User talk:Arp242/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search



I may just have done you a disservice. When you added Joe Jackson to the passive smoking it looked like you were using the straight dope link as a reference. The straight dope doesn't refer to Joe Jackson so I reverted. Then I worked out what you did. Do you have any citations for Mr Jackson's statements? Placeholder (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done worse :-) I added a specific citation from the referenced pdf article. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Neti pot[edit]

When you create an article, please try to create links to that article from other pages, or else is just sits there. Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


I dont know why this wasnt done sooner. Your seem to be doing useful edits. Welcome to Rationalwiki. Ask anyone to make you a sysop if you want that. Hamster (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page blanking ...[edit]

... is verboten.

also minor edits are grammar or spelling or similar - not adding content. Scream!! (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
See (here) Smiley.gif Scream!! (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Manning again[edit]

Actually, Manning's a he untill he gets "the operation", then he gets to be a she. That's common sense.  DeadMan Wonderland   18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's common sense, but whatever body parts she has, she identifies as female and, therefore, will be pronouned as such here on RW. MarmotHead (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)



Yes there is no heavy usage of technology in Mongolia. Life is mostly natural, country is fully democratic, gender ratio is also 100% equal. Why you find these information to be untrue? Contractor (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[citation needed] (and given the booming mineral resource sector etc., I call BS, btw) ScepticWombat (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Almost half the population of Mongolia lives in a 1.3M city which is fairly modern. HDI is 0.7, which not is great, but certainly not bad (better than Indonesia, South Africa, etc)... Yes, there is also a significant rural population, but this is true for almost any non-western country. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Or a wizard, anyway - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

WIGO World[edit]

Just to let you know I commented out the WIGO World entry because we already had it from the Toronto press. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry. I did look but I must of missed that :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I've done it myself a few times. And, yes, it's a story worth noting. What were they thinking? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for creating a category on the best country in the world the country where some politicians that we should let refugees drown in the Mediterranean and when criticised by other politicians claim that such is a Christian virtue The Netherlands! JorisEnter (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandal binning issue[edit]

See my talk page to learn why I vandal binned both Arisboch and Avenger. They've already been de-sysoped for edit warring, and now persist on the Whataboutism page. Aging Hippie advised me last nite to use the VB tool for this sort of thing, so I did.---Mona- (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


First of all, let me just say that I think you are doing Dog's work by finally making a proper Penn & Teller: Bullshit article for RW. Dog speed, my child. And you even thought to sort the episodes by quality, as P&T ranges wildly in the quality of the particular episodes (though they never claim the show is more than bullshit infotainment with excess titties). Some episodes are undebatably epic, however. Anyways, I noticed you had David Icke on your TODO list. Well, so do I. It's very, very WIP, but it's slowly getting there. Based on the old article, and dug up all the new sources myself. And I haven't even added half of them (literally). So, check that out when you have time, Sir - as WIP as it clearly is. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Bullshit! is definitely a mixed bag, although most episodes are probably okay (haven't seen them all). This makes it more "dangerous" in a way, when usual sane people espouse not-so-sane stuff you're more likely to believe it... As for Icke, I'm particularly interested in the media hounding that was suggested on his WP page. Everyone (yes, even Icke, he's still humanor is he...) deserves at least some minimum of "fair" treatment, in spite of having a delusional streak. And going after one's children is a no-no in any situation... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I've seen all seasons several times, so I certainly have an idea of which tidbits to quote. Also, keep in mind that in certain episodes, the duo hints back at previous episodes that weren't all that well researched (e.g., in the organic farming episode, they make a huge deal about carbon emissions, which is in stark contrast to their climate change episode from a previous season). It's important to remember two things when watching P&T. First, keep in mind that the series began 12, soon-to-be 13 years ago. Certain episodes, both good and bad, may land incorrect or seemingly weak assumptions. This is sometimes the result of that anachronistic gap that has allowed both the science to proceed and also allowed the internet to reach further, allowing constant googling from our phones, projects like wikis to grow massively, et cetera. Something to remember is - 12+ years can really matter on hot button issues such as the ones covered in the show. And 2ndly, check out this part of my sandbox for some of the human side of Icke, especially this note of mine. Icke doesn't seem to be a genuinely hateful person to me (I think he just likes tossing around deliciously dramatic accusations of satanistic paedophilia and worse), the uncomfortable fact is that tons of his fans bring the overt hatred for him, as is evidential from my ongoing catalogue of their forums. Anyways, thanks for showing interest old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Raw food[edit]

Can you fix the quotes you added on raw food (grammar, spelling, failed link on the first one)? Thanks. Bongolian (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, {{*nav}} templates need to come first, otherwise the system doesn't pick up the references :-/ I'm not sure what's wrong with the spelling? The grammar is slightly off because it's a quote, so well, not sure if we should fix that? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Biola University[edit]

I rewrote this into a properly sourced stub and got rid of the opinionated snark. Can we all voat goat and remove it from the AFD? Regards, --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

David Icke[edit]

I just noticed you did some polishing and improvements to the David Icke article - I was wondering if you'd mind extending that same polish to my David Icke sandbox? My hope is that my sandbox article will eventually grow to take the place of the current David Icke article, so if you plan any more polish to the main David Icke article, don't hesitate to add the same to my sandbox. If you so please. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Those parts aren't even in your sandbox. :-) I and someone else did some work on the "List of people thought by Icke to be reptilian overlords" last week, your version seems rather old? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, in fact, I made sure to not repeat names in the large quoted list and the smaller appendix below it. Bush was listed in the main list so he didn't need superfluous mentions. But just as a general point, if you edit the main article, you should feel free to also extend improvements to my sandbox. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Why keep a sandbox in the first place? Isn't it easier to just edit in as much as possible, and keep only a sandbox for sections you're working on? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd been editing into a .txt file for some time, because I started out by looking at the condition of the current article, then at the body of sources avaliable out there (look at the actual references in my sandbox, and all that's about 1/3 of what's just waiting to be added by just me, never mind other editors' findings - and no, not all of my sources are from his official forums :3) and came to the quick conclusion that the entire article was in need of a rewrite. There was just no way to "build around" the old article when you're about to grow it multiple times with entirely new stuff. So I began a full rewrite. Having reached an addition of some 50,000 symbols, add or take, I decided to move it to the sandbox - partially since I also saw people were spending time working on the current David Icke article. I thought, if people wanna help, then clearly they should be made aware of the presence of my sandbox. It'd also help spur me towards working more on it, I suppose. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay ;-) Note that my interest in David Icke is minimal, I just edited the page for the Bullshit! episode and did some other minor edits while I was there. The only thing I plan to write (maybe...) in the future is the media treatment of Icke and his family after the Wogan interview (providing there is something to write about). Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)



dude, relax. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
YoU dOn"t UnDeRsTaNd ThE sTuPiD lEnGtHs I'M gOiNg To In PoStInG tHeSe To MoCk ThE pEdAnTrY oVeR cApItAlIzAtIoN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I fixed a minor error in a page, you go mental. I don't really care about the minor error, but I will not accept being shouted at over it. You need to learn to behave as something remotely resembling an adult. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You fixed an error and were needlessly condescending in the process. You can fix errors without doing that. RationalWiki is a collaborative community, no need to foster hostility, even if you were trying to be lighthearted. Kitsunelaine (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Dude. I was being obtuse and typing normally but with caps lock on to mock the fact you were being such an asshole about capitalization. Secondly, the page had [[gay agenda|Gay Agenda]] on it before Kitsunelaine and I got to rewriting it. So I cut out the pipe and then it was pointed out that there was no redirect there and I made it. You're just being unnecessarily annoying over a fucking redirect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
So it was wrong before you got there, so? And yes, it's a minor (perhaps even pedantic) change, so what? You're the one who undoes it and starts shouting over my talk page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand that I had capslock on to be both annoying and to mock your pedantry over redirects and capitalization.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the difference between understanding your message and accepting your message. I understand perfectly fine, you think you're being "funny". Doesn't make it acceptable. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You can't call for politeness when you were the one to start without it. People in glass houses, you know. Kitsunelaine (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just fixed the page (with no comment). The second revert was with a brief explanation. Apparently this constitutes as 'being impolite'? Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"Just caPItAliZe your links properly" is impolite and patronizing. And it's kind of amazing that you have the stones to complain at someone talking to you the same way you did to them. Kitsunelaine (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Your definition of impolite is stunning. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Like it or not, there was an undercurrent of patronization in the aforementioned edit reason. That, and you said it after he explained to you that it was a redirect. If you questioned his decision, you could have made a topic on his talk page. Instead, you decided to fight him, without even trying to hash it out. There are better ways for you to handle disagreements. But instead of trying to understand the reason, you went straight to thinly veiled mocking. Kitsunelaine (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Listen. You need to stop being a petty douche over this redirect. No harm in it existing. No harm in using it. And it's getting real tiring seeing it deleted over and over and it's only you. Being a complete douche because I responded to "Just caPItAliZe your links properly" by hitting CapsLock and sending you that inverted caps message.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong is being funny. Lighten up, Francis. I'm supposed to be the oh-so-serious one around here. --Castaigne (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Carpetsmoker, have you ever felt yourself being fucking inane? - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
HOly fuck stop deleting the fucking redirect. What the fuck is your problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
So my point is proven, I think; you will fight over any edit that interferes with "your" edits, even if it's silly to the highest degree (the other edits you're fighting over, however, are not silly). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Is that a mirror in front of you, or are you talking to someone else? Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference is, is that I wanted to make a point (after the first undo). I actually wanted to further improve the page, but, as recent events have shown, this results in great drama. I was curious how far Ryulong would drive his nonsense through... Apparently to no end... Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, man, you're projecting super hard. I suggest you take a breather. Kitsunelaine (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking[edit]

Is there actually a policy on what redirects are and what they should be? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I'll take a potato chip and spit it. 01:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Coincidently there was a brief discussion on it a few days ago. As I said there, it doesn't really matter that much; I just fixed the capitalization as "Gay Agenda" in the middle of a sentence is weird, which made the redirect obsolete... As I said, I just wanted to make a point. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I thought it pretty funny since he didn't realize that vandalizing the page takes a lot of more time than clicking "rollback". --Irian (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And they say it's easier to destroy something than do something constructive ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Setting up archives[edit]

Could you please tell me how that is done? The archive on my talk page was created by someone else, and I've been shoveling everything (reems) into that one.---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically you just have to add:

 |algo = old(14d)
 |archive = Talk:Black Lives Matter/Archive%(counter)d

See User:Pibot for details.

Not sure how often this bot runs; but you can always archive stuff manually if needed (like I did on BLM). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've, uh, "archived" this for future reference. Altho I just tried it and coldn't do it correctly. I'll have to learn it....---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't know what you tried or what isn't working? Don't see anything in Recent Changes... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I put all the above in except changed the BLM to User:-Mona- . Got a message that there was no user space for the instructions.---Mona- (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added it to your talk page; I hope you don't mind :-) Took some figuring, but the trick was to use User Talk: -Mona- and not Talk:-Mona-. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I mind so much I'm offering up three rosaries for your immortal soul. ;) Thank you!---Mona- (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at who moved anti-Semitism[edit]

Just saying. (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's easy enough to forget to fix double redirects. That's why Special:DoubleRedirects is useful to oggle once in a while ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Account Deletion[edit]

I request that my account be deleted. I have nothing further to discuss. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Leaving and never coming back, huh? ;-) Not sure why you're linking to Wikipedia, or even asking me as I have no powers to delete accounts ... I'm just an editor like you :-) David Gerard and Paravant have more powers, so try asking one of them. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Paravant took it away because he didn't like how I expressed my distaste in having to interact with him so recently after the Brony debacle and did so in order to force me to sit out a 3 hour block after which from what I can tell it was fully intended that he was going to restore it. Now you can restore it back like 142 did instead of being a petty dick about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A wiser man would tone it down. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe I've solved the issue. Would you please restore the tools?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you vandal bin me?[edit]

I'm owed an explanation --Damn it feels good to be a gangsta (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Putting nonsense in the bar and on my talk page? Perhaps against better judgement, I removed you from the vandal bin. Don't make me regret it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Make note of my post here as being the post I'll be referring back to when I say "I told you so", my dear Carpet :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


Hey, CamelCasePragmatist de-mopped him Friday night after he caused a great deal of trouble, necessitating attention primarily from Paravant but also from me. Nobody disagreed with this decision. He's continuing the bullshit today, and ChrisAmiss sysop-locked the Israel page to stop it. He needs to stay de-mopped for a bit, if not for a long time. Otherwise, sysop-locking does no good.---Mona- (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I looked at Avenger's contributions for the last day, and didn't really see anything problematic and figured it was a heat-of-the-moment sort of thing ... But perhaps I was mistaken. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want, you can read the user talk pages of myself and Arisboch to see the extened discussions of the events and support for the de-mopping. It wasn't just Friday night, and it wasn't just in the Saloon.---Mona- (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


You've been nommed. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot[edit]

Could you nuke User:Ryulong, User:Ryulong/s1, and User:Ryulong/s2 for me?--Ryulong (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you removed your sysop thugh ... Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Cause I'm trying to make a clean break because all of these websites are shit.--Ryulong (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Heeya!!!! You are a ninja now, and can make your deletion sprees hidden. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

John Zorn.[edit]

Nice. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage resistance[edit]

You obviously know since you're Dutch, but why does Wikipedia, for example, only refer to provinces and municipalities at political subdivisions of the Netherlands, and counties only as historical subdivisions? Bongolian (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Municipality seems to be a better translation of the Dutch "gemeente"; I thought that county was just the US word for municipality, but apparently it's not. I'll go change that now. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio taggings[edit]

Does your bot only recognize if someone didn't add their file to Category:Files claiming fair use because File:Supporting REAL women.png had the fair use template on it.—Ryulong (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't removed by a bot. Only User:Carpetbot does bot stuff. It was in Category:Undocumented_images, not sure why as it also had a Fair use template.
Anyway, you can't just slap "fair use" on anything. This image and the way it was used isn't "fair use"...
I don't mind searching for the original copyright (I've found a number of "fair use" images that were just CC-by or Public domain), but in this case it's not an important image, and the primary responsibility is with the uploader... — Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's in multiple articles mocking its creators and its intent so that more or less qualifies as fair use.—Ryulong (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"Mocking the creators" in the sense of "OMG look at how stooopid this is!!1!!" is not fair use.
If we look at the US supreme court case that established parody as fair use, it explicitly says "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."[2]
By this definition, this image is not being used as a parody. In fact, I would say it's not even being used as satire. It's being used to decorate the article. In fact, that could be said for most of the images in the "Vivian James" section, except the "original Vivian James artwork". Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The parody is that it is hypocritical for Gamergate to hold up either Vivian James or TFYC as proof of their lack of misogyny because she is a fictional woman and the contest that they were supporting was a farce. The image has a fair use rationale. It's used in multiple articles. When TFYC or whatever 4channer drew that one picture threatens legal action, then fine. And on top of that, the image in question can also be used as a non-free image of the character to accompany text descriptive of said character.—Ryulong (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
"When TFYC or whatever 4channer drew that one picture threatens legal action, then fine" -> Wow... You do realize it will probably be both RationalWiki and the uploader (FuzzyCatPatato) will get sued? Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair useWikipedia in the U.S. is very expansive, relative to many other countries, and not limited to parody or satire. And if we're going to be copyright paranoids there are a shitload of files that need deleting, starting with pretty much every Capturebot screenshot. Somehow I suspect the files not uploaded by Ryulong are not getting anywhere near as much scrutiny. --Ymir (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Any increased scrutiny faced by Ryulong is because he has a known history of problems with image uploading. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole gallery of Vivian images was a bit much, but I think we can justify having one image for educational and satirical purposes. (talk) 23:43, 11 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
In which case it should be this one, which was the end result of the original 4chan Vivian James thread, rather than one of the many later fan-art variants. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I think one of the images that actually shows the disingenious way Gators use the character would be far more useful if we're going for educational and satirical (to justify fair use). (talk) 17:08, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
  1. "files not uploaded by Ryulong are not getting anywhere near as much scrutiny" -> Simply not true as the image was not uploaded by Ryulong but by FuzzyCatPatato. I am reviewing ALL files in Category:Undocumented images, roughly starting with the most recent (this image was uploaded in 2015).
  2. "there are a shitload of files that need deleting" -> Yes, that is correct. Or better: replacing with a free alternative.
  3. "Fair use [..] not limited to parody or satire" -> No, it's not. but parody is the "most protected" under fair use. At any rate, as I've said before this s hardly parody.
Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunday school environmentalism[edit]

What is the reason you deleted the image File:Green_Product_Garbage.jpg? I thought it was a good one for that section. Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a good image! The problem is that it doesn't have any copyright information, I tried looking for it with Google reverse image search, but wasn't able to find anything :-( if you know the source, we can ask permission (if it's not already freely available) — Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
>inb4 ryulong once again edit wars over image copyrights despite this issue being resolved amicably between other users (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

You seem to know what you are doing re bots :) . Sometime ago I made a Bar request for a bot that would check all talk pages of articles in [[Category:Living people]] for the {{person}} template and add it if necessary. I do think this is quite important. If that is something you think you could help with, then great. If not, no worries. Cheers.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

For this task I demand ... A SHRUBBERY! Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
One that looks nice and not too expensive.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I now officially hate the mediawiki API ... for some pages (like Talk:Michele Bachmann) the templates query doesn't list the {{person}} template so it gets added twice?! Sigh ... I'll work around that by double-checking the page content; I'll finish it up later and let you know... Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well done and that was fast! Hope the work around is not too onerous. Cheers. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, it's not a lot of work, just couldn't be arsed yesterday ;-) Should be done now; just over 1000 talk pages edited/created. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Stole your box thingy old timer[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to say that I liked your little blue box at the top of the P&T article in your userspace, and I borrowed it for my own David Icke sandbox. Man, that thing should be a template - well done. I hope me borrowing "it" was fine, anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

hah, I just happened to notice in the recent changes log ;-) It seems this message and mine on the talk page intersected. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, that's pretty funny. We're the original odd couple. Or something. Anyways, I hope it was fine that I used it? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A fellow beer afficionado[edit]

Nice pic, bruh! Enjoy these beer facts as a meager reward. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, still need to watch that video >_< I had this beer yesterday, "Naughty goat", made by "brewery wet goat" Goatsmiley.gif. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Carpetbot going goddamned nuts[edit]

You've deleted a pile of screenshot images that back up claims. Please restore these, effectively the bot's gone nuts and its work should also be fixed automatically. Ideally it should check the images are not linked in an article as a captured image, and tag the image itself. (I fully appreciate the copyright issues, but trashing the place is probably not the ideal first approach.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"it should check the images are not linked in an article as a captured image" -> Yeah, this is the problem; I operated on the assumption that list=querypage&qppage=Unusedimages actually returned a list *unused* images, and not *unembeded* images, and that these images are always safe to remove :-/ I didn't realize the scope of the problem until yesterday when I stumbled on 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe with many broken links. I'm working on a fix which should be done today or tomorrow! I'm sorry for the troubles :-( and I'll try to be more careful Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you :-) I considered a similar sort of bot run (there's a lot of image captures that actually aren't used), until I realised just how annoyingly tricky it would be to distinguish the various sorts of things that constitute "use". (e.g. image captures of a reference, used to back up a claim about something someone said, would pretty clearly be fair use even as just a link, but we need to make the claim. Etc etc. It's where the law gets squishy.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I fixed things yesterday. Regarding the capturebot images, Los Angeles Times v. Free RepublicWikipedia is an interesting case for us, since this is pretty much the same situation as we have; fair use was rejected here. On the other hand, sites like seem to get away with it... :-/
The capturebot images probably aren't the largest problem. Images of a woomeister yanked off his Facebook page are probably more dangerous (and yeah, I deleted some of those last week). If I were a woomeister, I'd cause trouble over this; and if I would be a particularly vindictive asshole woomeister, I'd sue the living daylights our of RW... Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The Internet ArchiveWikipedia is legally designated as a library, which means they get a bunch of exemptions under copyright law. --Ymir (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If we're using it to back up a substantive point, it's the sort of use that'd actually be worth fighting for in my personal opinion. As an educational charity, we can actually push this way further than Free Republic could for example. Though personally I'd like us to back up every use with just why this is of substantive educational and informative commentary etc use though, but particularly "crank busted being reprehensible" - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I also noticed this problem and it's good to hear that it's being addressed. --Tweenk (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm a tech moron[edit]

Sol Pyre and I have had a very pleasant, congenial working out of different approaches over editing an Israel/Palestine-related article. (It can happen!) In fact, he and I would both like to see this fantastic, short video embedded there (it has a creative commons-type permission at the end). But I have no idea how to do that. Is this something you could assist with?---Mona- (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

{{#ev:youtube|-evIyrrjTTY}} should do it. The "-evIyrrjTTY" code is from the URL after loading the video on (after the v= part). Also see Help:Video by the way. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I know videos are not normally used here, but: 1. This one is short, and 2. It's perfect.---Mona- (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

I'm pretty sure that using the logo of an organization in an educational article about said organization is textbook fair use. Am I wrong? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not, it totally is - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The logo is only text and a very simply drawing, which does not meet the "Threshold of originality" to be eligible for copyright. At least, that's what I learned from the authoritative source for all legal matters: Wikipedia ;-) See this page and Threshold of originalityWikipedia (which has some examples of logos which are considered ineligible for copyright, which is very similar to this image) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Which is a stronger legal defense? Fair use or this? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of "legal defence", it's a matter of the copyright status. In this case to me it seems pretty clear-cut. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

John Fatigue Hogue[edit]

Hey Carpet, hope everything's fine with you! I just wanted to point out that I did some digging on our dear friend Hogue, and struck gold after reading his wordsalad at length. It now crowns his page as the opening quote. Everyone I've read it aloud to so far facepalm audibly at his insightfulness. Let me know what you think, bud! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna poke you with a friendly little stick for a comment on the "life is sometimes a car and sometimes a train" quote :D I literally shot milk out my nose when I read it on his text, originally. It's Poe's Law condensed into smokable crystal! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not as funny as the quote on top of Feng shui though ;-) It's the Ed Wood effect: great analogy on account of being a terrible analogy ;-)
I would like to expand our Nostradamus article by the way; we should probably add some content from (among other things) John Hogue there. This article will attract more audience then John Hogue (I have some other things I'd like to do first). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A thank you from the creator of Bobby Fischer[edit]

I thank you immensely for your contribution to my Bobby Fischer article. That article is my pride and joy and I simply love seeing its expansion. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 04:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

...which reminds me, I have some neat additions lined up for it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'm looking forward to it! Thank you both of you. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 11:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :-) I wrote half a page last year after watching Bobby Fischer Against the World, and stored it on my personal wiki as a draft, but then forgot about it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be worth discussing Randi's possible endorsement of Eugenics[edit]

If Sam harris's page can be filled with the many many many stupid dumb shit quotes he has said, then we can atleast include what Randi said and let people decide for themselves.— Unsigned, by: Wan Abi Sufi / talk / contribs

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~); otherwise it's impossible to keep track on who said what :-) Secondly, I'm not a big fan with filling pages with "stupid dumb shit quotes", including the Sam Harris page ;-) Thirdly, IMHO this discussion should be held on the Talk:James Randi page, as it's about that page. This way other interested people can get involved in a discussion. I already replied to your comment last month ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Where can I find the talk page for james randi? Rational Wiki works weird for me.— Unsigned, by: Wan Abi Sufi / talk / contribs
There's a link on top of the page which says "talk". Also, sign your posts! ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, I don't generally like "dumb quote" lists either, but it's not merely justified vis-a-vis Sam Harris, it's downright indicated. Harris is notorious for writing outrageous things and then demurring that he's been misunderstood, or even worse, he's being calumnied. It's arguably the most controversial aspect of the man.---Mona- (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please review this guide[edit]

You cannot have this deleted from your user page as per the community standards so don't let Pravant get away with being a jackass.

Acei9 09:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks :-) IMHO there are other things more worthwhile to do than fighting over this; as I said in my last comment, the history is still there, so should I opt to work on this (and I may never do it) I still can. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have restored it because deleting it is a breach of the community standards - I have several formally deleted articles in my user space as do others and that has never been a problem. Acei9 09:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank You For The Welcome![edit]

I am thrilled to be here, I love this place. I figured since that page was about Nerds, it would only be appropriate to let my geek flag fly. Besides, since it was just a little spelling alteration I didn't think it would step on anyone's toes; it's a pet peeve of mine and I tend to make that little correction everywhere I see D&D written as "D and D," be it Wikipedia or any other wiki. No offense intended, it was all in the spirit of fun (which you seem to have fully grasped.)  :) Nyarlathotep (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Where did that coop case stuff you reverted go to? I can't seem to find it in archives.---Mona- (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't revert anything? I moved the content from RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop to RationalWiki:Chicken coop because the talk page is not the right page for coop discussions. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Can you make me a sysop now? Aleksandra96 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Here's the sysop guide. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocking IP ranges[edit]

As a purely technical answer which I make no remark on the use of, the number after the slash indicates that the first n many bits have to match, so for example indicates IP addresses from to all. That said... well, it's really easy to be very much overzealous, so... WalkerWalkerWalker 13:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I know how IP ranges work, just not sure how to block them. In this case we were getting some nonsense from a series of IPs so (trying to) block it for a hour seemed like a good idea (I used the very conservative /30 to see if this worked), but various links led me to User: so I figured it didn't work? I could have just protected the page, for some reason I forgot about this feature :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it links to the right places/contribs/whatnot, but I think you blocked them correctly... I think. WP has a brief "how does" page somewhere; I might go dig that up. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit I forgot what a pain IPv6 was. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The world's safest bet[edit]

Wanna bet Ryulong reverts my latest edit? Cause Yonaguni has nothing to do with ufology... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That largely depends on how broad your definition of ufology is. Either way, it's pseudoarchaeology first and foremost though. (talk) 01:43, 7 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Like it's not already filled the entire ufology bingo chart, numbnuts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not needlessly fuck with user rights.[edit]

Reasons to de-sysop someone include doxxing, vandalism (not wandalism), crazy edit-warring, or other out-of-control behaviour. Please don't do it lightly. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with editors who are excessively disrupting, and when saying "hey man, relax" doesn't work? The only thing I can think of is a brief block, but perhaps that's just a failure of imagination on my part. Thanks :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Try to imagine what you would do if somebody was being a jerk in real life. Step away. Go find some articles with typos and fix them. Polish up some references. Or go for a walk. Pet your dog. Read a book. Smoke a joint. Jerk off. Anything else but engaging with a disruptive idiot. You're only giving them what they crave. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You forgot to mention "get a bowl of popcorn, and see how it plays out without your involvement." Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You forgot listening to John Zorn ;-) Yeah, that's what I do usually do, but in this case I felt the entire discussion was going down the drain, and that something had to be done ... Perhaps I misjudged... Or perhaps we're a bit too tolerant sometimes. Not sure... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, I love you AgingHippie, but please don't bin a coop case just because you' think it'll lead to nowhere. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You'll be returning the coop case against you then, I assume? Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker was trying to impose order on a necessary coop case in the face of crapflooding by a few with nonsense irrelevant to the case at hand. We needed a mod's intervention, and he did what he could in it's absence.---Mona- (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"For every coop case there shall be an equal and opposite coop case out of spite", is that a RW law yet? Anyway, I missed that coop case, as I was off for a bit, but if you want to add it again I'm not going to stop you or revert it. You'll only make yourself look ridiculous, though. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove other people's comments[edit]

I'll assume this was carelessness, not maliciousness. Please be more careful. [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, there was an edit conflict, so I removed that line again, and saved. Not sure how this happened (it certainly wasn't my intent). Sorry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove other people's comments 2[edit]

If you think they're really annoying, collapse them -- or, better, ignore them -- or, even better, point out how stupid they are. Removal is very heavily frowned upon at RW. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The convention is that users may remove comments on their user pages if they deem it constitutes trolling. It's been done to me by AgingHippe, and I have removed trolling on my user talk page. Paravant does it. This was thrashed out in the Saloon a few weeks ago.---Mona- (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
[EC] RW:CS#Talk_pages. A 3-2 vote on the SB does not overrule 8-year precedent. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, the talk page thing again. If someone (only) says "fuck you mona" on your talk page, no one is going to complain about you removing it, but Avengers's post yesterday wasn't that. If you don't like it, just ignore it. If you really don't want it on your talk page, maybe move it to another place (article talk, forum). I don't see why there has to be so much drama over this. Also, if you want to continue discussing the talk page policy: do it somewhere else, as this is NOT what this discussion is about. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm assuming you're talking about the comment (singular, not plural) that I removed yesterday, not the accidental one an hour ago.

I've said most of what I wanted to say in the (now removed) coop section here it is in case you missed it (As well as some other comments, but this basically summarized it). Those were not "comments", and nothing more than name-calling and abuse. We could do a semantic game on what constitutes "vandalism"; merriam-webster calls it "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property"; those comments fit that bill, if you ask me.

Ignoring it or stooping down to "their level" by engaging in an argument over it archives nothing, and only serves to breed an environment of hostility and makes the entire discussion look ridiculous. If you go to a Q&A session or debate and say "fuck you cunt" all the time I can virtually guarantee you that you will be removed and boo-ed away. Why should we be so different? At some point, a foot needs to be put down and "I'll not stand for this" needs to be said.

So yeah, I'm not big on removing comments either, bit if someone posts only posts a truckload of comments which amount to nothing more than abuse something needs to be done. I am open to alternatives, but "leaving it be" it not a viable one. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the rule states: "Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above." Many months ago AgingHippie and other advised me that the convention has grown that users are allowed to determine what constitutes trolling. They do. Including Paravant. So do I.---Mona- (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different[edit]

Hey buddy! Can you read this?

Regardless, I say we need a Patrick Geryl page on our site - the grapefruit guy from the Bullshit! episode on The Apocalypse (S07E04).

He's written three books on the topic of the 2012 apocalypse, and there's tons of internet sources and quotes we can use. He's the John Hogue of the 2012-ers. Thoughts on this? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the irony of me linking to a Wikipedia page in the same breath as I mention starting up an article here isn't lost on me. The fact is that he's Dutch, though :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, I just adorned our 2012 page with an opening quote from Geryl. Cranks says the darndest things! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The wikipedia page also says he opposes general relativity and is a fruitanarian. We should have a mention on him somewhere for no other other reason than that his (now-dead) website On this site ("") it says that the world will end on 23 match 2013, which is "like 21 december 2012 but different". Apparently his failed 2012 predictions were due to Spaniards fucking about with the Georgian/Julain calendar conversions, or some such... But "now he's 100 percent sure"... Well...
Don't really have time to write a page on this guy, at the moment though ... I want to finish up some drafts I started (like P&T) before embarking on new work, and the whole, ehh, "drama" recently sorta sapped me of energy for now :-/ I think I'll go spend stuff on other things the next few days... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Good findings! And good idea man, don't let the trolls get to you. I'm on your side in all this. And I figure you got a chance to read my Saloon Bar apology; the moar you learn, right? Fuck up, admit it, learn and move on. All the best, your bud Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh! For your enjoyment (in a drama-free corner of the wiki): This. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Halo Thar...[edit]

...Gator. I always knew you would eventually reveal yourself. I expect to see the Gamergate articles gutted shortly; glad I made archives. -- (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does this make CarpetSmoker a gator? And besides, the description of the events as given in that link are fully apt. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't talk about me being "butthurt like hell" on your offsite doxing boards. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravent wrote "if the shoe fits." He's since burned the evidence that he felt it was cool to respond with a pithy quip to you having a pow-wow on an offsite doxing board about me. I responded to that. Here's where he wrote it [4]. Here's where he burned the evidence [5].
If the shoe fits, you will be called one. It's been one endless tantrum with you since yesterday as you outright lie and distort the truth on why Ryulong is being opposed. We cannot all be Gamerators, can we? And idk, Adult human Behavior is clearly going "i'm being targeted!". No. you aren't? Who are you? nobody on a minor wiki, that's all. Why the fuck would you be targeted?.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I've called no one here a gator, but I'd appreciate it if you kept my name off your offsite gator doxing boards. Hipocrite (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
my gator offsite boards? I fucking cannot stand Reddit, the layout is terrible. And don't lie, don't so blatantly lie. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Not you, the person whose talk page I'm on, brah. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Because clearly CS is a Gator. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you know, he ran off. Good riddance. I made sure to wave him goodbye. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

More drama ... sigh ... I don't have to defend myself from obvious bullshit, but since it's on the internet "forever" an innocent onlooker might get the wrong idea, now or in the far future:

  • I participate on /r/WikiInAction sometimes because I feel that RW is presented rather one-sided there on occasion. I try and offer some context, which has, so far, been reasonably received. Good example. Sadly, I feel this is required due to the high levels of drama we've been subjected to. Consider me the unofficial RW ambassador to WikiInAction, if you will. Besides, sometimes some good points 'have been made there. Onlookers from outside of the community can be valuable.
  • /r/WikiInAction specifically forbids doxxing. Calling it a "doxxing site" is disconnected from any sense of reality.
  • I called Hipocrite "butthurt like hell", yeah. I have no qualms saying the same thing here: Hipocrite, you're butthurt as hell over me objecting to you calling people a cunt, dick, garbage, gator, telling them to fuck off, etc. while contributing **noting** of value. Get over it. I truly don't understand how thick you must be to not understand that people object to this and react strongly. In what reality do you live? Certainly not in one where we treat humans (even over the interwebz) as human beings with a minimum of respect.
  • I don't even use reddit except for this sub; if I wanted to hide my identity, it would have been trivial, such as using the highly advanced and innovative technique of choosing a different username.
  • There seem to be some GG sympathizers on this sub, but not all (AFAIK). I don't really care, as I argue with people based on their arguments, not on whatever vague affiliation they may have
  • I can only laugh at accusations of calling me a gator. It's not just disconnected from reality, it's disconnected from reality in a quantum 7th dimensional way (or something)... 'tis madness!

Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Again you put together the facts nicely - as won't be honored by your enemies. The fact of the matter is rather simple. He was butthurt as hell, and you're a very valuable contributor to this site. He bawled and ran off, you're indispensable. Case closed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It makes you a Gamergator because, in the Ryulong-and-friends universe, anybody who dares visit Encyclopedia Dramatica/Reddit/et al is automatically one of them! Your posts on reddit simply confirmed their suspicion that you were a Gamergator trying to destroy their precious Gamergate article!!! Gooniepunk (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
He's so consumed by that universe that I got to learn from second-hand discussions he'd thought I was a "gator" all along. I had to google around to learn the meaning of that term just to find out if I had anything to do with it! Poor, confused Ruylong... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What you people don't realize is that I joined this site two years ago in January 2014 (months before "gamergate" began), and very carefully made a number of edits spread out of these two years, very carefully avoiding the gamergate page and anything related to it, all so I could now, finally, have Ryulong (who joined a year after I did) banned, after which I can do whatever I want on the GG page (as clearly no one else is going to revert it). Darn. My cunning plan has been outed. What am I going to do now? Better ask behind all your backs on /r/WikiInAction (which I know many people read) with this username! Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I hear ya, buddy. I joined in January, 2008, long before any of y'all, and worked my way into almost every obtainable role on RationalWiki and in the RMF just because I knew 7 years in advance that I would have the time of my life putting up with Wiki drama just so I could kick RYulong off of RW. Nostradamus's prediction was right, except that he wrote "Spoonie" and not "Goonie" in the quatrain. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, this comment:

To be fair, RW is apparently especially incapable of dealing with a Ryulong because they're so dead set against actual blocks. It's like an obsessive bully hassling a pacifist--they really just should sock him in the jaw already, but at least they're committed to their principles?

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Has Gator become the new Commie but going in the other simplified political spectrum direction? SolPyre (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait, so Hipocrite is just straight out lying about CarpetSmoker? Tielec01 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Duh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Unexpected, isn't it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely remember a time when they were a useful editor; I guess if you stare long enough into the abyss... When you start lying about people to support your position it might be time to step back and evaluate yourself though. Tielec01 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I vaguely remember myself in some distant past when I was a useful editor, and not just arguing over drama. ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You are useful, sugar plum. Now let me read you your favourite bedtime story, where all the low bloodsugar otakukin editors go away and we can have a nice wiki. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey buddy[edit]

Hey man, mind helping the community by giving your honest two cents?

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

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

I think it clearly belongs on the page to help orient users around these topics on the site - the nav is to aid progress between topics. Mona thinks it has no place on the page whatsoever. Thoughts? :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved over a dispute over a friggin' sidebar. Sorry. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Come now, I thought the TI topic would be close to your heart, like it is for me and Mona? It's the apex of crankery. Also, this wasn't meant to substitute for a talkpage discussion (naturally) - I just literally wanted your opinion on my claim. (I'm not even trying to speak for Mona here either, for the record). Any particular reason you chose not to get involved? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
ECX2From what I can tell, this isn't about people having psychic powers, but about using technology to mess with people's brains/psyches/consciousness. If that's the case, the "psychic" box is misplaced in this case. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Really, no. I've had enough disputes in the last few days. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed whatever you did[edit]

Talk:Targeted individuals --Ymir (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand? What did I do? I just fixed some typos? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's AH who did stuff (seemingly by honest mistake). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Fucking tell HER that. She thinks I deliberately set out to fuck with her shit, apparently. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Good article![edit]

User:Carpetsmoker/Nutritarian diet -- seems ready for mainspace, if you're willing to let a stub live. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 05:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I fear the current page is more than a little bit unfair to the diet. The more reading I did on it, the more it seemed like one of the better/more reasonable diets (not unadulterated bullshit like Atkins). I fear I started out with too much of a pre-conceived notion of "this diet is bullshit" ... well, maybe it is, but I'm not sure... Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

I was checking the See Also links from the Adam article for any more dead Lilith links. Omphalos hypothesis has a red link to specially created and Original sin has a red link to Dead Sea Scrolls (which are referenced in a lot of articles but don't seem to have their own). Should those be removed or are there existing articles for them to link to? Lightning Dust (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Red links are not necessarily a bad thing, if you think a page ought to exist, feel free to "red-link it". One advantage of "red links" is that it shows up in Special:WantedPages. Typically, few people are going to object removing a red link, though. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wibbly wobbly[edit]

y u do dis Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not fair use. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Sorry if I fucked up, I don't know wiki etiquette so well and thought I saw people putting their replies under what they were replying to so I just tried copying that. I should add replies to the bottom of the topic and not directly under whoever I'm talking to, yes? Seriously (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a small thing. And wiki talk pages are a pain in the ass; it takes most people 3 years of meditation and a goat sacrifice to learn to deal with them properly. You'll probably do "the wrong thing" several more times, that's okay. Generally, you want to put it at the bottom, but sometimes not; especially in larger conversations with many people which started as a single discussion but have since split to several discussions, putting a comment "inbetween" other comments in a sort of "subthread" is okay; but that wasn't what was going on here... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, glad to know I'm not the only one to have trouble figuring it out. Seriously (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali and conversion[edit]

You seem to deeply dislike that fact and including it. I'm sorry, but it is what it is: She said it. The Times of Israel reports it. I've really tried to compromise and have changed things and accepted some of your preferences. But I feel strongly about inclusing the conversion statement to the Israeli Counsel. You noted ToI said she may not have been serious. So I added that possibility. That leaves, to any reasonable mind, pandering. I don't know what more to do to compromise with you. We do snark here, and are allowed a point of view. I've restrained my POV to try to meet you half way. Announcing you won't have this "while you are around" is not helpful.---Mona- (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I find her conversion statement to be of major importance, myself - as her openly stating the plan to convert to a religion literally ruins her case for being classified as an atheist, and ought to leave her with the criticism of Islam and/or Islamophobia tag(s) instead of the atheist tag. Any atheist professing even a planned conversion to a major monotheism has literally purged themselves of keeping any coherent atheist label whatsoever. In my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"She said it. The Times of Israel reports it." -> While reporting at the same time that "it was hard to tell if she was being serious". If we have a better source, by all means, I'll go write a few lines on it myself. But this is an extremely weak source. Going on and making deductions from this very weak source ("the latter motive would be quite unprincipled") is what I would consider "unfair" to this person.
As for POV and snark, sure, but we need to be careful not to go overboard. "Here's something she once said that may or may not have been a joke" looks rather silly if you ask me, and makes the entire article look more like a ad hominem hitpiece rather than a serious rebuttal of Ali's ideas. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I quoted you[edit]

At Essay:RationalWiki and politics ("The difference with ..."). If you feel I am misusing your words, I will remove it. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Angela Merkel redirects to Germany now (and I removed much of the political content a week ago). So this example seems a bit outdated? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're nominated![edit]

You've got a(nother?) shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


{{cquote}} autocenters. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I know. This is why I sometimes like to use {{aquote}} as centering doesn't always look very good, IMHO. In fact, I would personally say it only ever looks good at the top of pages or at the top of sections, but rarely anywhere else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Shout that a male "likes children far too much" and he forever has a stigma of being a pedophile on him"[edit]

Somehow I've failed to notice all the men who were unfairly labeled as pedophiles. Typhoon (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

what on earth[edit]

Seriously, what do you expect to find on a Gamergate sub that is worth hearing? They are rabid extremists. I appreciate the value of liberally checking all possible opinions, but surely by now there's enough to say that there is literally no good point a Gamergater could accidentally have that is not expressed better by any other person at all - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

They posted some links after I requested them (eg. after someone claimed that "universities regularly invite holocaust deniers", which seems like a bit of a strange claim, but lets see if they're right); I didn't really check them out, so I have no idea if they have any merit. From what I remember, plenty of the comments being made were bullshit though, but I didn't read them all...
I'm not sure if I've made this point earlier, but my experience with WiA, by the way, is that not everyone is a GG-er, and that there are different degrees of reasonability of the people that do self-identify as GGers... While I don't quite understand why any reasonable person would still want to associate themselves with GG at this point (spinning off a new website or movement seems much wiser), I am not convinced that all people who self-identify as "pro-gamergate" (even today) are "rabid extremists". I feel that the lack of this nuance is probably the biggest failing in our coverage of GG. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I've put no faith in any GG-related claims of internal nuance after having seen too many such that were just made up on the spot in an attempted instant No True Scotsman. Perhaps there exist >0 non-GG WiA posters, but it is literally a GG sub and that's what it was created for and continues to be overwhelmingly in defence of - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
That seems pretty hyperbolic. There are two main GG forums, one being the reddit sub KotakuinAction, and the other being the 8chan Gamergate imageboard. The latter split into two boards a few months ago over internal disagreements over tactics, with some wanting to focus exclusively on ethical issues and the others wanting to combat progressive bias. The rift and debate was documented and readily observable. However, the number of members active in the 8chan split is fairly trivial (a few dozen) as compared to KotakuinAction (55,000+), which has stricter guidelines on behavior and topics of discussion. Perhaps when GG members made claims of internal nuance, they were referring to their own past experiences? Rather than making them up on the spot? (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
All such splits are thinking the other half are arseholes (both halves are correct), not ideological - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on extensive experience, I do find that people who identify with GG tend to be disproportionately vicious and malicious. But can it reasonably be said that a forum of 55K people don't have any disagreements except for thinking the other side are all assholes? Not a thing of substance? Are there no reasonable people who have spoken in defense of anything on the GG side?---Mona- (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
"people who identify with GG tend to be disproportionately vicious and malicious" -> To be clear, this is also my experience; but I am very very hesitant to call an entire demographic of tens of thousands (possible in the hundreds of thousands) "assholes", "rabid extremists", "sociopaths", "fucking rabid loons", and such. I *have* had reasonable discussions with pro-GG people. To pull a Godwin: not all Nazis were evil either, and if they weren't, I doubt that all GGers are. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet, if you said "we need a few more Nazis around and participating, you know, for balance" someone would wonder if you'd transmuted into Scott Alexander (and his sidebar full of actual white nationalists) - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
But that again assumes that all GGers are—by definition—extremely terrible. For *some* demographics you could indeed say that (like the white power folk), but I am not at all convinced that white nationalists are analogous to GGers in this. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
One can also assume that all RedPillers or incels are not all extremely terrible and attempt reasonable discussion. One still would not advise it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
My paternal grandmother was Catholic, did not like Hitler, and did her best to do as little as possible - but not matter how much I loved her, she was still a fucking Nazi in WW2 Berlin. Didn't matter if she didn't wear the uniform; she acquiesced and kept her mouth shut and did not actively fight or resist, which means that yes, she was an extremely terrible Nazi. Sure you could have a reasonable discussion with her. But why bother? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

50 Shades of John Gray[edit]

FWIW, just a heads up, I posted some stuff about why John Gray's received criticisms of being sexist. I do totes agree with you that folks need to pop in relevant information before they go adding tags like that.

Cheers. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw, and I just wanted to post a thank-you note on the talk page. Thanks! I would have looked for it myself later, but I've been busy with some other stuff... I have no idea why some people responded so aggressive when I asked for simple reasons/quotes to actually prove he's a sexist, and instead reverted calling me a "dumbass", "moron", and blocking :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding the "sexism" category to an article is not the same thing as calling the subject of the article a sexist. SmartFeller (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps ... But the different is rather subtle, and I would say it's heavily implied when the page is about a person... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly easier to do. Aside from the reason SmartFeller mentioned (which is indeed a subtle difference, considering we don't have an explicit "Sexists" category), I guess they thought it was common sense? Of course, that assumes familiarity with the book and its themes/issues, and someone who hasn't read the book or didn't even know there was a book in the first place (like me; I thought it was just an old platitude) wouldn't make that leap. *shrug* ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Not at all subtle in my eyes. (A) He wrote a pop-psych book (with sequels) on some differences between men and women. That doesn't make him necessarily a sexist, but still justifies the category. (B) As it turns out, he has said some sexist things, which also justifies the category. Item A would have been enough. Without item B, there is no "heavy implication" to be seen, IMO. SmartFeller (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
"wrote a pop-psych book [..] on some differences between men and women. [..] justifies the category" -> With this I don't necessarily agree; and would depend on the actual content of the book. I am hesitant to judge a book (and its author) only by the title and a 2-line blurb. I certainly don't agree that only saying that the psychology of men or women are different is sexism by definition; this is a complex field of study with many variables, and while some common myths have been thoroughly debunked for a long time ("women talk more", or "women don't like sex as much as men", many more), in some other cases there do seem to be real measurable differences (such as aggression). Now, given his lack of credentials, I would guess that he's probably simply propagating outdated unproven (or even debunked) stereotypes ("men don't listen", "women are much more emotional", etc.), but lets show that, instead of assuming it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't read the book, yet you are comfortable dismissing it as the basis for categorizing that article along with other topics regarding sexism. I think I see the glimmerings of a difficulty here. I have read the book, but it was years ago. IIRC, it was more about men's focus on doing things, while women focus on connecting with supportive people. There is a bit more to it than that, of course. Not sure how solid the basis of Gray's exposition is, but there may be some utility to it. SmartFeller (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I haven't read the book; but I don't need to. It's not really about the book, or what is and isn't sexism, but about actually backing up specific claims with evidence (on a living person page, no less). I would say that the Burden of proof applies here: it's not me who has to prove it's doesn't belong in the sexism category; instead, it's up to the person who added it to provide the proof that it belongs in that category. I wouldn't have had any problems if the category was added together with a sentence or two explaining why it deserves the sexism label (even unsourced, this would have been fine by me), and this is all I asked for right from the start. I don't think this is particularly unreasonable or strange... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here is a sentence explaining why sadly contaminated with incivility, right near the start of that editing skirmish. SmartFeller (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, simply asserting "it is a sexist idea" isn't really doing that; what does "the idea" refer to, exactly? The BoN may have known it, and he may be right, but I only have a vague guess based on the title of the book. I was thinking more along the lines of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus contains quite a bit of sexism; for example it claims that [...].", or something along those lines... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tally ho[edit]

Does the e-mail work now? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Christianity nav bar[edit]

I saw that nav bar on some article's page, and it omits our articles on Seventh-day Adventism and Christian Science. I'm reluctant to try editing a nav template and just thought if you agreed those sects should be added you might do it?---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm that would change the height of the navbar, which could muck up the layout for some pages... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
If it makes it too long, ok. I wasn't sure how the listed articles were chosen, or how many could be included.---Mona- (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it makes it too long; but maybe it does so I'm reluctant to edit it on a whim ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
*Paying attention to random nav bar discussion intensifies* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome....[edit]

...and the explanation of how things are done here. I'll try to get a page started for Pereira, but I'm worried that I'm out of my depth--sometimes, "not even wrong" needs a technical rebuttal, and particle physics is definitely not my strongest suit. BlackSheep (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech rights[edit]

Added tech rights. Take care not to set the wiki on fire - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :-) I'll recklessly carefully explore my new-found powers later. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Rationalwiki search-term has to be verbatim & case-sensitive to find my page :¬([edit]

Yesterday I initiated this page on rationalwiki ... , (you gave me some constructive-criticism about it). The problem I've noticed is that the rationalwiki search-function will only find that page if one enters verbatim "BX Protocol", (case-sensitive). If one enters "bx protocol" , "Bx protocol" , "BXProtocol", "BXPROTOCOL", "BX PROTOCOL", "BXprotocol" or "bxprotocol", nothing is found by the search, and the "BX Protocol" page is not suggested as a "Did you mean" possible-match. Can all the variants of "BX Protocol" (above) if searched for, be made to trigger a "Did you mean" "BX Protocol" suggestion ? , please. Guvax (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The search indexing runs every Sunday, so by next Monday it should pick it up - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks David Guvax (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done with the new bot[edit]

We also had User:WIGObot, which did the archiving thing on a monthly basis with the WIGO pages, which doesn't seem to have been working of late either. If you're interested, you may (or may not) be interested in having a look at what it used to do and how, and how to emulate that - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that WIGObot is inactive when I cleaned up the bot list. I'm guessing you don't have the source for that? π seems unresponsive... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
No clue, apparently it all lived on the bot server but that's a box I don't have access to.
What we're sorely lacking is User:Capturebot2, but that's a rather more complicated beast - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought CaptureBot2 still worked? It did last time I used it... Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see it stopped in November :-/
Perhaps it's an idea to setup a "bot" user on a RW server and run bots off that? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Capturebot2/sandbox. Nx left RW years ago and the bot trundled forth but stopped working. That too lived on the bot server, I think. I have no idea wtf it ran on (apparently there's an X server with WebKit somewhere in the guts of the beast). We used to have a bot server, but I actually have no idea where it was and never had access to it - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
meh; fixing capturebot doesn't seem easy... It's based on an older version of pywikibot and I can't get teh modified script working... Rewriting it doesn't seem difficult, but it does some funky stuff with javascript that I don't quite understand so I'll need to figure that out... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nx was brilliant but surly, and his code is not very maintainable - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Bot unlinking redlinks[edit]

Are you unlinking all redlinks? 'Cos they are in fact direct invitations to start writing. In particular, anything on the to-do list should stay a redlink, I'd think - I've been reversing removals of Usenet just now - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. I just wanted to unlink stupidity, poetry, and a few others now-deleted pages that were linked quite often. I went through the Special:WantedPages list and unlinked a few more that didn't seem missional to me (like Usenet; what's the missionality there?) Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It was a home for skepticism for a long time, and there's a pile of relevant groups that can be addressed there. Some have articles already. It's got 35 upvotes on the to-do list, so the idea seems popular - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be easier to just use or something than to have a bot make an image? Especially since you can copy the text from an Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What if fails? Also, it's not available from a number of countries... We could maybe do both, though... Just trying to replicate CaptureBot2 for now... (which is more or less done, except for the funky weird JS stuff I need to figure out) Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
[EC] Hm. Seems best, then. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It now captures both an image and tell to store it. Maybe I'll also make a "Capture-light" which only sends stuff off to and adds a link to that; then you can just use it for all references on a page and not worry about it (CaptureBot doesn't scale well enough for that—certainly not on my Atom 330 server!) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Great work as usual CS. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A bot which occasionally sent references to both and would be absolutely great. Next time you're hopelessly bored... FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just added this with {{a}}. See CaptureBot4. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pbfree and I think this is Avenger[edit]

Can you tell anything via the IP addy? The contributions are more than suggestive, beginning with the first.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on the behaviour, I would guess Arisbosh. Isn't Arisbosh also German? Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. Avenger was milder in his aggression. You are right; this is the voice of Arisboch. And yes, I believe he's German.---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


I hope you read this and that you have not really left. I know this place can be infuriating and has some bizarre customs but RW really does need you.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the drama; I had a few beers last night and lost my temper >_< Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I hoped as much :) :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing my mistake out[edit]

Normally there would not be any reason to bring this subject over here, but I want to extend my sincere thanks for pointing my mistaken creation of a page out to me. It gave me the opportunity to use the option „Vaporize“ for the first and let's hope the only time. It was an enormously satisfying feeling, comparable to issuing the UNIX-command rm -R *. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I almost did that today: "rm -r name *" (the space was unintentional). Luckily, I have an option in my shell to warn me before doing rm on a * :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Hoi, alles goed is? Just a quick note to say dank u wel for your work on Pibot. Nice to see someone with the skills to pay the bills actually do a bit of background work on the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I second that. And: Illegitimi non carborundum ---Mona- (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Dank je beiden/Thanks to both :-) It's always nice to see your efforts being appreciated ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute!!! I think I figured it out!!![edit]

I knew something was up with you!
Old guard (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I knew one of the old guard would catch on to me sooner or later! BUT YOU'LL NEVER GET ME ALIVE!!!1! Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm just glad you're not angry I figured you out (it took me a bloody hour to find that image again!) Old guard (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a T-shirt with it (well, just the image; not the text; although that would actually be a funny RW shirt)! Great film. Back when Hollywood still knew how to do good remakes! Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, just stop the posting at Kistunlaine's page. Only her and Cantaigne are on about all that shit, and who cares? You're just feeding the nasty craziness.---Mona- (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Resonator guitar[edit]

Nice little faux-Dobro you got there. What do you use it for? Had one many years ago, really regret selling it.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I mostly like to play acoustic blues. Son House, Skip James, that sort of stuff. Truth be told, I'm not that good at it, mostly on account of being a procrastinating slacker who can't stick to a regular practice schedule and an inability to stick to a style long enough to properly learn it. I started on the bass three years ago playing mostly '70s prog rock stuff, and when I sort of started to get the hang of that I moved on to the strat playing metal riffs (mostly black metal, which works surprisingly well if you redo some electronics and set your amp just so), and then moved on to the resonator about half a year ago after a friend introduced me to some Bob Brozman stuff (although I had been a fan of the tin cans for a longer time). I'd also like to get a banjo at some point... Still, actually playing an instrument and writing some music of my own taught me a lot about music and increased my enjoyment of listening to it quite a bit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome Back[edit]

Now stop dicking around and get that bot of yours working again. Congratulations on reaching stage 2 of RW membership (the post LANCB triumphant return). Tielec01 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back C: брэндэн (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, heh. I'm not really "back" though ;-) I just wanted to copy some of my stuff and figured I might as well see what RecentChanges had to offer :-) In the last few weeks I've actually been working on setting up a RW alternative btw. Not sure if that will work or go the way of A Storehouse of Knowledge, but I have little interest in working on RW in its current incarnation... See: current coop case (which was stupid long before I joined in).
It's actually mostly done, but I'm stuck on a good name :-/ So if anyone has any suggestions, they're more than welcome... Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
RationalWikiWiki ;) брэндэн (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, the good old days when you could laugh about RationalWiki's silly antics and not be considered a harasser. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see you caught it c: брэндэн (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Will there be blackjack? And hookers? :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Carpetsmoker, good to see you are back (however briefly). Your RW-alternative idea sounds great, would be really interested to see how that pans out. (((Zack Martin))) 08:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As to a name, whatever you do, don't include the word "rational" in the name unless you are seriously committed to living up to it (which this site scarcely is). (I'd have more respect for a site like LessWrong calling themselves "rational", but they are rational enough not to do it - unlike RW, LW at least tries to take rationality seriously.) (((Zack Martin))) 09:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're going for an exact copy of RW, AntiConservativeCynicalWiki seems accurate enough. If you want to make a wiki more devoted to real-world secular humanitarian activism, SkepticalRevolutionariesWiki sounds nice. If you want to create a wiki even less committed to bringing about actual, positive change, AngryAtheistsLaughAtFundiesAndArgueIncessantlyWiki. (talk) 12:09, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
It just rolls off the tongue. You should go around naming ferrets! Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Nah, I'd just name them all Stormageddon. ;) (talk) 12:33, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Alfie might take exception to that. Beware Alfie's wrath. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Was browsing reddit and found this (from Tallulah/Carolinafiner). Someone else has a rather similar idea to you? Maybe you should try working with them. (((Zack Martin))) 17:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I Wanna join the game, too.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"SkeptiWiki", perhaps? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you left, Carpetsmoker. I think the real issue is not the name but how to make a structural balance between openness, rationality, and civility. There's just way too much drama on RW. It drains the resources of some very productive people like FCP, and drives others away completely like yourself. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Any ideas for drama reduction, Bongolian? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Encourage a culture of civility. Tone down the snark against people off-site, since being snarky about people off-site leads to being snarky about people on-site (once you get in the habit with one, it is very hard not to indulge in the same habit with another.) Snark does nothing to encourage civility, indeed it encourages the opposite. (((Zack Martin))) 21:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps widening the ban criteria a bit to include things like ad hominem attacks. Perhaps giving more weight/privilege to Sysops with a proven track record of quality mainspace edits. There is a danger in the latter of course of encouraging people to hold onto their turf, something which I've noticed on a few pages. Bongolian (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I am absolutely in favour of a better banning policy. Currently, it's very hard to get somebody banned, even if they're obviously here just for trolling purposes.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • All accounts must contribute to mainspace, be it a spellcheck or a new cite or whatever. It sorts out the spammers, Talkspace trolls and encourages the wiki to grow.
  • Ban the fuck out of ongoing political discussion, or at the very least avoid creating sacred cows. Literally half the issues rationalwiki has had in the world of drama has been because some users can't help but deify certain pseudo-celebs and groups to the point where I'm sure the catholic church would be impressed at the response times. I'd make it all post mortem or at least in hindsight.
  • Ban obvious crazies. If one or multiple people hijack the fuck out of a subject or a group of them, then deal with it, regardless of how damn correct they are. I'd suggest making a list of "watchlist/troubling" articles; ones that seem to be under risk of drive-by trolls and hijacks. Have the whole community try to participate, and not obsessive, wikipedia-esque OWNers.
  • Be eager as fuck to smack people with short term bans increasing. Somebody starts drama? Ban them for a while. Somebody LANCBANs because of drama? Ban them, hen make them explain why they want back. Somebody responds to shit-stirring? Ban them for a while. Somebody higher up is obviously abusing their mop? Revoke their privileges, ban them for a while. Think like Judge Dredd: Everybody is guilty, Eat a volley of JUSTICE.Keter (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Re: Bongolian "I think the real issue is not the name but how to make a structural balance" -> Yes, 100% agree, but you need a domain name and stuff :-) Unless you want to visit ? ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Soo... are you done screaming at people in here? Coz there's your new and better RationalWiki (with blackjack and hookers!) waiting for you. Typhoon (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for. Pretty soon the ony people left in this echo chamber that used to be a decent site will be you, the remnants of Ryulong, Castaigne and a few mods.-- (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As opposed to the echo-chamber you crawled from, dear BoN? Typhoon (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh thoroughly opposed. You got something right.-- (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
One does love the cowardice of BoNs. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does the "hate on Carpetsmoker" group send to exactly coincide with the "assholes who bully people" group? <-< FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Crank magnetism, perhaps?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I am trying to learn more about the community and noticed the Ryulong drama is quite important to it. I've looked through the coopcase archives but they don't explain much. I was wondering if you could give me your perspective on who Ryulong was and what he did. Feel free to be biased, I will look at both sides and come to a conclusion myself.

If this might cause trouble, feel free to ignore me. Thanks :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Just go over his talk page archives. And here's the coop case I drafted in December which outlines the problems. That is all I intend to say on the matter, as I have no intention of arguing with the Ryulong Defence Squad who undoubtedly claim that it's always other people's fault (who are free to do so, as such). The conflict on the Baptist page is a good example of Ryulong's abysmal behaviour and how there are always people stepping up to defend him. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Thank you for answering. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Are you back or not since you seem to be insistent on keeping the 'retired' template on your userpage.--Owlman (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I merely commented on the last two coop cases.
As for the template. I suspect David may have been drinking and thinks he's being hilarious. *Shrug*. Whatever. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Idk it just seems like a dumb thing to edit war over; I think that a user should determine when they are or aren't retired. Well I hope you change your mind and sorry that the community didn't defend you during that shitshow last year.--Owlman (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Do you have any other plans to make a non-political RW type thing? Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

He did. It flopped. And now he's here to haunt us with sensible policy ideas. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I know, I was on SkepticPages. But he mentioned after it went down he might try something else. I'm wondering if that is still in the works. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I dropped by too! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have various ideas. I also have a new job which involves being in Ireland a lot for the next two months and working with some tech I never worked with before. So that'll probably take up a lot of time...
I rushed into doing a wiki because, yaknow, RationalWiki is a wiki. That was not a good idea. I like collaborative writing, but "a wiki anyone can edit" is really just one form of doing so. I haven't decided on anything as such, and don't want to rush into things. I might just start it off as a really simple "weblog people can suggest edits to", because in the end, it's the actual writing of content that *really* matters, and not so much the technical platform... Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
...though your skill and helpfulness regarding the technical underpinnings of this wiki is appreciated. The writing is ultimately most important, but the tech is what provides the platform for the writing to be most important on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Still looks like shit"[edit]

Hey buddy! Don't know if you're still around, but - they're trying to mess with the Feng shui quotes from the Feng shui masters on the Feng shui article! Given reason: it's not on the topic of Feng shui. The following talk page discussion is relevant to your interests. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Who the hell cares? No really, it's just a quote at the top of a page. I like it (IIRC I put it there), but it's hardly the most important thing in the world or on that page... If someone feels strongly that it should not be there: let it go, and spend your time on making that page better, rather than bikeshedding over some quote... Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear from you too... I'm fine, thanks for asking...
Now, quite obviously both the people who want to keep the quotes and the people who want to remove them care in some sense. Anyone who takes a position in the discussion at all could plausibly be argued to "care". I'm certainly petitioning you because I care, if that's any type of answer. I'm sorry if that bothered you.
Just to be clear, I've never made the case (or even suggested) that the quotes were "the most important thing in the world or on that page", or anything like that. My case is made above and on the talk page, and centers around refuting the given blanking reason, which was - in turn - the suggestion that the quotes literally have got nothing to do with Feng shui, with reference to it being akin to an "ancient art" or "the guy being quoted not being a real practitioner". All the while, calls to actually view the source were ignored. I even conceded early on that the quotes don't need to open the article, just that they have reason to stay. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to reply, and I'm glad you're around to do so. All the best, your pal Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Fair use[edit]

Hey buddy! I'm glad you're watching out for the copyright status of the wiki content and all that, but I was just wondering - don't you think some or all of the images you just deleted may in fact constitute fair use? Now, I'm not a lawyer (and afaik you're not one either), but we certainly provide arguable commentary, criticism and parody of the images we borrow, and - while transformative use is notoriously vague - I would think that our accompanying article texts count towards that. Also, our objective is to educate, and we are non-commercial, two major fair use pluses. Top priority has to be that we're not stealing content, but I'm wondering if we don't have a pretty good case to use some or all of those images after all. They fit the articles so well, too! All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@CS: I think there's fair use grounds for most of those images. It's not "stealing" to showcase an image educationally relevant to an article -- or so FU guidelines seem to say. Any reason for the purge? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As an educational charity, we almost certainly have considerable leeway for fair use in practice. Whether it's a good idea as a content policy is another matter - I'm a big fan of proper free content licenses myself - but we almost certainly don't have a legal issue if there's even slightly a plausible claim of fair use - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
In my view none of these images have a "even slightly a plausible claim of fair use". Even for educational usage, just copying an image or comic wholesale as a joke will almost not certainly stand up in court.
Most of the images were *not* criticism of the image themselves, they were used *to criticise other viewpoints*. An important distinction that is somehow lost on the RW crowd... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
You just described transformative use, I think. Either way; it's all good, Carpet. Case closed. Have a cold one, on me. You earned it, buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not what "transformative" works. You can't just copy *the entire copyrighted work* wholesale, put it in a different context, and call it "transformative". Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
CS, you and RBP agree -- RBP is saying that FU extends beyond transformative works, which might include using an entire image for educational purposes (I believe). Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe so too. Regardless, transformative use is notoriously vague. The two operative questions that can be answered straight away go: Are we for profit/commercial? Are we non-educational? If "No" to both, drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I give up. Being "educational" doesn't give you a free pass. A but more leeway: sure. Free pass? No.
We're not talking about some crank stuff that RW is criticising, we're talking about just stealing entire comics and pictures. That shit's not fair use no matter how you look at it. Full stop.
I have argued this a number of times before, and the very fact that I am currently having this discussion yet again means it's now truly time to put RationalWiki in my past and move on. Good luck and goodbye! Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. FuzzyCatPotato of the Spine-chilling Cows (talk/stalk) 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hah, this is literally the first time I've checked this site in many many months (I read an article about Andy Schlaffy on NationalReview which reminded me of RW), and I think it's been about a year since I contributed something of value. I also have no plans to return to this site any time in the foreseeable future.
So that's a no. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)