User talk:Civic Cat

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

Ace^McWicked 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Civic Cat. Have a fishing cat on me. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just where were my manners all this time.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

sysopery

All the staff at McWicked Co. wish you a merry christmas.

Please have a sysopship Ace^{of Spades} 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Thanks to all.  :-)  Civic Cat (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Burqa Rock Chick...

..was copyrighted. Not uploadable. Sorry. P-Foster (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

category:articles that might not further the RW mission

Already exists. Blue (pester) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll be here all day if you want to tag things with that. We have {{mission}} for that. ^{d hominem} 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks, Armondikov. (I'm only doing to others what was done to me).  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mission

Hey, just so you know, we have a {{missionality}} template that also auto-cats articles with the already made category:articles that might not further the RW mission. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blue van Meer and Thunderkatz. I'll use it for now. :-)Civic Cat (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool :) Also, I'd just like to point this out before you go too crazy with it: From out Community Standards page: "RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world." Course, that's pretty vague and open to debate, but it's still something to keep in mind. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that my articles tend to get huffed, and I figure I'd tag a few I consider less worthy, and your category with its "might not" leave further wiggle room. (At least I'm not huffing the articles I tage.)Civic Cat (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these may well have been discussed before. Indeed, as you seem to be categorising a few general science articles, we've already had the discussion about whether to include such articles. Generally we keep them because they're interesting rather than their direct application to the mission. I.e., we can't really have a quantum woo article without a quantum physics article, for instance. ^{d hominem} 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And the RW lexicon is "vaped" not "huffed." Blue (pester) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'll give it some though.Civic Cat (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ECx100,000)Also worth noting that {{mission}} will automatically include that category and it won't appear as it is a maintenance category. It will still appear on category:articles that might not further the RW mission, however, which should be linked to from the template. ^{d hominem} 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

you might wanna...

Consider going to a tech and getting yourself botted (if you're into that sort of thing). 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

How I would have loved to. ;-) Civic Cat (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you at least minor edit? You can make edits minor by default under Preferences -> Editing. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the article that would describe how I can do this?Civic Cat (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The top of your page should have your name and links to things like your talkpage, your watchlist, and your contributions. Click the link that says "My preferences", then click the tab that says "Editing." Check the box that says "Mark all edits minor by default" and then click the save button at the bottom. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it in mind. But what if I want to be specific about my edits?Civic Cat (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All it means is that the box marked "This is a minor edit" starts out checked, so if you're doing a bunch of minor edits, you don't have to check the box every time. If you have a non-minor edit in between, you can uncheck the box. Once you're done with your editing spree, you can go into preferences, and change it back so the box starts unchecked. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a try.Civic Cat (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I selected "Mark all edits minor by default", and saved; but in my next non-talk edit Fun:Cock, nothing showed up.Civic Cat (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ameriwiki

It's on initial trial run, if you're interested.--Ameripedia (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Congradulations!--and so quick.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Don Cherry

The only person with that name worth talking about: P-Foster (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here here! and I'm interested in figuring out that embedding script you used.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just everything after the "=" sign in the YT URL. P-Foster (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-)  Civic Cat (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted me to fuck off, why didn't you just say so?

Maybe even permanently. (Whatta buncha stuck-ups!) Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yippie! I got blocked! The fascists have won again at RationalWiki!

I'll be back, perhaps in a few days, to kill off more of my creations; and then I'll leave this site. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They're not yours anymore, dummy. They're ours now. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. We're such filthy communists. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that would indicate that you value them, and you assholes really don't want to do that! Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   21:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I’m baaaaack!

Aerosmith - Back in the Saddle
AC/DC-Back in Black(Funk Version)
Colin Stetson performs "The Righteous Wrath of an Honorable Man" in Studio Q
Colin Stetson performs "Judges" on Q

First off.
Sorry about getting angry a few months ago. Not very civil of me, huh. I’m wasn’t totally wrong in the disputes, but I’ll attempt to deal with the errors, or what I perceive to be errors, of others with reason and humour.

Second, I didn’t LANCB as I never quite said “I’m leaving and never coming back”: there is at least some wiggle room.

Third, my gratitude’s for the good other RW’ians have done for me, including tolerating errors and whatever (unwarranted) stubbornness on my part. I specifically name Ace and Weaseloid, who were the first to greet me; and of course Ace for the sysopery. Thanks to P-Foster for some tips. Even Ty’s okay. As for the article about me in RWW, I’ll comment on its (many) errors (maybe in a month or few).

I’ll soon restore the sub-page article I’ve spent the most time on here (in terms of editing at least). I’ll overhaul it later (likely replacing a few dead links and re-sectioning). On the deletionist-inclusionist debate, I tend towards the latter. I’ll check out the sub-pages of others to see how appropriate or inappropriate it is.

 Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

albinism

I noticed you created an article on albinism. As someone with the condition, I am curious as to what prompted you to create it? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I heard the radio program a week or so ago, I like Edgar and Yellowman, am beginning to like Johnny, I saw the Omega Man, I think the whole discrimination of those whiter than us is interesting, I think Connie Chiu is sexy, as well as the chick 14 sec and 1:56 to 2:08 into in this music video is sexy (actually they all are).  :-D   Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

About the Globe and Mail...

"In politics, that's called not letting the left hand know what the right buttock is doing." 173.32.30.79 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi :-) Not sure of the etiquette but just in case thought I would mention that I mentioned you on Saloon Bar--Barryjon (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For me it's nice given that I'm not here on a regular basis.   :-)
Talk to Civic Cat 19:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there something I'm missing, Paravant?

Talk to Civic Cat 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that I've been blocked for pretty well no good reason, how does one unblock oneself?Talk to Civic Cat 22:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

consider this initiation. Also look at the prediction page, there a nice quality of life thing you missed three times--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Somebody already said that Clinton would be elected in 2020 or how well President Trump would deal with Congress?Talk to Civic Cat 22:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Theres this block of text explaining something to make sure that people who use the page don't have a headache guessing the right number, you somehow missed it three times. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The block will expire in less than 15 minutes, but I'll soon be gone for the day. Paravant, because you've been a jerk, you are now on my shitlist. Fuck you and have a nice day.Talk to Civic Cat 22:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

So, here's the deal with those categories you want on Encyclopedia Dramatica

The site itself is setup to intentionally be provocative, insulting, and offensive. As such, it follows that it contains material to offend everybody (I know this, because I have the site firewall blocked on my computer simply so I avoid looking at it). That being said, what separates it from others in categories such as racism and homophobia is that, unlike, say, Westboro Baptist Church, Encyclopedia Dramatica is tongue-in-cheek when doing so. While it is true that there is a degree of Poe's law involved, the fact remains that, unlike WBC, they aren't going around actually promoting gay bashing. True, they use words like "nigger" and "faggot," but those are used solely to offend, and if you are offended by them (or anything else on that damn site for that matter), then the site has achieved its goal. Make sense? It's similar to how South Park uses a measure of provocation and, indeed, offensiveness to get its point across. Does that make South Park homophobic or racist in what they do? Nope, it just makes them provocative. I hope this helps. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If this helps any, it's kind of like what RationalWiki:Pissed at us says (and has, to my knowledge fairly uncontroversially, for some time): "Notably absent from this list is Encyclopaedia Dramatica, which does have a scathingly hateful article about RW, including a guide for how to troll the site. But as ED has that for pretty much everything, this is seen as standard and so doesn't really count." Same with their racism, homophobia, etc.: they do anything they can that they know or think will offend people, so there's nothing remarkable about their Xism. I'd go a bit further and say they aren't meaningfully sexist/racist/homophobic/whatever, even though they are unambiguously so: because they go out of their way to be all sorts of offensive, the individual prejudices displayed are kinda meaningless, even leaving aside the fact that they're presumably mostly insincere. Kinda like how we here at RW don't specifically call the username troll racist, except maybe in discussing a specific username of his. (Though on a tangent, renaming his accounts is always kinda amusing) WalkerWalkerWalker 23:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this discussion but the fact is that, as Goonie and Walker puts it above me here so eloquently, ED just takes the piss out of everybody. It's the far opposite of real hate - it's the pure parody side of Poe's Law. That means, for the record, that it's not nice in any way. But again, it's omnidirectionally shit-pissing for the lulz - and proud of it. ED's wet dream is for people to actually be offended by it; that someone would confuse this parody for real hate. That's the fun. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say pure parody, because I think (Warning: armchair diagnosis ahead!) there are some ED users who utilize it as an outlet for actual hate - but (a) that doesn't well reflect the overall EDiting community, and (b) even those expressions tend to wind up twisted into fitting ED's typical "Look! I'm rude for the attention! Did I offend you?" style - so for example if someone were to go post a well-articulated, purely hateful racist manifesto as an ED page, given time for ED at large to EDize it, it'd wind up as a game of "how many times can we make this say nigger and how many Star of David-adorned links can we add?" In some ways I think their overvaluation of simple means of shocking audiences substantially decreases their actual capacity to offend, though I suppose that varies with who's reading. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that isolated editors certainly reflect their own beef while picking what to wikiedit about (just like they do here), that doesn't hold up as criticism directed at the entire site a whole. Why? Because the aggregate of all these editors focusing on their beef is a site that, again, takes the piss out of everyone. Frankly, the best part about ED is that if you start at article A, read the scathing parody and over the top lampooning of topic A, and then click forward via internal links to the opposite camp of A - e.g. to article B, you'll find that B maintains the identical tone. A is shit and the opposite of A is shit. The site pokes (black comedic) fun relentlessly, and indeed often misses a chance to try to convince you of something (when you don't isolate yourself to just reading one or a few articles) if it can stick in another assburgers joke instead. Once you realise that's the standard for the majority of articles, you realise that the site really doesn't really fail to piss on anyone. And that's - in absolute paradox and irony, mind you - remarkably fair. Now, calling ED fair is a joke in itself, but... you get my drift. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, let's come at this from the other end: what is someone who clicks on Category:Racism (or Category:Homophobia, or so on) going to be looking for? Articles dealing with racism (or homophobia or so on), and while the content of ED (the site, not our article) is at (many) times racist (homophobic/c.), our article on ED doesn't deal extensively or primarily with racism, it mostly deals with... well, all the other hellishness. TL;DR: an uninformed reader who goes to Category:Racism and clicks Encyclopædia Dramatica will be disappointed. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the fact that adding ED to all our negative categories would in fact risk watering down those said categories. Indeed, if I was asked to define what homophobia or racism looks like out there in the real world, ED wouldn't feature unless I was allowed to extrapolate at infinite length. Whatever it is we're so passionately (and rightfully and importantly) against, it's certainly not ED. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What Goonie, Rev and Walker said.---Mona- (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a little too happy about being quoted on in agreement, when the thing I said included the literal phrase "omnidirectionally shit-pissing for the lulz". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the above posts. Pity they weren't in the article's talk page. I'll give them the thorough reading they deserve. However, with the cursory read, I'm not thoroughly convinced. What do you guys think of wp:The Ridiculous 6 controversy?Talk to Civic Cat 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably a better place to carry this is in Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica#Should this be in Category:Homophobia, Category:Racism, and Category:Sexism?.Talk to Civic Cat 18:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I kind of have to agree that the tags are not appropriate for the ED article, for all the listed reasons. As for The Ridiculous 6, I think the complaints are understandable, but unfair as the point of the movie was to lampoon the stereotypes of old westerns, including the terrible stereotyping that Native Americans had in said westerns. It's hardly the first one of it's kind -- see also: Dead Man, the other Johnny Depp western that Lone Ranger should have been, featuring renowned Cayuga actor Gary Farmer.

Personally, just speaking from my perspective as a PoC (Korean-American) who's been through more than his fair share of racism growing up, I actually find such complaints incredibly annoying at times. While I understand that other people may have different views and I don't claim to speak for all minorities, but I believe that genuine intent has a LOT to do with what is and isn't offensively racist. Reading about it, I'm reminded heavily of Suey Park's campaign to get Stephen Colbert off the air for his joke about creating the "Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever." I'd get deeper into the nuances of my viewpoint, but I don't want to clutter your talk page with my ramblings.

If you're interested in hearing more about the portrayal of Native Americans in film, I really recommend the documentary Reel Injun by Neil Diamond (the Cree filmmaker, not the singer of "You Don't Bring Me Flowers"). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Songs

Fun talk:Greatest songs, liberal and conservative So I'm kind of new here but I've been cleaning up and adding to the greatest liberal songs page. I posted on the talk page that I think the sex, love, and drugs sections should go. I noticed you did some work on that page a while back so I thought I'd drop by & let your know. Any thoughts? Read-Write (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take my comments there.Talk to Civic Cat 18:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)