|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:Conscience
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Conscience!
Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards. If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be. Pull up a goat and have some fun! Any questions? Please see the help page or ask me on my talk page. |
Hello, and welcome to the pulling Wiki! Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 15:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Conscience (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that I'm apparently one of the lunatics[edit]
What material seems off-mission? What has changed that made it so? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Go away. Go away. Go away. Jesus fuck go away. Conscience (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very helpful. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Go away. Conscience (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you refuse to talk, we cannot help you. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Christ another illiterate. There's nothing to help me with about the mission. Read. Conscience (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- You sound a lot like Castagaine2. Keter (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Except he's insane and very little of what he says makes sense. Conscience (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's what Keter meant.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly.Keter (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well of course anyone who has the gumption to criticize Assistant Professor Enter must be insane and not make sense. Except he persistently lies rather than even attempting to address me on the merits. Why do you do that, Professor? Conscience (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Except he's insane and very little of what he says makes sense. Conscience (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You sound a lot like Castagaine2. Keter (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Christ another illiterate. There's nothing to help me with about the mission. Read. Conscience (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you refuse to talk, we cannot help you. 95.90.213.140 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Go away. Conscience (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very helpful. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A rephrasing[edit]
I think I may not have been clear. You wrote:
He asked about the mission, which I don’t think should change.
I wasn't trying to ask about whether the mission should be changed (and personally I think it's pretty good), but instead responding to:
The site has abandoned the most on-mission material
I was asking what missional material (articles, essays, images, whatever) you think has been abandoned, and what (if any) non-missional material you think has been adopted. Sorry for any misunderstandings. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you moved past[edit]
Whining about being persecuted, and into actually discussing anything? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Where was I whining? Are you going to do as well as Emerald City Wanderer at brooking dissent? As for discussion, let me ask you to honestly guess my assessment of your competence and integrity. I've given hints. Conscience (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no beef with either of you, but FuzzyCatPotato seems to be the more reasonable one here... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Warn-v[edit]
As you probably did not notice, I did not create that template.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. I apologize. Nonetheless, it didn't accurately describe policy. Do not rollback my accurate edit. Conscience (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
|
You will be blocked without further warning the next time you vandalise Template:Warn-v. |
--JorisEnter (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
EC
- As I said, this doesn't accurately reflect policy. If and only if you block someone, as you're more likely than not to do, such blocks are for short times. You should tell editors that rather than create the impression they're gone for good. Further, there's no guarantee that someone will necessarily be blocked and such blocks may not always make sense or constitute anything but abuse. Conscience (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)–
- Oh this is good. Block me and I'll coop you for abusing your rollback and block buttons. I'm sure that's a joke to you. Stop bullying me. Conscience (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see that Joris is now abusing his protect button by rolling warn v back to an inaccurate brain and locking me out without having the wherewithal to even address my reason for correcting it. Exactly what I'd expect from a thin skinned bully. Conscience (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now I'm blocked. Nothing short of utterly predictable. Joris is a dishonest and cowardly bully. Conscience (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see that Joris is now abusing his protect button by rolling warn v back to an inaccurate brain and locking me out without having the wherewithal to even address my reason for correcting it. Exactly what I'd expect from a thin skinned bully. Conscience (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh this is good. Block me and I'll coop you for abusing your rollback and block buttons. I'm sure that's a joke to you. Stop bullying me. Conscience (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, this doesn't accurately reflect policy. If and only if you block someone, as you're more likely than not to do, such blocks are for short times. You should tell editors that rather than create the impression they're gone for good. Further, there's no guarantee that someone will necessarily be blocked and such blocks may not always make sense or constitute anything but abuse. Conscience (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)–
- I warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to revert me at
{{Warn-v}}. You did not listen, so I did precisely what I told you I would. An hour should be more than enough to make you cool down a bit.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)- You still can't be honest? Conscience (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please tell me where I have lied.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you truly believe enforcing your iron will without bothering to address the inaccuracy of your reflexive rolling back is honest? Very interesting approach to life you have there. Conscience (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- "the inaccuracy of your reflexive rolling back" - what the actual fuck. You edited a template, got reverted because your edit was useless, then started an edit war. You randomly created multiple talkpages whining about me "implementing non-existent policy", calling me an "inmate", "bully" and "dishonest" while claiming that I have Asperger's. You accused me of making things up while I didn't even write them, then proceeded to simply whine on about how "inaccurate" a template was and how it "doesn't accurately reflect policy" - notwithstanding the fact that blocking people for vandalism is a perfectly normal policy, both here and on other wikis. And you dare say I am dishonest?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- See, you've got a persistent problem with this kind of dishonesty, and I'm just making a record of it. Whining about you implanting nonexistent policy? Not whining. You're lying again and I challenge you to show I'm wrong if you want to do more than deceitfully mischaracterize my comment. Whining about inaccuracies? You're lying again. I justified my claim, yet you mischaracterize again and dare accuse me of edit warring when youre the deceitful bully who rolls back without explanation? It's bizarre that you're continuing to call an accurate edit vandalism. Why are you lying again? Conscience (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to be mischaracterizing everyone on this talkpage. Why can't we all just get along? And maybe hold hands and sing cumbaya too while we're at it. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- See, you've got a persistent problem with this kind of dishonesty, and I'm just making a record of it. Whining about you implanting nonexistent policy? Not whining. You're lying again and I challenge you to show I'm wrong if you want to do more than deceitfully mischaracterize my comment. Whining about inaccuracies? You're lying again. I justified my claim, yet you mischaracterize again and dare accuse me of edit warring when youre the deceitful bully who rolls back without explanation? It's bizarre that you're continuing to call an accurate edit vandalism. Why are you lying again? Conscience (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- "the inaccuracy of your reflexive rolling back" - what the actual fuck. You edited a template, got reverted because your edit was useless, then started an edit war. You randomly created multiple talkpages whining about me "implementing non-existent policy", calling me an "inmate", "bully" and "dishonest" while claiming that I have Asperger's. You accused me of making things up while I didn't even write them, then proceeded to simply whine on about how "inaccurate" a template was and how it "doesn't accurately reflect policy" - notwithstanding the fact that blocking people for vandalism is a perfectly normal policy, both here and on other wikis. And you dare say I am dishonest?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you truly believe enforcing your iron will without bothering to address the inaccuracy of your reflexive rolling back is honest? Very interesting approach to life you have there. Conscience (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please tell me where I have lied.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- You still can't be honest? Conscience (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to revert me at
Since you appear to be incapable of making useful edits[edit]
|
|
You have been vandal binned because of your recent edits. This means that you can only make one edit per 30 minutes. If you continue to make unwanted edits, you may be blocked without further warning.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) |
- Have it your way! I know you always will! Conscience (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you want here?[edit]
You claim to be old guard but you don't want to reveal yourself. You have criticised how things are running here but haven't really given any solutions. You have criticized Fuzzy for trying to impose his will on the wiki but you didn't want to communicate with him. You have said Joris isn't following policy, therefore saying he is overstepping his power, but you were quick to call him names. You have called me zealot (which... yeah, whatever) and said that I am destroying my credibility, which if you have suggestions how I can better act then I am all ears. In essence, I don't really understand why you are posting here since you think this site has gone to shit.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 04:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- NuttyRoux, is that you? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Before you removed it, you had stated on your user page that you've been looking at this site since 2009, which was when NuttyRoux first edited. And let's not forget all the anti-establishment criticism, which was one of NuttyRoux's hallmarks. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nailed it Pb, couldn't be anyone else. Lucky the world's greatest detective is on the case. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Although BON says it sarcastically, I too think it's too much of a jump to equate Conscience and Roux. Besides, it doesn't really matter -- criticizing RW isn't a problem. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Close in terms of what I gather his sentiments were, but I'm not him. I quit before he did, and he was apparently a griefer broken record on other "establishment" criticisms I don't care the least bit about. Conscience (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- So then why come back?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Putting that coop case aside, I assume you are uninterested with actually getting anything resolved here?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- For starters, don't put the case aside. Joris Enter doesn't deserve sysop tools he's consistently abused and he's already admitted he's unqualified to be a tech, but tech is FCP's clubhouse. Conscience (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well the mob disagrees but I didn't vote. I think Weaseloid could have just reprimanded him on his talk page but that is just me. Joris couldn't have been the reason you came back so I am still curious what drew you back here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "He has already admitted he's unqualified to be a tech" - where, if I may ask?--JorisEnter (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well the mob disagrees but I didn't vote. I think Weaseloid could have just reprimanded him on his talk page but that is just me. Joris couldn't have been the reason you came back so I am still curious what drew you back here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 19:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- For starters, don't put the case aside. Joris Enter doesn't deserve sysop tools he's consistently abused and he's already admitted he's unqualified to be a tech, but tech is FCP's clubhouse. Conscience (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Putting that coop case aside, I assume you are uninterested with actually getting anything resolved here?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- So then why come back?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Close in terms of what I gather his sentiments were, but I'm not him. I quit before he did, and he was apparently a griefer broken record on other "establishment" criticisms I don't care the least bit about. Conscience (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Although BON says it sarcastically, I too think it's too much of a jump to equate Conscience and Roux. Besides, it doesn't really matter -- criticizing RW isn't a problem. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nailed it Pb, couldn't be anyone else. Lucky the world's greatest detective is on the case. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
“”I feel honoured by RBP's recommendation, but I really don't know much about the technical stuff at all. I can do some Python, but my skills are limited to what a first year astronomy undergrad needs to survive.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Can't remember things you said less than three months ago? Here ya go, deceitful little boy. Conscience (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- It could be that I have kept the edit filters up to date. Ever thought of that?--JorisEnter (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was waiting for you to say that. Indeed I did think of that. You're so good at regex, which is highly relevant to being a tech, that you didn't mention it, but instead mentioned Python, which is not relevant to the job. Conscience (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
In case you care, Conscience: I made Joris (and others) into techs (with popular support & no dissent in Bar) during a period of extremely frequent vandalism (10-30 filter positives daily, a persistent doxxing vandal with changing filter-avoiding tactics, and several spambots) because they were active in reverting said vandalism and harassment. This was the same idea behind the mid-2015 elections (also supported in Bar), because the 2 active mods weren't enough to stop drama and vandalism. To my mind, Joris was and is essentially an emergency mod for edit filters.
Since the vandalism rate has been low for two months, and since the board election didn't ever happen, I was gonna try to set up a mod election (incorporating the tech positions into mod roles) and a board election. If so, you can eviscerate Joris's alleged ineptitude with abandon. Happy? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The community standsrds say Trent and David Gerard are the only users with the authority to create techs. What made you think you had the authority to do it aside from you being you? Conscience (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
(Vandal log); 15:31 . . FuzzyCatPotato (Talk | contribs) paroled Conscience (Talk | contribs) (Probably not a vandal, just an idiot.)[edit]
I get it. Criticize FCP and his white knight and you're an idiot. Joris has a casual relationship with the truth and couldn't debate himself out of a wet paper bag. You're the Dunning-Kreuger effect made flesh. But I'm the idiot. Good stuff.
Here's a brief glimpse into Fuzzy Cat Potato's inner dialog:
“”me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.
|
Conscience (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
| In which Joris reveals his genius with another template |
|---|
|
- Conscience, do you see that section above? #Have_you_moved_past? Yeah. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lame Xylophones (talk/stalk) 23:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What an odd and unresponsive question considering I asked you one of my own in that very section that you didn't answer. But hey, you can't stop winning, right? Conscience (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Conscience, do you see that section above? #Have_you_moved_past? Yeah. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lame Xylophones (talk/stalk) 23:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
All I do is win, win, win, no matter what, Pbfreespace (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- From the perspective of an adult looking from the outside in, what you're doing doesn't look like winning from out here. Conscience (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? Pbfreespace (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Sysop[edit]
Here you go. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, but didn't you know that tech is the new crat? Conscience (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
currentuser[edit]
Do you know the magic words to get the current logged in user placed on the page? I was going to add it to your user page but I couldn't remember the magic word. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You mean
{{USERNAME}}? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)- The magic words are 'please, Squeamish Ossifrage.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Big brother JorisEnter[edit]
Not cool, man. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I know. His authoritarian menacing and bullying is not cool, man. Conscience (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm repressing you, you mean?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- You tried, but it didn't stick. Your pattern generally seems to be to bully, threaten, and swear at people who defy you. It's sometimes very striking. Conscience (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm repressing you, you mean?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yup[edit]
Thanks Hipocrite (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Conscience (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
You're an poo head[edit]
Hey buddy! Don't miss this development. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ain't your buddy. Conscience (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Right as rain! My bad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am guessing...[edit]
That you still don't have any meaningful reforms you would like to discuss based this BoN's talkpage.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
90/10 rule[edit]
Are you ever gonna do anything useful or just continue whining about how oppressed you are? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're the most useful editor RW has ever had. Useful enough for everyone. You just do so much good and useful stuff. I couldn't compete with your usefulness. Conscience (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- *wafts the air* I detect the slightest hint of pure, unadulterated sarcasm. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's lazy and dishonest to dismiss someone with mischaracterization. Check out the list of proven liars I've got going on my user page. Conscience (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- *wafts the air* I detect the slightest hint of pure, unadulterated sarcasm. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The boy moderator fails again[edit]
Page locked, 1 day. Summary: JorisEnter wanted this edit by Laurogeita Hamabost to stay on the talkpage; Conscience did not. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kudos on choosing the most heavy handed and least effective way to resolve a non problem. Have you shown up 4 hours after a high school bully got smacked like a little bitch and started putting up police tape to cordon off the crime scene? If you haven't already figured it out, you're a glorified hall monitor. Go put on your neat orange sash and go look important somewhere else. Conscience (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Noted. Won't
policemonitor your page, then. <3 oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Noted. Won't
I'm a liar?[edit]
I'd like to see the source for that statement. You bragged so much about your list of liars in the above section. I would've at least expected a well-collated and sourced list of contradictory statements. Enlighten me! PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ok first, saying "you bragged so much" isn't a great way to start asking me for examples of you lying when what I actually said is literally right up there: "Check out the list of proven liars I've got going on my user page." That's not "bragging so much".
- The last head scratching incident of you lying was when you were abusing Taba for saying things you don't like. At lunch, I'll pull up the log entry of you abusing your sysop rights to remove his and block him. I can think of some puzzling instances of you making things up during the coop after Joris got called out for harassing me. I'll have a look at lunch. Why don't you care more about saying things that are true? Conscience (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Laurageita Hamabost used the word 'cunt' sarcastically in the coop. Taba apparently thought I wrote that, seeing as I had arranged the vote options in the previous section of the coop. Taba said on my talk page that I was a misogynist and that I should be banned. Taba then said "go to hell, you pig." If this was trolling, then Taba could be banned for that. If it was a genuine comment, then guess what? "Harassment" is a bannable offense according to the reasons list on the block page. I never did anything to Taba before this, and Taba attacked me personally, on my talk page, unprovoked. I personally believe that Taba was trolling, seeing as Taba's oldest edits mainly consist of saying "I'm Batman" Not only did Taba do this, but also runs a sockpuppet account called "Taba the Terror". Given all of this background information, I don't think it's abuse of sysop tools to block for harassment. I don't want that stuff posted on my talk page. Most of all, I don't see how this counts as lying. PB (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Shall we walk through [this] together slowly? There are more than a few problems in your claims about Taba and what's blockable or justifies you unilaterally desysopping him. Conscience (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered my question: How does this make me a liar? That really is the objection I'm raising here. I don't object to your characterization of me as being a little heavy on the mop. With regards to Taba, I don't care to make RationalWiki a place hostile to women. What's wrong with loving buds? I love many different buds, and I am devoted to them on a near-daily basis. PBfreespace (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Join me[edit]
Join me in writing articles supportive of Israel and together we can rule the galaxy make Ratwiki great again! 62.212.73.246 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair use for Big Brother[edit]
It's possible that you misunderstand: the problem with the image is not copyright, but that it's essentially a way to harass a RW user -- which is surely unacceptable?
Or, you know damn well what you're doing and are just an insufferable git.
Unless you come up with an astounding reason not to, I will delete the page tomorrow. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for unblocking me.[edit]
I find it especially slimy that I was blocked by the person who cooped me over me removing his anti-feminist propaganda on the Dawkins article. Typhoon (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't care what you believe. I'm sympathetic to you because you're unpopular and have been treated unfairly and some of these people aren't particularly honest about who's the edit warrior. The best strategy for dealing with their problems with you, putting aside whether it would be fair, would be to give moderators the power to simply topic ban you for however long. But that doesn't sate these people's thirst for blood in these raucous coop cases, where they pretend voting on ambiguous and sometimes incoherent options is the same thing as consensus decision making. In other words, they call themselves a mob for a reason and you've got a lot of pitchforks pointed your way. Conscience (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Cut it with the stalking[edit]
mod peaked cap of oppression on: Way too many of your few article space edits are reverting Joris with a shitty edit summary. Please stop it - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I gave a good justification for the revert that caused you come over here calling my edit comment shitty. Look at the edit comment and the edit and tell me whether you believe I was acting in bad faith. You might also consider that Joris Enter is an overreaching prick. I revert him when he's wrong. He was wrong. Looking at recent changes isn't stalking. Conscience (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were acting in bad faith. You've been acting in bad faith since you started this sockpuppet. Its entire purpose is for you to act in bad faith. Reverting blatant spam back in with a shitty edit comment is fuckwittery - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great. You're equally bad at justifying the simplest claims. Thanks for nothing. Conscience (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit to the high IQ Society page was little more than an advertisement for a paid website grounded in quite a bit of woo. I suggest you ponder RW's mission more before making other such edits. Petey Plane (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I helped draft part of RW's mission. Conscience (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then you should know better than using lauditory language when describing a pay-walled website built on such dubious premises. Petey Plane (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- No offense, but did you? I mean you are using a sock account so no really knows who you are. The only reason I believe you are "old guard" is because you used an older account but that account could've been shared like the Yellow account.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then for fucksake, you know better and should be expected to be capable of not editing like a dick - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I helped draft part of RW's mission. Conscience (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit to the high IQ Society page was little more than an advertisement for a paid website grounded in quite a bit of woo. I suggest you ponder RW's mission more before making other such edits. Petey Plane (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great. You're equally bad at justifying the simplest claims. Thanks for nothing. Conscience (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- You were acting in bad faith. You've been acting in bad faith since you started this sockpuppet. Its entire purpose is for you to act in bad faith. Reverting blatant spam back in with a shitty edit comment is fuckwittery - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Man, you people are thin-skinned. ħuman
00:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)