User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 5 July 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, FuzzyCatPotato! 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!

PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I added sysop rights to your account. I'm editing from my phone or I'd link to our mediocre help page on all your wondrous new powers. You can find it under help on the left. Now you smite your enemies. Have fun. 14:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

THIS is what my nutty, erudite, handsome friend was talking about. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes/References

It's always been "footnotes", because it typically contains a lot more than just references on RW. Why are you changing it everywhere? - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, then. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was footnotes ever since one user changed loads of "references" to "footnotes" in the early days. Sophie^Wilder 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On the ISIS edits

"What was wrong with the quote? Why remove date of source and of access from sources? Why remove Weaknesses?"

a) I removed the Obama quote because of the controversy surrounding "ISIS isn't Islamic"; it's obvious why he said it, but ISIS is an extremist fundie group.

b) I think it makes the footnotes less cluttered, but that's just me.

c) We mentioned the weaknesses in the section before. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are reasonable reasons. My thoughts:

A) I think the Obama quote is useful because ISIS feeds into the "MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" view.

B) It might. I don't think that beauty justified the loss of information, though.

C) Yeah. I was going to move the parts about "strengths" and "weaknesses" to that section but didn't have time.

Would you mind if I readded the quote, readded the footnote dates, and arranged the strength-related citations into one section? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Leaving a redirect to a merged article makes sense if it's been an established article with lots of pages linking to it and/or outside inbound links. Creating a redirect with an idiotic title is not useful. Most of the redirects that you re-created have been deleted for quite some time without any apparent ill effects.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A pointless redirect has very low utility, perhaps, but that utility is higher than 0, because somebody may happen across the redirect. The question is not how good having said redirects are, but whether they are good at all; and having them does no harm and may cause good; thus, stupid redirects are better than deleted pages.

Furthermore, it makes the archives look nice. ^_^ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Boy

Having fun with him? --Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Parogar's moved edit

Parogar: My apologies. Sometimes it's difficult to detect humor or distinguish it between a genuine extremist belief. ^{— Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs}

This was months ago, just didn't see it, moved it here for reasons FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting talk pages

Hello! We don't usually redirect talk pages when merging articles, instead just add Category:talk pages for redirected articles. thanks. Sophie^Wilder 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry. FuzzyCatPotato™ ☢ ^{Religions are ancient monuments to superstition.} 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Sophie^Wilder 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hat tip

For adding this gem. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Hat Tip.gif

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

*glares*

It's like looking into 2009.. where I was known as "Fuzzy" and "Mr. Cat". 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I'm tired, someone asked about "The origin of 'Kettles'"... don't mind me

ILUMENATI CONFERMD FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So

What exactly makes something deserve an entry in your history sub article, out of curiosity.--Miekal 04:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

3 criteria:

1: Notable impact on future direction of RationalWiki. Hence, the attempt to update the license and the attempt to remove Recipiespace.

2: User rights, user blocks, hiding revisions, etc, that aren't just standard "we trust you so you get sysop" or "spambot must burn" incidents. Hence, Exiled Encyclopedist's information, Elvis is King's information.

3: Massive stupidity. Hence, LogicMaster777, Elvis is King, Burkean.

Curiosity satisfied? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

mhm. Fancy --Miekal 05:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Parogar might be worth including?--TiaC (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

How do we incorporate this into dolphin?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

go rit ahed bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But what is more important? The tantric yoga shit or the fact that they can make a human dolphin hybrid?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Up to you bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which woo is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Do both then bruh FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

argle

I tried to ban you with an expiry time of 10 furlongs but the system would not accept my Proper Use Of Measurements >:( King Skeleton (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'LL BLOCK YOU FO 50 POUNDS YO HOOLIGAN" FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(Assuming a day which is nine hours of 81 minutes of 81 seconds and almost certainly messing up the math because it's bedtime) King Skeleton (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Blowhard

Why are you removing proof about the illuminati? All anyone has to do now is simply show the fossil record of what hacks you are. WE OWN YOU. YOU PUSSY BITCH

Because this "proof" needs talkpage discussion before addition to the article.

Heh. Pussy, cat, my name. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, thank you?

I have no idea what that word salad was, but thank you for granting me sysop status. Asarelah (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It was Template:Rit. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pantera

Let's get this straight: are you copying sources from Wikipedia without actually reading/checking them? Because if you do, you are not much better than User:Exiled Encyclopedist.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied over, now I'm parsing through. For example, this is an incredibly stupid source that doesn't even go over the topic, and it will now die in the fire. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to parse through them first...?--Miekal 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. but CTRL C + CTRL V is even easier and I forgot My most sincere and humble apologies, I hope this transgression causes no signfificant harm to any parties involved. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

blocking policy.

Hi. You might just want to confirm your knowledge of our blocking policy. Cheers. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why bring up? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you blocked an IP who objected to our evolution article and then made an unfortunate edit to a user's talk page. Our mainpage says: "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." It is possible that blocking people under the circumstances outlined above will not allow us to have any dialogue with them.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The nature of the original edit, and then the "Screw you clown, evolution is a lie" as a response to being reverted gives the distinct impression our IP friend was not here to engage in constructive discussion with us over the issue. --Miekal 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be right. But now that he has been instantly blocked I guess that we will never know.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "never" you mean for a bit less than nine hours then that's true. I'm biting my nails in anticipation of his return.--TiaC (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See Miekal's response. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for Incorporating Some of My Work

Sorry if I alarmed you for reconstructing an entire article. Thank you for taking it in stride and formatting it to more closely meet the wiki's call for snark, as well as informing and rationality. Snark, honestly, is not my strong point. I did try and incorporate some humour; maybe it's just not humour atheists can relate to. (Although I swear I've heard people say something like "Heaven is where you go to be with Jesus forever", and it was no more convincing then than now.)

In short, thanks for taking the time to read, and make your life a bit more logical. 174.19.71.25 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: Here. Have a half-eaten pair of choco-pants for all your hard work: http://i.imgur.com/hhQXs.jpg

No problem. Thanks for contributing to a bad article! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You accidentally the WHOLE scientific literature

I bestow upon you the honour of Doctor of Cuntsteaming. You may inadvertently have become the most actually knowledgeable person on the topic in the world - David Gerard (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to ask David if an honorarium will be forthcoming. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Camel, I'm can't talk to pitiful nobodies like Gerard. I'm too busy petitioning the Nobel committee to add the new field of Muffin Steaming. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Idiot

You nominated Tielec? Really? After he spent a good chunk of last October trying to get the Board to divulge legally sensitive information? Absolutely the most idiotic and irresponsible decision I've ever seen a RationalWikian make. Why not nominate Kent Hovind also? Noisemobile (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, MadmanJohnson nominated him. I just fixed his link. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, then I do apologize. I went off the message on Tielec's talkpage. I'd go to Madman's talkpage and call Madman Johnson an idiot, too, but given he was part of the same group wishing the Board to compromise its legal position, I think it's obvious he already knows my opinion. Noisemobile (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine. I put the link on Tielec01's user talkpage only because MadmanJohnson forgot to notify him. I'd give MadmanJohnson a reminder, though, just to be painfully obvious. =P FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Norman

I don't know if I accidentally overstepped bounds, again, but I've un-autopatrolled Norman. I think you were a bit off the mark considering his sanity considering all he's done is rehash Gamergate talking points from September. If this is a problem, I have no issue with you restoring it and pointing me in the direction I'm supposed to go to stop the quacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reconsidering, too. Mostly I autopatrolled so he couldn't whine about Gamergate being protected, but since his addition turns out to be trolling, it's irrelevant anyways. tl;dr:ty. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now maybe you can help me because that Czech dolphin website I promised to write about is offline :(—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.delphium.mobi/index.html FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I just hope it still has the human/dolphin/alien hybrid fetus information in English.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god he won't stop repeating GG talking points from the #burgerandfries era.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Add his points in, with rebuttals. Same for Chri. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OH no he pulled the ad hominem card on me so I responded by vaguely alluding to the fact he's JAQing off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

More stuff to debunk. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't I show them how I used to deal with them on Wikipedia when I had the tools there?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No. You really don't know how this site works, do you?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither of 'em do. Noisemobile (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ZooGuard. Noise, why include me? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 07:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Keep in mind that User:RobSmith is Conservapedia:RobSmith and all that implies.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I wouldn't take his advice on any liberal/conservative topic. But his edits about Middle-Eastern topics have mostly been sane, so I wanted to know where he got his stuff. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 07:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Islam, Islamic extremism and Middle East politics/policy do carry a lot of political baggage, at least in the US and most of Europe.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not gonna disagree. But if you read through his edits, they aren't "EVIL MUSLIMS FAIL TO EMBRACE JESUS" or the studd WND spews out, but just gently-referenced stuff about Islamic history. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the citation

In Drudge Report. First time I've seen that error and now I know what the problem is thanks to you. I learned something today! Scribe (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob! I've never seen it before either. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia

I think it's a VPN or proxy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah 188.226.45.188 and 176.99.7.146 are completely different ISPs in completely different parts of Russia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least the second IP is a VPN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page turned into a battleground

I'm getting tired of the way those two gators are being needlessly confrontational. And the fact that people take the bait and try to reason with them, with expected results. At this point they're there solely to throw insults at people and then watch the talk page increase in size (have you seen the stuff Chrimony puts into his edit summaries?). They're not here to edit the wiki or engage in constructive talk. Typhoon (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. What do you propose? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Slap them with a 1 to 3 hour block after every attack on other editors, or just simply vandal bin them both. Typhoon (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems unnecessarily harsh and censorshipish. If you don't wanna hafta listen to them, I'd just stay away from those talkpages. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm open open to listening to different opinions. The problem here is that they're now derailing threads and fishing for reactions. Punishing trolling behaviour is not "censorship", but I'm open to your sugestion on what to do to prevent the talk page from becoming such a clusterfuck of arguing that it ends up being featured on places outside of Rationalwiki Typhoon (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if they truly can be considered trolls, though. There are two possibilities for each: (1) zhe is a troll or (2) zhe believes that Gamergate is correct, and so attempts to convince other people of that truth, and does so snarkily. 2 is kinda what we do, except that we're always right (obviously). Since 2 is a possibility, and I don't wanna ban people seeking the truth, I don't wanna ban. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy is now admitting that he's here to denigrate people with personal insults instead of "seeking the truth". These people are intentionally targeting Ryulong to piss him off and there's even a thread on 8chan with links to his user page on RationalWiki. Typhoon (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGhazi is an anti-GG subreddit (the name comes from the Benghazi attacks manufactuversy), so that's not a cause for concern.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

On their sidebar they write that they reject the label "anti-GG" as something created by gators to imply that they are for corruption in journalism, when in fact they're just anti-harassment. Typhoon (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to repeatedly ban these users, then you should go to the RationalWiki:Chicken coop and seek community approval. I'm very lenient on blocks; I suggest that you find what the community thinks. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"I'm very lenient on blocks" - I'm glad to hear you say that.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(If this is in reference to your previous mention of my blocking attitude:) Except for spambots or page blankers.

(If this is just a general note:) Thanks! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the nomination - especially so as we don't always see eye to eye. However I did my bit there a few years ago and don't feel the need to return.:-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem! =) A good boardmember is good independent of my views.

That's too bad. I think you'd make a good boardmember, but it is entirely up to you. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from userpage

Hi. I'm sorry I am writing it here, but I just started editing Wikis today, and only because I saw what was a blatant biased article on Wikipedia - the article on Pope Joan. I have then made some completely unbiased editions there (really neutral, just so it would look less like Catholic propaganda) and all my edits keep getting reversed by the 3 only users who apparently mod that page, which have clear personal biases regarding the Church. I saw that you edited the Feminism page in Wiki and look like a very reasonable and experient Wiki user, which is what I think is needed in that page. Would you bother taking a look at that? Thank you very much and sorry if I posted this in the wrong place :D ^{— Unsigned, by: 189.8.107.196 / talk / contribs}

Sure. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news on global jihad

Here's another site you may want to look at; caveat, I do not have a registered account there, but if your ballsy enough let me know if you think it's worth pursuing. Thanks. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that content is not accessible to nonmenbers and that registration is basically an invite system; because of the aforementioned, I can't see the content and I can't tell. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This site monitors that site closely and generally brings out good information. Fate of the Japanese hostages would appear here. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 00:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jihadology.net may or may not be useful. Unfortunately, jihadology's videoes appear to be all in Arabic, a language I do not know, and translations appear to be for a fee. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, some maintanance hasn't been done in a while. On ansar1, the original of this article and others, I could actually access up to a few weeks ago. I haven't visited ansar1 in a few weeks, and only tonite I discovered they now require registration.

Also, this pdf was posted in jihadology 2 days ago, but I can't get it to translate in Google, Bing, or Yahoo. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 03:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dingdong

This guy is a troll who followed me from Wikipedia who is probably going to sockpuppet like no tomorrow. I've reblocked him for an appropriate period of time I think.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Like if you want to see how bad it is, you can go right ahead. Also maybe come up with a way to prevent this idiot from having as much free reign here as he did there would be nice. Don't need some cockface being petty for the sake of being petty.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Best of" categories from articles?

E.g. from anti-vaccination movement. Why?--ZooGuard (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is (1) defunct, in that it is almost never linked to; and (2) redundant, in that Category:Cover story articles, Category:Silver-level articles, and Category:Brone-level articles are all exist and are more informative, more widely used, more widely linked to, and come with their own gadget and templates. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy

You're going to have to take a break and explain what you're doing. People are emailing me and it's late and they and I have other stuff to do. Looking after an imposing weirdo isn't my job. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing articles from the "Best of" categories, for the reasons I gave to ZooGuard above.

And apologies for being an 'imposing weirdo'. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Two other things: I'm giving articles in the "best of" categories that aren't rated a rating and giving articles that are rated but whose talkpages don't have the rated template the rated template.

Ultimately, it's just merging the "best of" categories into the "bronze/silver/cover" categories, since the two systems are redundant and unnecessary. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that requires discussion. You're changing things that have been in place for years that are forward facing. I usually don't care about the things autistic people do at night, but ratings are something that go straight to mission that are essentially unregulated. I will have to go back and remove every rating you unilaterally imposed. No policy = we need one of you're going apeshit. Nutty Roux (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need to revert all of these changes? The "Best of" categories are almost unilaterally unused while the "Bronze/Silver/Cover" articles are. It's just removing something that's unnecessary, to prevent any confusion. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That said, I'll stop for now. But I'd ask that you not revert these edits until any discussion ends, simply because (if discussion goes for removing the category) then time would be wasted reverting the edits and re-reverting the edits. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since neither you nor ZooGuard has said anything against this idea, I will again continue until asked otherwise. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried but you ECd me and I was already frustrated by you and exhausted from work so I took a break. Restarting your campaign was a bad idea. "Unilaterally unused" probably should have been "universally unused", which is a bold and objectively false claim. Some of those categories have been there since the site was founded. I use them. I'm sure I'm not alone, but there's a reason you discuss these things first: find out for yourself and gain concensus. And I'm concerned you're breaking things like this.

Last night I pulled the last 3 days of edits off the API. Out of 1973 total including bots, 705 or ~36% were yours. Please do us the courtesy of explaining exactly what you were doing so we don't have to go through all of these edits to figure it out. You're talking about several things here, and frankly not making sense. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninja

Since you seem to be clogging up recent changes with category shenanigans, I've made you a ninja so you can make yourself a bot and stop clogging up recent changes. Noisemobile (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Little did I know that the best way to get ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ was to spam, endlessly. (Thanks!)

So, just to make sure:

When I am bot, my changes don't show up on recent changes;

When I am unbot, my changes do show up on recent changes;

That right? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Just be sure only to use it for minor changes like category nonsense. Noisemobile (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 06:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you wouldn't even give us a day to try figuring out what you're doing, I'm removing the ninja bit so you can't hide what you're doing. Maybe you'll slow down if you start clogging RC again. Heres hoping. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN

Ahem.

• Neither File:Icon creationism alt.svg nor File:Icon creationism.svg truly exists any more. Congratulations. When Main re-renders, you've broken it. That hasn't happened in years. (There were two versions in part because of color preferences for Main vs. the template. Even if eventually one is favored, it's not best done as a redirect.)
• A very long term editor complained that you've deleted the "redundant" "Best of Conservapedia" category, which has existed for seven years. I'm not aware that you got community consensus for this decision. If it is redundant, then why is NOTHING showing up for the dpl for Category:Conservapedia?

You're being terribly reckless. You don't even know that you're pissing people off. Sterile (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Conservapedia is alive and well again. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the icon, when I had checked both appeared to be working. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sterile. Chill. Rly. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

K. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

you need to pick a license on your image uploads. Sterile (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding licences. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DPL on Category:Living people

Nice one, that's fantastically useful! - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Late response: No problem. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Daesh info

Here's an Iranian site you might find interesting, too. nobs^{ISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed.} 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad

[1] See :

https://books.google.com/books?id=ckEzKBFqQPQC&pg=PA9&dq=120

https://books.google.com/books?id=qcfHxDSbdT0C&pg=PA75

https://books.google.com/books?id=0HQCBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR30

And Quran was written down many years after the death of Muhammad:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WPc9NF9AB-MC&pg=PT145&dq=quran

https://books.google.com/books?id=YM8RBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&dq=quran Contractor (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Argh, sorry, thought that the text you removed said what you're saying now. Go ahead and remove it. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"New" Blocking policy?

Dude, that page you linked to has policies that have pretty much been in effect since I started here in 2007. I see little, or anything "new" there -- what am I missing?Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The page changed, not the policies. Before. After. My point is that changing the page doesn't necessarily change the actual, enforced policies -- as you've stated -- much as changing the mission wouldn't necessarily change what content is created. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Poke

Does the potato refer to anything interesting? ;) ShabiDOO 08:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Late response: Only if you consider this interesting. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What about this potato? ShabiDOO 12:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just assumed your name referred to a moldy potato that's also a cat. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You Seem To Be A Level-Headed Fellow

...and so I'm going to ask you.
I can see Nutty's point on defamation. However, his technique can be characterized as asshole and unexplanatory at best, and his refusal to provide guidelines and insist we use "good judgement" are driving me bonkers. This is primarily because MY good judgment will either go swing to "Nutty is full of shit and I will revert like fuck." or "Nutty is completely right and to be safe we must BAHLEET BAHLEET BAHLEET." And it'll stay there. Because once I exercise my judgment, I stick with my decision, because I personally believe it's better to be actively wrong than than to waffle. (Why yes, I DO have a reputation as an absolutist. How'd ya guess?)
So, should I press for people (probably a group thereof) to come up with a guideline for what qualifies as defamation (which truth is a legal defense thereof), or should I exercise my good judgment, as Nutty so demands? Your advice is most welcome. --Castaigne (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on defamation: Go to RationalWiki:Saloon bar and create a topic about setting standards for defamation for the wiki. The community should determine what does and and what does not go on the wiki run by said community. Recently, we decided to create Category:Living people and RW:WHAT#RationalWiki_articles_on_living_people to reduce the threat and impact of libel lawsuits. We may wish to further establish guidelines for what constitutes defamation, and what does not. My opinion is that, if it's accurately referenced, then we're good; if not, then we're not.

My opinion on Nutty: Nutty isn't RationalWiki's legal policy god. But Nutty is a lawyer, and has more experience with law than most other editors. Defer to Nutty if community consensus is unavailable. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on his continued conduct, no, I don't believe I'll defer to him at all. He doesn't provide any reasons that are not vague. He refuses to explain himself. When asked for conduct guidelines, he does not provide them. I have decided he's just on a tear because his bro got threatened and he wants RW to be back like it was when all his pallys were around. So, next time he starts up the defamation bullshit, I'll claim all legal responsibility and publicly post my name, address of service, and phone number and invite him to forward them legal threats on. Since it will be done publicly, there can be no denial of my claim of legal responsibility.

I come from a long line of arguers and I've known my father to keep at least two cases going for 25 years now. Unlike others, I am not afraid of the so-called cost of litigation and I do not fear the court system. Also, I'll stick with a case simply because I have a grudge. Want to take me to court? OK, broheim, no hey problemo. Come at me. Throw a suit at me, I'll throw a counter-suit back and I'll keep at it till you are bankrupt from the legal fees. Won't harm me none.

Why, yes, my wife DOES say that "stubborn" is too mild an appellation for me. And yes, I do hold grudges. --Castaigne (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, then best of luck. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

May I offer you some advice?

I'm going to do so anyways, regardless of your answer. You may very well be entirely well-meaning and trying to do what you think is best for RW, and if that's the case, then that's at least a good start. However, some of the things you do have a tendency to rub people the wrong way, whether or not you realize that. Given Nutty's previous disagreements with you, it's probably safe to assume he's one of those people, and in that context, it doesn't seem all that surprising that your edit to his talk page led to an edit war. Sometimes, even if you feel like what you're doing is for the best, the best option may just be to relax and let things slide. I do that a lot around here, and by and large it stops me from getting into many, many fights with other editors. If I really spoke my mind... Heh. - Grant (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

Yeah, I should probably have learned to leave Nutty alone by now.

And yeah, I've noticed that people get upset at stuff I do pretty often. Unfortunately, few ever say what I've done that they dislike, which makes it impossible for me to change. Thank you for saying what you think to my face. (If there's anything else I do that ticks you off, please do say.)

I'll try to be less nosy and back off, in imitation of the Great GrantC. Thanks. =) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to interject that it can be hard to deal with Nutty when he simultaneously wants things to be his way, and doesn't want to discuss them. Even when his motivations are totally reasonable, it can be hard to accept them when you have no idea what they are. You can't just ignore that either. Ikanreed (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, @FuzzyCatPotato, I think oftentimes people (myself included) tend to assume that when someone is doing something annoying, it's due to purposeful malice. Often actually telling someone "hey, maybe don't do this" is the last thing to cross people's minds. In the case of RW, three things that really seem to rub most people the wrong way are rules lawyering, excessive/unnecessary bureaucracy, and circumventing community consensus (aside from things like legal matters where community consensus doesn't mean anything). In general, a good question to ask yourself before posting is: "is this going to piss anyone off, and if yes, is it worth it?" I've been halfway through writing quite a few comments on this wiki before changing my mind and just hitting that cancel button. :P

Secondly, @Ikanreed, I think that if you're interpreting what Nutty is saying that way, you're not looking at what he's saying deeply enough. Very few of his interactions have anything to do with having things go "his way," unless by "his way" you mean "the way that's in the best interest of protecting the RMF." As to the latest round of these issues coming up, avoiding potential defamation isn't really hard: don't call people names. Yeah I know that's too broad and general to be correct, but you get the gist of it I'm sure. Anyways, I would rather not pursue this further on FCP's talk page. I came here to offer him some advice because he's had run-ins with several editors (not just Nutty), not to discuss Nutty with you. - Grant (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Read

We're not WP, but read this anyway. Sterile (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I read it. What conclusion(s) do you want me to draw? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's Saturday, a traditional day of leisure. I implore you not to make today like others. Go take a break and do something fun or productive. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But isn't arguing with random wiki editors over insignificant articles "fun"? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. That's not fun to me and I haven't had fun here in years so I can't relate. I gather it is fun to you. Go do something else for a while. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please please please take a break. I'm getting concerned about you. This is not normal (your behavior, not my concern; I'm gruff but I'm no ogre). Nutty Roux (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already planned to. Thanks. (I think.) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank me or not, when editors who have seen people melt down like this are emailing around hoping you're not, something is usually not right. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Look, here's my take: you seem like a decent kid, and certainly a smart guy, you're obvioulsy really into the wiki and its culture, and I really believe you have the best interests of the operation at heart. So far, so good. But, speaking as someone who thinks you're okay but sees how you've pissed off some other folks and gets why that is, please read this and take it seriously: The libel/defamation thing? I see why you think it's important, but I also see why people involved with the board, some of whom went to an actual law school that gives out actual law degrees, do not want the input of amateurs. PLEASE, leave it alone, and move on. There's lots of stuff on the wiki that you're interested in and where you can make contributions that don't piss off people. Nutty's a good wiki-pal of mine, and I can tell you EXACTLY how seriously he means it when he says he will ban you over this. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I don't understand: Nothing has actually happened. No policy has been changed. Only discussion. Why are people getting pissed to banworthy levels about discussing a policy? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 19:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because around here, that's how they roll. Landmartian (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Because you're ignoring objections & trying to move forward with something which several editors, including RMF officers, have expressed serious misgivings about. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Like your objection that we're seeking an in-house definition of libel, which you convinced me was a bad idea, and to which I responded by saying that instead of a definition for libel I'd like RW to have clear policy about libel? Because as far as I can tell, bringing up such objections and talking about them is the point of such a discussion. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it a great mystery why you think you are entitled to devise a legal policy for a corporation you have nothing to do with. There is nothing for you to discuss. This is one instance in which your incessant need to impose yourself will just have to take a back seat to better judgment. It's a matter for someone else, possibly with legal counsel. What is difficult about this? Why are you such an outrsgroudly presumptuous child that you cannot seem to fathom that you are not part of any relevant "we" here? Legal issues are the only thing that can get people into real trouble here. Just stop it already. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Nutty. Since it's a matter for people with better judgement, like you, then please write up clear, preferably centralized policy on potentially defamatory statements and dealing with legal threats on RationalWiki. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with your brain? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Dr. Roux, I'm a retarded hyper-literal presumptuous autistic aspie. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I didn't want to see happen. "Let it go" does not mean "poke it futher with a stick and reiterate the same demands which had previously cause rancour." Let it go, kid. Let it go. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Return of the Son of May I Offer You Some Advice.

The article you want to write is a dead issue. Put it away, archive that Coop discussion, and move on. Maybe think about moving on to topics that don't involve living people for a while, since that seems to be a bit of a lightning rod for you. Forget about RW rules and guidelines for a while; they've mostly served the community well since 2007, at least until people look for ways to push up against them. Think about heading doen to the comic shop and picking up a cool graphic novel or something. I'm really enjoying this right now. Or maybe a "real" book. Or maybe see good movie? This film about gay activists during the UK miners' strike looks promising--let me know if I should go see it. Or call up a friend and go for a walk in this nice warm/snowy/chilly/rainy day you're having wherever you are. Really, anything other than another day spent wikilawyering is probably a good idea. Think about it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Measles

work in progress. have to keep breaking to stamp out disease. -- -PalMD ^{--It hurts when I do "this"} 19:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

K, sorry. Might be worth putting up a WIP template. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

When setting up a talkpage for automatic archiving (e.g. RationalWiki talk:Blogroll), skim the page and see if there are sections without valid timestamps in the signatures. The bot relies on timestamps to determine what to archive, and if there's no timestamp in a section, the bot skips it.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for telling me. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (gossip/stalk) 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Racialism archive + block

The racialism talk page should be blocked again for confirmed editors to stop Mikemikev trolling there like he is doing now. Put many months or 1+ year on it. I agree the main page could be improved more, but I've done enough now, and am not spending any more time on this topic. Mikemikev has Asperger syndrome and his fixation is race. He's on 40+ wikis and forums each day "debating" it. You have to lock the pages to get rid of him. This is what Wikipedia did. I think most the comment sections on the racialism talk after locked can then be archived. Dust77 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that's a good idea, I can't because I'm presently not a sysop, because I was naughty. Ask User:AgingHippie or User:David Gerard or anyone on this list that's active to do it. Good luck! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Porting templates from Wikipedia

If you are going to port templates from Wikipedia, please, please, please have the decency to write some documentation about how and when they should be used and put them in the appropriate template category so that other people will be able to find them and use them. Also, if a template depends on another in a non-obvious way, add a link to it in the documentation, so that it will be visible to the "Pages that link to" page.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mk, sorry. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Equally importantly, Wikipedia asks that if you fork a page(and I don't see why templates wouldn't count), you link the history url as attribution to meet creative commons requirements. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, for the 4 templates I ported. If either of these is really an issue, there's a hella templates that don't meet either requirement. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over edit statistics

it's a tedious job to prepare, but it's nice to be able to check on from time to time. Ikanreed (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob, I think exactly the same. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Libel

I know you're trying to drop this issue, but I wanted to say that you raise a good question, "If the threat is in the person, I again ask: 'If any threat of libel is enough to prevent an article from existing, what should be done with stuff like NaturalNews [whose author has raised legal threats against detractors] or similar articles?'"

There are a lot of ideologies whose supporters seek to suppress their critics through the threat of lawsuits. Scientology comes to mind. It's assumed that to defend against these lawsuits would be expensive. I wonder if that's so? Could the RWF file a pro se response that would be favorably received by the courts? It's a well-established legal principle that pro se filings are supposed to be liberally construed.

Also, there might be some value in standing and fighting, rather than surrendering to those who would seek to intimidate the RWF through legal threats. Defending free speech is arguably within the RWF's mission (since the RWF opposes authoritarianism), and unfounded libel suits threaten free speech. Maybe there would be donations to the RWF for a legal defense fund, if it were needed, or the publicity surrounding an unfounded libel suit would attract donations. Landmartian (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is relevant. I am not commenting further, in fear of Nutty. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you can comment further without getting kicked off, but they might take issue with bringing back the actual content they considered libelous. Landmartian (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, Nutty was pretty explicit that talking about libel is off-limits. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Coopage of AH

I think you'll find 6 of us have proposed AH be punished with hookers and blow, not 5. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 02:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading numbers displayed directly above what I'm writing was never my strong suit. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

He removed the talk page comment for a reason

And that is that holocaust denial JAQqing off is almost certainly trolling out-of-the-gate. There's very few people who have sincere questions about our lack of references for the surplus of physical evidence of the holocaust, but plenty who want to raise doubts because holocaust denial is what they do. I understand wanting to address the post, and take it seriously(feel free to do so) but it's not really that much of a question why it was yanked. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably trolling. But it wasn't vile, and there was a (slim) possibility BON was just asking for us to add citations, rather than JAQing off. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why I deleted the BoN's edit at Talk:Holocaust denial

Hi FCP, I usually don't give much of a hoot about the inane stuff people posts at talk pages (bar deleting outright linkspam).
However, this BoN has already been blocked for a day by AgingHippie for inserting "citation needed" tags in the same "Physical evidence" section that this same BoN has posted the following question about on the talk page "This section is uncited. What specifically is the physical evidence?"
Considering what's already in the section (incl. the (in)famous picture of the heaps of shoes), I really don't see how this question can be asked in good faith. Combined with the earlier ref-tagging, I concluded that this was effectively Holocaust denial inserted on first the RW Holocaust denial page(!) and subsequently, when this was thwarted, the same crap was posted on the talk page. I have very limited patience for Holocaust denial - especially when masquerading as innocuous wiki-housekeeping (by tagging and talk page posting) - which is why I removed it. Oh, and the same BoN has also trolled the Saloon Bar and contributed zero worthwhile material. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There're some indications that the IP is Mikemikev. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my suspicion too, and I thought I'd seen it in a response to some other of the BoN's activity somewhere, but since I couldn't readily find it, I didn't mention it. Then again, keeping track of Mikemikev's gazillion BoNsocks is pretty hopeless. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I restored this particular comment because it didn't appear to cause any harm, aside from taking up space. It might be in bad faith, but it has no bad effects. That said, I really don't care about the comment, feel free to do as you wish. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The physical evidence for the holocaust is a pile of shoes in the Soviet zone? 58.141.99.113 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How can "holocaust denial" be an a priori justification? Are you guilty of creation denial? 58.141.99.113 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a point to these questions? because there are literally museums full of physical evidence. Do you want a full index of them? ^{— Unsigned, by: SuperDude / talk / contribs}

Step ahead of ya. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This kind of sophistry used by 58.141.99.113 in promotion of Holocaust denial is exactly why I thought it prudent to remove this (now quite likely insincere) question. I don't have any more patience for Holocaust denial trolling than I do for Mikemikev's incessant race trolling. Speaking of which: Is that (58.141.99.113) you Mikemikev? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So I ask for physical evidence of the Holocaust and your response is empty name calling (sophistry, denial, trolling, insincere) and an immediate ban. What does that tell you? Rationalwiki! Remember to only deny what they pre-decided is false. Forget evidence. 1.233.112.168 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW lol @ a pile of shoes as being evidence for anything other than a pile of shoes. 1.233.112.168 (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see on the article talk page that you're actually able to find (extra) evidence for yourself, which makes me wonder why you simply didn't add whatever extra citations you felt were proper rather than just asking what the evidence was. It's a wiki you know: user added content, collaborative effort and all that jazz. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote mining

Sorry, accidental rollback.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll live. Probably. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Fundie schools category

I'd simply forgotten to actually create the category template (doh!), so thanks for fixing that silly bit of forgetfulness. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Np. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GG rewrite looking pretty good

As long as it doesn't grow too much more before you're done, I feel like you're going to get a lot of support for replacing the standing article. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It might grow a lot. I plan to add a 9-11 conspiracy theories style point-counterpoint, which will probably take a ton of space. Alternately, we could make the GG page a brief history and have a separate "Rebuttals to GG" page. Thougths? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I 'unno. I just don't want an overdetailed mess. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ton of redirects to rosemary

??? We don't need a ton of redirects for a herb's name in every language. Get rid of that mess you've made. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosemary has a bunch of names. Altie people like using weird ones. Where's the harm? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A 1 hour block, a desysop, and all redirects deleted. That's definitely how disputes are resolved. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope so. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Red clover and Trifolium pratense were nixed, though they were necessary and unrelated. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosmarinus officinalis also probably qualifies as necessary. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think the redirects are a good idea, under the rubric of "no harm no foul" and if it helps someone get to the right article by making the term they use searchable on the wiki, we're doing our job. And the Weasel is a reasonable man, and I could probabaly have a civilized exchange with him, since we go way back. But Fuzzy, you just seem to end up in the middle of the shit all the time, so look at all the fucks I don't give right now. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

O wizened one, what should I have done? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Vagina stuff

I can't say I'm a fan of the vaginal steaming article, but, wow, I recognize a lot of serious effort when I see it. Nicely done! MarmotHead (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! What would change to make you a fan? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It would go away as a thing. The reality of such a practice just hurts my brain. MarmotHead (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's dumb question

So obviously {{reflist}} allows some options that you can't get (at least not easily) with a <references/> tag, but if an article doesn't use those, what's the benefit? PacWalker 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

11 characters versus 13 FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh. All right. Thank you. PacWalker 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hindutva and Hindu nationalism

Actually Hindutva was a term coined by Savarkar to denote an ethinic identity. Hindu nationalism is the political manifestation of Hindutva. I think if both terms are mentioned in the title, it will give a proper picture. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I know. Take Dominionism as an example -- we could call it "Dominionism and Christian theocracy". But we don't. Why? The article quickly explains that Dominionism is Christian theocracy. Having a long name doesn't help explain the article content, and makes it harder to link to. Instead, I suggest just putting more on Hindu nationalism in the top section. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a second thought. I searched for "Hindutva" in google and found the RationalWiki article appears within the top 20. But if one searches for "Hindu nationalism", I think they will not find the RationalWiki article in google search. --ThisIsYeah (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good arg for Hindutva, then. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No seriously though

if it hasn't even been a day yet, don't rush procedure. It looks sketchy. --Miekal 04:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

gotta go fast!!1! ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Question.

Did you edit the wiki maybe 3 or 4 years ago as a kinda snot-nosed teenager who liked cats? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm still a snot-nosed teenager who likes cats, but I think I started editting RW as FCP when I first saw it. Why do you ask? ^_^ FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 17:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You remind me of a kid who used to come by. Really smart, had great intentions, but super annoying. You are really smart, have great intentions, are sometimes annoying, but often contribute in a positive way. I thought you might be him, more grown-up and a bit wiser. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for your help on that AFD nonsense. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Me, smart? That guy probably wasn't me, just another internet n00b. Unless teenagering has bludgeoned the memory from my brain.

No problem, it's harder than it should be. ^_^ 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what happens when you draw my attention to the list of templates. I start playing with old ones.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't bin Ips?

??????

??????????

What? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RW:B#Vandalbinning. It was in the 3 policies I merged; it's still there. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there some way to prevent IPs from being used to make the same ancient accusations against living people again and again then—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure blocking IPs isn't as frowned upon as banning registered users. Just don't ban them for too long, ya know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

People get angry at me for both. Like binning the latest GG conspiracy theorist to show up and post at least somewhat newer conspiracies that have only been debunked once rather than the ancient fifty times debunked ones would be less damaging.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't bin IPs. Block IPs. People are already mad. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No one likes anything I do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguments regarding the existence of races

It's licensed under the GFDL and further I wrote it. But as we all know you just want a lame excuse for PC censorship. Rationalwiki!. 210.123.124.25 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But-but I thought this was RATIONALwiki! Drink! CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1: From Wikipedia:

"All previous authors of the work must be attributed."

You didn't.

2: You wrote it? Prove it.

3: PC censorship, lol. Totes mcgoats, bro. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

I appreciate the clean ups on the article, it's getting far less offensive. Still some work to go, and I think once the facts are straightened out you will see it's not really a relevant article for RW, none the less this has been an improvement and I will note this on my blog too. many thanks for keeping a cool head! 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is. PacWalker 14:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The stuff I removed was unnecessary. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That guy takes pettifoggery to new heights and seems to have unlimited time and energy to devote to it. One only has to check the records to discover that his "I was a victim" revisionism doesn't quite sync with reality. Leuders (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mikemikev

They are one of the few people we've decided it's ok to infiniblock, so don't go on a "don't block for ideology" crusade. They pushed their welcome and have been shown the door. --Miekal 01:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And why is it OK to block somebody, just for what they say? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what they say, they wouldn't stop fighting us, so we blocked them. The community is ok with infiniblocking him, go pick another person to defend.. --Miekal 01:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How is "they wouldn't stop fighting us, so we blocked them" a good reason? It's CPesque. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the community decided it's ok, if you wanna overturn it go ask to do so but don't pick a fucking concern troll nobody wants here to defend. --Miekal 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But do consider, that in a year and a half since hwe was put on his extended block, nobody but you has wanted to defend him from blocking. Think about why - the website doesn't want him here. Pick another fight. --Miekal 01:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because somebody is idiotic and annoying is not sufficient to block them, even if the community thinks so. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine and great, but nobody cares. Nobody but you has a problem with the infiniblock, so i dont see how you expect to overturn it "just cause we don't do that!". Pick. Another. Fight. It'll serve you better. --Miekal 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a line about how the most hated person is the one who needs defense from injustice the most? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

FCP, yes it is CPesque, that's because most of the editors here are happy to emulate CP, basking in the comfortable thought that they know they are right. After all it's not like people at CP think the same thing right? It's not like we aim to differentiate ourselves by the way that we approach discourse. Unlike CP we differentiate ourselves by being a priori right - and then not allowing anyone to challenge those views.

Having said that, Mike was banned by a mob decision as stupid as that was, so he is banned. Having said that this doesn't give un-contemplative morons, happy in their ignorance, the right to ban every IP that happens to echo some well worn race realist tropes. My god, we used to lambast CP over the very behaviour that our editors now so smugly emulate - it's disgusting. Tielec01 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the often lack of serious discussion between RWers and random debunkers from the outside is disquieting. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Debating and edit warring are not the same thing. --Miekal 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Then bin Mikemikev, not ban him. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As Miekal has pointed out, it would require a community consensus to overturn the block before this could happen. Once the community makes a decision it's incumbent on us to abide by it, no matter how distasteful. There are alot of reasons for this, but in my mind one of the most important is that we often have editors who live on here for 12-16 hours a day and they could have an inordinate amount of influence in unblocking/blocking people against community consensus.

Also, again as Miekal says, I don't see you winning any friends or achieving anything by trying to get him unblocked (which is not to say I wouldn't admire you for trying).Tielec01 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, because the community loves me right now.

And given I've already posted at the Coop, I'd like to see this done. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So what did I do to piss that BON off?

? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 11:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who knows. There was a slew of BoN vandalisings that (and this is really odd) also targeted LogicMaster's endless blogroll user page. It seemed pretty random, perhaps someone was just bored? ScepticWombat (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems likely. Strange. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

He may have chosen you b/c of the antivax death thing. PacWalker 13:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

reverted page changes

I assume you did not prefer the changed page , so I reverted it. I see you have stomped on the BON. Hamster (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

fucking low quality vandalism

kids these days FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

SJW

Was that your idea? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The SJWiki page? Yeah. The wiki? No. The acronym? No. Why? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The wiki. Like the part about how you have to register for an account -- and possibly submit your CV -- before being able to see its recent changes. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my idea, that policy is designed to make a wiki fail. This is what it looks like. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need to submit a CV to get your account approved? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{In a few minutes, bitch} 04:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, though they're prolly pretty accepting of people. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just saying that it worked so well last time someone tried that. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 04:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeez fuzzy..

are you trying to break User:Human's edit record? almost all of the last 50 edits are by you. if you are keep going! somone will break that record one day! Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a little scary, isn't it? Crispy (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Recategorizing articles looks really impressive editcountwise, but it takes like 5 seconds. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not just recategorizing articles (see, e.g. Alex Jones). Are you all right?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Better now. I was sick most of this week, and bored. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi

No, this is the same shit posted earlier in the week that was just a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on me. I thought it was covered since fucking Sunday but now they decide to repost it after saying their dox-based conspiracies are bullshit? That's fucked up man.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

His page, his content. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's my content that they're warping into their own. The page already goes on and on about conspiracies and doxxed information. They've already warped what I said into whatever fucking "defenses" they claim needs to be done for Gamergate but pulling that shit out of context was the last straw on Sunday and it's no less being a last straw 4 days later.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would ignore what Naqoyqatsi is doing, but that's just me. 63.153.218.127 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Hmmmmmm
Where have I seen this before?
As I've said before: You copy-cat potato! (...although it could be argued that I was improving on your formula, making me the copy-cat.) Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 20:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" -- Me

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Buddyroid

Stop restoring the user page. It was created during a damn vandalism spree and the only reason anyone registered the account was to harass me. There's no reason to let such an obvious attempt at trolling stand. I mean really. It's not even like I rev deleted the page I straight up "vaporized" it. What the fuck man?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

template:sbs

Oh man, how did nobody else think of this for eight years. Nice one - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could it be better? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yo

Check your email.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is done. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also I can't wait for this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How is linking to something which cites someone's real name bad but using Eron's real name to make claims that he's trying to drive Zoe to suicide not? I'd like to see the justification for this in plain terms, at least.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Because that real name is not public knowledge dumbass. Eron Gjoni has never not used "Eron Gjoni" in the public sphere. Zoe Quinn has exclusively used "Zoe Quinn" and not the name posted on Cernovich's blog. FCP, please revdel it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think naming someone who at this point almost amounts to a public figure amounts to doxxing. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 02:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a link to JuiceBro's blog. He hired a PI to stalk her. Anything on his site is tantamount to doxxing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No. She's a public figure. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Her legal name is not public knowledge.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This shit gets nuked from Wikipedia on a weekly basis (when the page isn't protected). Why are we any different?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I second Ryulong. If it isn't public information (meaning she hasn't stated it herself publicly), it's a dox and we shouldn't allow it.

Can't we respect the privacy of someone who is only a "public figure" because her privacy was repeatedly and viciously violated? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Her name isn't some magic doorway to harassment -- that's stuff like her address, phone, email, etc., which were all hacked/attacked/used independently. A loss of privacy (especially someone under media scrutiny) isn't necessarily unethical, unless it leads to some greater harm. If you disagree, you've got revdel powers, too. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Knowing someone's full legal name can be a big help in acquiring some of the information you listed, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Given she's been doxxed even without revelation of her name, I think the difference at this point is minimal. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I feel very strongly that we should err on the side of caution in this, especially since, as I mentioned above, this is someone who has suffered unparalleled harassment through doxing. I hid the revisions myself; thank you for reminding me that I had the ability to do so. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

HEY DAVID

Remember that part qhere this talk page post qasn't a BLP, just for starters? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he was being unreasonable, to be honest. 9 hours is awfully long, but a zero tolerance policy for people purposefully doing unethical or illegal things with rationalwiki is pretty fair. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Zero-tolerance"? Like with the kid, who got suspended for a few days, cause some braindead teacher and principal mistook insulin for heroin?--Arisboch (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only did Naqoyqatsi not intend to doxx, but it is questionable whether it ix doxxing at all. Banning me was just the unnecessary icing on the cake. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

the fuck is that spelling?--Miekal 13:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

blame my phone keyboard FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand desysopping -- DG didn't want me to unblock Naq. But blocking me, I don't understand. What could I possibly have done as an autopatrolled? Is allowing me to comment on the Coop too spooky? FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... yeah. You're probably right. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Cronyism

I noticed that you had nominated me (among many) for mod! That was nice of you! I still remember the very day you first welcomed me to the site... *tears up* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Rememberererer to toss me an endorsement if you feel that my campaign platform is worth anything. Which you quite possibly don't. If nothing else; thanks for trust & camaraderie & stuff. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Shadowban-Glitch

It's back. Same thing as last time. Now you know for sure that my mail address was stored. Aneris23 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mailing of the electrinomicalized variety.

I just confirmed my Email address for you. feel free to contact over that thing you wanted to do, or maybe shoot me up elsewhere in private, like Reddit.Keter (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Coop Troll

Troll in the coop dungeon. Removed trolling nonsense twice. Only edit the BoN has made. Might want to intervene if he reinstates a third time. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Why I dislike useless redirects

[2]. I don't see how these sort of redirects (where the only difference is a colon or quote) add anything. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh, only did it in case someone posted the article title into the search bar. No biggie. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Search should pick that up, right? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is literally no good reason to delete them. If a regular editor created a redirect, it's because they thought it was useful - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Given how few people it would help, it's insignificant. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Brainstar icons showing RW importance on article page

I notice Ray Comfort's brainstar has "HIGH" next to it, its importance rating. That's an internal working tool - I suspect we shouldn't be listing our internal nuts'n'bolts on the article page rather than the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:Rated#Proposal FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking to that article

Shouldn't people know that the gators you invited to come help edit here will dox people for disagreeing with them, harass their neighbors and employers and what not, but will stop if you quit editing? Don't Dox Me Bro (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

will stop if you quit editing

Extremely doubtful. I would do so if it were the case. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

not you personally, you are their bro. Whoever they target can get them to stop by just hanging up the spurs. That's their goal! Do you think you owe Goonie an apology? Don't Dox Me Bro (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

you are their bro

Ew. GG is disgusting & wrong.

Do you think you owe Goonie an apology?

Given privately. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Saloon Bar

Mind unlocking the Saloon Bar and reverting Mona's edits there, as it's against site rules? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

FCP, I've emailed you.---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Aisha

So why do you choose this name since it is apparently the name of Muhammad's wife and this possible issue was brought up in the bar which is why the name was changed. I don't plan on arguing about the controversy of this user's username all that much. Also what don't we leave a redirect to their original chosen username; is it a policy or just an issue with this user's username translation?--Owlman (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not specific to Muahmmad's wife. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah SmartFeller pointed that out to me so nevermind.--Owlman (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jargon and language templates

I had created the jargon template to move articles about jargon, buzzwords, and political slogans, and keep the language template for articles that are actually about language or linguistics. Was there a reason for undoing this, or a discussion somewhere that I missed? - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't much of a discussion, but it was at RW:DUP. It seemed like the languagenav was being used on jargon-related pages, and in general RW only discusses language as it relates to the misuse of language (which is very similar to the idea of jargon), so it seemed like having two separate templates was unnecessary. The current {{langnav}} does have a 6-link (of 12) section for jargon, if that helps. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's just the thing. I thought it was best to separate a small but growing number of articles about language and pseudolinguistics (alphabet, protochronism, linguistic discrimination, Sanskrit, Esperanto, English spelling reform, phonics versus whole language) from the political slogans and buzzwords. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm. It's possible that the articles under the jargonnav would have done better under {{logicnav}}, which includes "rhetoric". Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Avenger

A cursory look at Gooniepunk's talkpage shows that his decision on Avenger's being in the vandal binned was not, in fact, Gooniepunk's final say on the matter; that he was awaiting an appeal by User:Sorte Slyngel to sort it out. Old guard (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He was, and he was very fair. For personal reasons that case must await a bit, but eternal damnation is a bit worse. Besides commitments on my side of the ocean (and that geography applies to almost everyone :-), I will wait for the results of the moderator elections to be announced. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WTF?

Why are you rolling back and deleting edits of mine at the saloon bar? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, forget I said anything. It's all a big joke so never mind. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mod elections

as requested it’s nov 9 ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.132.231.93 / talk / contribs}

Discord

Please DM me ASAP about the RW Discord server. Cheers {{SUBST:User:Mkbw50/sig}} (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

YouTube mention

Our article on Biblical prophecies was cited last June 15th here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't Mean to Impose

But would you mind weighing in here? It would be nice to have your experience there to guide the discussion a bit. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Discord again

You're wanted on the Discord server, aka banning or demodding Mk. We're also holding elections. While you're at it I also got demodded but the reasons were unfair and the demodding was an overreaction to an April Fool's shenanigans. I'd like to be reinstated as cop at least until the election results are in, since the decopping was hardly fair and reasonable. The overall opinion of the server is to ban Mk. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Election

Please see User:D/RationalWiki_Discord_staff_election_2019_results. We need you for the appointment of the new mods. — Dysk (contribs) 18:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

WAKE UP

GO TO WORK, DO NOT BE FAT WESTERN FAILURE!! — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

what? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The deed is done

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

— Dysk (contribs) 17:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Board election

Since you are one of the people that accepted their nomination to the 2019 RationalMedia board of trustees election, you should go to the campaigning page and post your best propaganda post-haste. Good luck! — Dysk (contribs) 12:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What

have sealions ever done to you? I have been incessantly polite here, and you have been nothing but RUDE. What gives? — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Per the results, you have won a seat on the RMF board. Have fun. — Dysk (contribs) 09:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver woo αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Meeting on Sunday 6 October, right?

I feel bad that you were all getting ready for a meeting without me. The meeting will be happening on Sunday 6 October, right? Spud (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spud yup! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fancy a rematch?

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

--RWRW (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)