean it's inaccurate ;-) Martin (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi,

Thanks for giving me autopatrol rights, can you please restore them? D got rid of them with no explanation, he also desysopped me a month back on another account for no reason. I sent an email complaint to David Gerard, but he never responded. At the very least I think this deserves a coop to review his abuse of power.Bigtom (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@D Would you care to comment on this further? David Gerard is largely inactive as far as day-to-day editing, so I wouldn't him about this. You might be confused that D and NekoDysk are the same account. There was a comment by NekoDysk on your talk page about this already. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I simply pointed out another sock owned by Mike who also showed up on the Mankind Quarterly talk as 82.132.213.25. The difference between me and Mike is I add informative content here, Mike never has and just trolls. His current sock is a parody of an SJW: "Punching bigots" etc and all he's done so far is cause edit conflicts. Bigtom (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bigtom Since this obnoxious error, I would rather people were patrolling your edits. Nothing personal, but your feud has caused a lot of uninvolved people here a lot of grief and your own past behavior both with and without the sysop tools on your innumerable past accounts was extremely reckless and disruptive. If you want to be useful and regain trust, then sure, I am a believer in giving sysop tools to anyone that isn't a troll, it's not a difficult bar to reach. — Dysk (contribs) 20:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen/spoken to Simoneh on camera to confirm this is a separate person and not Mike? Mike creates many different fake profiles on social media & chat channels with fake images, at one point he was pretending to be a gay Korean male and even typing gay sex on chat channels. He's had at least a dozen of his Twitter accounts suspended for creating impersonation profiles. And I'm better than identifying his impersonations than anyone since I've been in this stupid feud with him for over 6 years; I therefore stick to my claim Simoneh is Mike. His fake accounts of communists/SJWs is nothing new.Bigtom (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I made appropriate off-wiki verification even before talking to you. I am going to block you now, if you want to be banned officially the coop is right there. Have fun. — Dysk (contribs) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Adding Archiver was a smart choice. — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Tad Devine

Nice work on Tad Devine. Mind if I pirate it for Conservapedia? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Why yes, I do mind, @RobSmith. Don't add piracy to your list of offenses. Bongolian (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you want attribution? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure everything we write here is licensed under Creative Commons, so I don't think you can stop him from porting stuff over to CP. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 00:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

While that is technically true, copying without attribution is still bad form. Furthermore, I have no wish to appear on that shithole site known as Conservapedia, attributed, or unattributed, in context or out of context. @Nobs is too lazy to do the work himself. Bongolian (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Bad form" "Conservapedia" "2+2=4" I'm sure ya get what I'm sayin' here. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 00:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No it's still illegal, because Conservapedia has an incompatible licence. — Dysk (contribs) 00:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Come now, let us reason together and find consensus. Bongolian's take on Tad Devine is superior to WP. It certainly could be one area we find a common link between CP & RW. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly legal. Rationalwiki is released under Creative Commons 3.0 which means that one may "copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format", although it seems that attribution is required. In other words, nobs can do what he likes. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 00:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @DuceMoosolini No it's not that simple. Conservapedia is CC0 equivalent licensed, meaning if you take CC-BY-SA 3.0 content from RationalWiki and put it on Conservapedia, then you are incorrectly attempting to relicence it under their incompatible license, which isn't allowed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. We can copy from Conservapedia, but not vice-versa. — Dysk (contribs) 00:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 00:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So, what do I do now? Leave off attribution, and rearrange a few sentences? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 00:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ironically this means you can't copy from Wikipedia either since the exact same issue would arise. You will have to rewrite it without plagiarizing. — Dysk (contribs) 01:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Shit. My thanks to Bongolian who did groundbreaking work in this area. I'll try to give him credit somewhere. nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 01:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"You have my respect, Bongolian. When I'm done, half of the liberals will still exist. I hope they remember you." DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 01:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@RobSmith: You can thank me by buggering the fuck off. Bongolian (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, give credit where credit is due. Can I fix a grammatical error in your Masterpiece? nobs^{I'm all yea'res} 03:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Coop notice

Template:Coop notice Conspirate (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Buy one today!

You can now buy your own QAnon map poster or t-shirt. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Balance Fallacy

Speaking as the person who wrote that part of the Broderism section, the line "The joke is that you can't do even a story about how horrible the Holocaust is without including Hitler's viewpoint, in the name of balance" is not part of a quote, it's my explanation of the joke. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you rewrite it as appropriate then, @ShorinBJ? I found the original punctuation confusing. Bongolian (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Oxyaena nominated you by the way. You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

— Dysk (contribs) 19:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I demand answers

What has a sealion ever done to you to deserve this hate? I have been incessantly polite, and you two (@FuzzyCatPotato) have been nothing but rude. Are you capable of providing a reasoned answer within the limits of a civil discourse? — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Oxyaena, I don't know what you're referring to. I honestly don't recall being rude to you about anything. Bongolian (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't get the joke, do you? — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I kind of knew what you could have been talking about but I wasn't sure because you stated it so straightforwardly. Bongolian (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting on Very Serious Person

This seems like a classic case of very serious person disease. You know the whole "The war everyone is starting to hate because it achieved nothing and caused huge human rights violations is good actually, because I'm so serious" line. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine if you want to keep him, @Ikanreed. I have a problem with the pundit list in general because all but one have a citation and it's not really clear how they meet the criteria. Bongolian (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is seeing their Iraq war bullshit in primary source form a good citation to use, or would you prefer wikipedia style attribution by secondary source? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's reasonable because it's an example of "c" in the criteria. Bongolian (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an apology, but...

I was a little surprised by the fact that you nominated me for a trustee position. I have to admit that I didn't want the job. Still, I accepted because I thought it might be useful to do so. It doesn't sound like a prize. Your reason for withdrawing your approval is peculiar. I don't think I was ever edit warring. Gerard never defended his revert. I reverted it once or twice then gave up. This is warring to you? But never mind. I don't mind being outvoted. I frankly was afraid that I had gone too naturalistic for you to bear. Please feel free to withdraw my candidacy. This may help someone else, who I still intend to vote for. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs}

Thought I signed it. Sorry.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

After rereading the talk, I think that I was too harsh in my judgment of you. If you didn't want the job, you shouldn't have accepted the nomination though. Bongolian (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't withdraw. I give you the opportunity to withdraw my candidacy if it is useful to you to do so. I am not certain how to do it. If you decline to do so, and If elected I would do the job...con gusto,Ariel31459 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

2600:2b00:780d:fa00:3595:ca72:d56d:399d

Never mind the fact that this IP is several states away from me, why are you people labeling concern trolls as being my socks? When did I ever post that type of concern troll bullshit? My stuff comes in three flavors: constructive (I classify non-malicious discussion under this category), subtle, or blunt (i.e. atheism is stupid, this site is Rattarded, changing Bernie Sanders to Col. Sanders, etc.). The old guard said TK was insane, what would they say about the clown blocking all of these IPv6 editors of being socks of me? Ironically, the guy blocked an IPv4 that geolocated to the same town I am from, and he (correctly) did not label that one as being me, but he blocks IPv6 IPs from thousands of miles away as being my socks. Idiot. InAllHonesty (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. Bongolian (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Try some ExLax

The harder you work to squeeze out this turd, the smellier it is. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 21:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You....

....are taking nobs way too personally, you should take a break for now. It's obvious the mob isn't gonna ban him, why waste all this emotional labor on it? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena, I actually don't care if Nobs is banned or not. I just want the libelous material removed. Nobs edit warring prevented me from doing this, and @RWRW forced me to the coop to have it resolved. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yah, you should read this Brady disclosure before adding any more libelous content to the Mueller report which has already resulted in damages to those you have slandered. nobs^{Die fascists! Make America Great!} 19:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith, ff you're having a rare moment of lucidity, put it in the talk page for Mueller investigation or talk to @RipCityLiberal who did the bulk of the work on that page. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because you know law words doesn't mean they apply.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, it was me that added his sysop status back which got Bongolian to open a coop discussion. My main reason for doing this is Nobs often receives lengthy blocks (sometimes infinite) and if he was in Sysoprevoke he could potentially be permabanned without any discussion or without being able to unban himself. --RWRW (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why were legitimate edits removed from Emil Kirkegaard article? see for example 141.98.103.51 that added an incest and rape post to controversies. Questioner (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You should ask the person who made the removal (@EK) on the talk page for that article first (Talk:Emil Kirkegaard). Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Questioner - EK/D are both the same person. He has become friendly with a-b-d on the Wikipediocracy discord and a-b-d is friends with Kirkegaard and told EK/D to remove it (all three of them are banned on Wikipedia). No legit reason to remove that material. It is a-b-d's doing. 82.102.24.231 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yea I noticed Abd's blog wrongly claims (without any evidence) 141.98 is Smith. Abd on discord then got EK to remove it. However those IP edits aren't by Smith. Questioner (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard talk-page is locked. IP/S and new users cannot edit there. A-b-d is doing a lot of damage to RationalWiki off-site, people should not side with him here or give in to his demands, he has EK now on his side. (@David Gerard) - EK/D is now very friendly with A-b-d and both of them communicate with Kirkegaard, you need to be careful about this. It is damaging RW article content. There is no reason to remove any of that content, only because a-b-d blogged about it. 82.102.24.231 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian can you unlock the Emil Kirkegaard talk page so we can discuss this? Questioner (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is now open to all. Take the discussion off here. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

ye i was reverting because this edit particularly is not good because a) autism is ok, dont go making fun of peeps mental condition, and b) polyamory is also fine, dont go associating with pedophila and whatever else that pervert supports. but i see now that its also part of some troll thing so thats epic. EK (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not even in the edit(s). Nowhere in that edit (Bongolian can easily read it for himself) is someone making fun of a mental condition, nor is polyamory linked to paedophilia. It merely quotes someone who says Kirkeggard's self-described himself as supporting polyamory relationships on his old OKCupid profile - if you read the "sex post" that was posted by an IP, you would see this fits Kirkegaard's views i.e. he claims relationships are entirely based on sex, so to him having sex with multiple partners is seen as cool and alpha-male.Loch (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Loch, 82.102.24.231, and Questioner: You're going to get blocked for trolling if you keep editing on this topic here and not in the appropriate forum: Talk:Emil Kirkegaard. Bongolian (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

D/EK are both the same person (very friendly with a-b-d who told him to come here to remove content from Kierkegaard's article) and according to various sources online EK is trying to be a transsexual in real life. D/EK is obviously very confused about his own sexuality, he pretends to be female on here and has been dressing up as a female in real life, even though he is male. He shouldn't be discussing sexual subjects because he doesn't know what the majority think about these topics or what is socially acceptable. He's got odd-ball views. Legalizing incest is not acceptable, Kirkegaard is wrong and irrational. We don't need EK to pretend otherwise. 195.154.251.92 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

They're not the same person. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Why is EK making up outright lies? They just claimed virtually every poster on this wiki has "threatened them with murder and rape them" - an obvious falsehood with of course no evidence. I certainly haven't. Some mentally unstable people like EK have a huge victim-playing complex. Additionally, they lied and said I created transphobic articles/Reddit threads about D. No idea what they're talking about. EK is a disturbing case of a pathological liar, they seem incapable of ever telling the truth.Legend (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oxyaena - D/EK are both the same person. On Reddit D after being questioned he has admitted in his own words EK is him. He is an individual who likes to pretend to be a female online. He was globally banned on Wikipedia, using both D and EK usernames both traced exactly to the same ip. There are no public records or birth records for EK, but you can find them for D. They are both the same person. This said person has now sided with a-b-d. Sometimes online D/EK he identifies as pansexual or transsexual. It is one person. You will never see them online at the same time talking. Ask to have a phone call with both this people or a skype, there will never be two people, impossible. It is the same guy. 195.154.230.201 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Blather

Forgive me if this isn't the best place to reach you. This whole wikipedia thing is relatively new to me. In regards to your comment the other day about Blather and permanent sources, Blather is a form of archiving in of itself. Even if the tweet(s) that are used in a fallacy are later deleted, they still exist on Blather and are still publicly accessible. Also, if you command-click (right click on windows) on one of the tweet links in the sources section, an archive on archive.is will be created on the fly. ^{— Unsigned, by: Lnlancce09 / talk / contribs}

@Lnlancce09, thanks for the explanation. Two things: 1) Please sign your posts on talk pages or the Saloon with "~~~~" to date stamp your posting. 2) Since Blather is relatively new, we don't know how long it is going to last and if say it disappears after a year, even if the tweets are archived, it becomes quite difficult to find what the tweet are archived or what they said. Because of this, ideally it would be best to link to Blather and the archived tweets in each case. Bongolian (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocking BON

I had thought twice before giving such a long block but this BON had been blocked several times before, one of which was for the same length of time. Scream!! (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw that and I agreed, @Scream!!. I just made the block a bit more restrictive. They have been making violent threats from the same BoN. It could be increased if they come back again after the current block. Bongolian (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup! Sorry, I just glanced at the re-block and assumed, without checking, that you'd reduced it. Mea Culpa. Scream!! (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)