User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

My response

Thank you. My reply to your last question is on my talk page. You could do me a favor and tell me what is wrong with that. In any case, if you take a look at this, your very own talkpage Mona still — whatever, I'm not quite sure which adjective to use.. As I understood it, Mona was also asked to be reasonable. And last, Pb blocked me for seven days for a triviality. I could have unblocked myself, but by the way I discovered the ban, someone else had lifted it. About the whole mess: I only wish that Mona be held to the same kind I have followed. After all she removes evidence and/or claims not to remember. I thought lawyers should be able to take care of any suspicious reasoning. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Another technical question — actually more of the same

I seem to recall a help page about formatting in general, but browsing the Special Pages and Help Pages has so far turned up nothing. For instance I did find instructions about formatting mathematics once, although I've forgotten where. Could you give me a link to general formatting help? I'd be grateful — and perhaps more to the point, I'll not cause any heated arguments, at least for three weeks, and of course unless people don't like my talk page, but then they can stay away and everything seems to be quiet there now anyway. As for the three weeks, I have no particular plans to give Chomsky his due the very minute they are over. We'll just have to see. Chomsky will be there, and his article is actually not doing him any favors. Some people can spot attempts at whitewashing and glorifying. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Or here. Pippa (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Damned edit conflicts. But as I was saying to Fuzzy in the text lost, I did promise him to be on the best of my behavior at least during the three weeks promised, i.e. no intentional sarcasms. That could be difficult, since sarcasm, irony and cynicism is a way of life. And I also had written a thank you to Fuzzy for not doubting the word I gave. I don't know how much that varies between cultures, probably not much, but a word given carries weight and is taken absolutely seriously over here. The same goes for America as far as I know or wherever you both happen to be. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion greatly needed

Your professional judgement as a moderator is needed here. If you are unaware of the background of this case, please read the whole thing first. Thank you for your time. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Pizzameister for 3.6 days for literally creating the account for the purpose of shitstirring. I figure that's enough time for shit to calm down. Reverse if you strongly disagree - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Goddam it

Could you at least get Castaigne off my ass and make him stop collapsing my coop commentary and calling me paranoid in the collapse box?---Mona- (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that you are adverse to facts. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne, put on a dunce cap and sit in the corner. Also, stop collapsing. Mona, stop worrying. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapses removed as per mod order. --Castaigne2 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Coop

Will you take care of that goddamn raving madwoman and move her vote to the appropriate policy space for consideration? Thanks in fucking advance. Also, see what you can do about her unilaterally deleting comments she doesn't like, if you don't mind. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused

I gave you a promise and by extension that goes for RW-members as a whole. No Chomsky until at least three weeks had passed from the promise given, and I probably won't bother for a while after that. I have not done much of anything since then, come to that. What I am not in the clear about, is whether the crowd is still clamoring for me to hanged, drawn and quartered in the coop or, if they are, and I am keeping my word, why are they. I am quite certain that at least some of the participants are aware of said promise. The page is so bloated that I honestly don't know how things stand. If I'm to be punished, then that is of course that. But I'd like to ask you what the situation is. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

People keep shitting on each other, with no clear resolution, that's what's happening. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So it seems. Just a personal answer: Do you personally think that my promise is valid and to be trusted? There is a lot going on, but nobody seems to realize, that I've been absent except for voting. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't violated anything yet. Can't ask for more. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. Personally you should be able to trust that, and I will keep the promise, but you are right not to trust anything explicitly. And I can't ask for more, absolutely true. In any case, you seem to be a fair guy — or if you prefer, feline. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Fuzz

Could you please modify it so that it respects the "sticky tag" (the modification is briefly described here)? MummificationBot already does.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately MummificationBot was a Carpetsmoker bot; he's gone, and the link to his bots is dead.

Got the sticky bit down, I think. (It worked on this page).

I'm not sure how to set archivebot-archiveheader. (Would it also work to just have Template:Talk archive redirect to Template:Talkpage?)

And do you have any idea why it only considered the first two spam threads on User talk:The Fuzz to be old enough for:

pwb.py archivebot.py Talkpage/Pibot -v -log "-page:User talk:The Fuzz"

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't make the connection with Carpetsmoker. Sorry.

Isn't it because of the required minimum number of threads to leave on the page? As for "archivebot-archiveheader", I think it was somewhere in the localization files. I need to dig up my old configuration, if I haven't deleted it.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A Question

I was planning on doing a comprehensive article on the Video Game Franchise of Fallout. I was wondering if I had to do it in the funspace or not because the game has alot of scientific shit in it. Stuff like laser/plasma weapons, power armor, a virus that mutates people into mutants, robots, genetically altered monsters, stuff like that. Sierra Nav (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm. How would you fit Fallout into RW:MISSION? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that response was quick. Well, it probably can't, unless melting mutants with plasma counts as analyzing pseudoscience. I guess it goes into the fun space, then? Sierra Nav (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, this article can be good because unlike the Technocracy article, I have waaaaay more stuff to work with and I can produce a really good one. Hell, it may even convince someone to pick one of them up Sierra Nav (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. You've got precedent in Fun:Star Wars. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. This may take a while, but Im sure I can do this excellently! Sierra Nav (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

i dunno

UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUU

Who, me? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not seeking popularity but an opinion would be welcome

Could you have a look at Icelandic Literature and Language? I won't be writing anything but that. But could you tell me whether this beginning is enough to prove good faith. In any case I'd like to avoid battles. But as said, will this rather extensive subject me considered enough? Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's obscure, but give me time — just to indulge in my real interests. And, since you are the sole reader so far, welcome to the very dusty corners of an obscure literature. :-) As I have quite a bit of free time, I'll just as the entries occur to me. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving Roosh V

Why did you just pull the trigger on that despite there being next to no discussion and only person in favour? ^{— Unsigned, by: Queex / talk / contribs}

3 people in favor, 0 against (as I count); also, more widely known name is generally better. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I'd misread CamelCasePragmatist's comment. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant it more like "meh, either name gets you there, so what's the big whoop?" No matter. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Test

pogo game technical support bullguard 173.64.116.177 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

IGNORE:

findthisall.com Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Please read our article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You'll find that we already call her an Islamophobe. And our articles on the other two, Harris and Dawkins, also mention accusations of Islamophobia. Typhoon (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

So, Fuzzy, what exactly do you want to know? --larron (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How you made your graphs. :) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

More destruction!

So I have been exploring the Conservapedia space and I found the Andrew Schlafly page which looks like a WP biography page. I think this should be massively cut and have certain sections merged into the Conservapedia article.--Owlman (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. He's mainspace worthy and that one's got waaaaay too much tradition to touch, methinks. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 04:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that he is mainspace worthy, but look at that thing it's gigantic. There is more info on him than for anyone or anything else on this wiki.--Owlman (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of blocks

I was blocked for an hour for leaving a cheeky comment on Castaigne2's talk page (He was tantruming at carpetsmoker at the time and basically suggested he was up for an internet fight so I didn't think he'd mind a bit of friendly banter) well later I apologised since he apparnetly did mind and and his response was to immediately delete it, blocking me for 9 hours and put me in the vandal bin. Is that how admins are supposed to behave around here? I said nothing that wasn't being thrown around 100x worse at the time and it seems a bit extreme of a response for me apologizing. Both of his block reasons were 'boring repetitive reverts' when I haven't reverted anything here, ever. You can view my edits here. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Castaigne2&diff=prev&oldid=1628496 http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Castaigne2&diff=prev&oldid=1628543 Is this a normal use of admin tools around here? And why does Castaigne get away with throwing so much vitriolic allegations around if he's incapable of taking any back? I didn't even think he was being serious until he responded so drastically to my comment. TruthTellah (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

All I have to say on the topic....

...is that prefacing a Coop case with a claim that someone makes an inordinate number of talk page edits looks bad. That's probably the case for most of us, and it hints at a division between "valued" and "less-valued" users based on the pages where they contribute. Talk pages, and the maintenance of a vibrant community of debate thereon, is as important a part of the project as the articles. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Gotta disagree here. Most of my edits are talk page/project edits, and you're correct in saying that goes for almost everyone. FCP's argument is that the editor in question is not making mainspace contributions, and then defending/arguing over them, but rather spending most of his edits in unproductive flaming.

In fact, in the very next sentence FCP says: "A user who mostly talks is not disruptive to the wiki; a user who mostly talks in order to drag down others is disruptive to the wiki." Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way, the percentage of edits by namespace is irrelevant. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to institute the 90/10 Rule. And Night Mode. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is to establish that Castaigne spends most of his time in this disruption, rather than that he spends much time adding to RationalWiki. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FCP is a wanker. Pippa (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So are you going to ignore Castaigne's abuses

FCP, seriously, you need to do something now. This user harassed and physically threatened users here, but when MDS concern trolled Uk he was banned. This user talks about how much he loves doxing, but when Arisboch asked for a fellow user's info he got banned. When Arisboch and Avenger edit warred with Mona they were banned, but not Castaigne. When Avenger made an antisemitic comment towards Mona he was banned, but Castaigne can make transphobic comments and go unpunished. Now Castaigne can impersonate users, change coop proposals, and purge coop votes and it seems he will get away. Avenger and Arisboch had been temporarily banned without a coop case and Arisboch was banned by with an anonymous account only accessible to the mods so you have the power to prevent him from getting away with what he has done here.--Owlman (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand. He's anti-Gamergate. He is untouchable. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And you and FCP are pro-GG, yes, we know, the faction lines have been drawn for over a year on that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuck me, if I have to hear about GG again I might just break my keyboard.--Owlman (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Both you need to shut the fuck up about Gamergate. If you haven't noticed, this site covers A LOT fucking more then Chan/Reddit drama, no matter how much you might be offended by that. --Revolverman (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me started on that. But the fact of the matter is that the site is infested with bullies that are obsessed by it and that much of the drama comes from their obsession over it as well as overblown responses to anything even vaguely hinting at resistance to it. Fact is, RW isn't just documenting the fundies, it has become a "fundie" (on this topic, anyway). Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, screw all of the talk of Gamergate. That doesn't matter. This is about the behavior of one user: Castaigne2. FCP, you need to exercise your power and do something about this crisis now. The wiki is not going to move in unless serious action is taken. I would advocate an actual ban if we had the support, but I don't think there is enough support. Maybe there is. Anyway. Something must be done at once to put this crisis behind us. I almost believe that the desysoping and probation might not be enough, but maybe that's just my pessimistic side. Something must be done. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I made the coop case for two reasons. First, to see if people thought Castaigne went too far. Second, to better set precedent for future bullying. Together, the cases of Exiled Encyclopedist, Ryulong, and Castaigne show that RW is OK with throwing out spammy, tendentious, or abrasive users. In other words, the major classes of asshole are all covered by RW's de-facto removal policies. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well nothing has happened to him yet.--Owlman (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"FCP, you need to exercise your power and do something about this crisis now." Fuzzy has no particular power, noob. He is one of a small number of users entrusted to help the community work out occasional conflicts, but that gives him no real authority that he can exercise without the consent of the community. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the coop case is now 11 to 4. Also I am calling for a permanent ban while the coop proposal is calling for a temporary ban. Oh and he can be temporarily banned for some of the things he has done without a coop case.--Owlman (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Test

18006669999 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Drunken Peasants

Yeah, you should delete the article. I really didn't do a good job at writing it, so you (or anyone) can delete it. Please. Sierra Nav (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Aw OK. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks fuzzy. Its bad enough that people are saying that it was created for fanboy purposes, which is pretty embarrassing for me. Sierra Nav (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was fanboyish, but it wasn't very in depth about who is on it or the segments they do.--Owlman (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Noobest Question Ever, Feel Free to Ban for This

How do I manually create an archive page, for instance if I want to clear up my talk page? As opposed to using the Mummification Bot. Thanks in advance :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to do it is to use Template:Talkpage - put it at the top of your talk page, save the page, then in the box provided by the template click on the "new" link. In the empty page that opens, copy the sections you want, including the Talkpage template at the top, then save the page. (The Talkpage template recognizes when it's on an archive page and will change the text and links it displays accordingly.)--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On your views, r.e: politics

I'm curious. Why do you think that politics is the root cause of the drama the site has been facing lately, and not the kinds of people certain topics attract? Explain your stance here a little, if you wish to do so. There's definitely something wrong here, but I'm not entirely sure it's the subjects the site's tackling as opposed to what it does and doesn't let users get away with. Mostly, I think there's a nice common ground the two of us can settle on regarding our difference on this matter. Thanks for your time. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 09:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you're both right. It's like a militarized police force - not only does it attract power-hungry psychos but the system is setup to turn good guys into power hungry psychos. Some topics (like politics and religion) people can't help but be passionate about. We're all pretty much in agreement on the religion thing (the ones who aren't seem like the turn-the-other-cheek type) but politics, guaranteed to attract and create zealots. If we do go the "no politics" route we should do it asap. Kind of a jerk move to let CS invest a bunch of time in his no-politics wiki then pull the rug out from under him. – Sarah (HH) 19:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, so remarkably "no politics". --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's definitely political, what happened? Did he start with the RW database and he plans to gradually purge it or did he abandon the no-politics idea? – Sarah (HH) 19:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, He imported a page. Much politic, many partisan.Keter (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So? I never said anything about politics as such. Newsflash: FCP and me are not the same person. Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was pretty sure CS said he wanted to create a wiki like RW, but w/o the social justice stuff (mostly GG).--Owlman (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, not really. I am mostly okay with the topic *as such*. Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, most of us are even in agreement about the political left/right stuff. The problems are all coming from certain social issues which kinda sorta translate onto the left/right dichotomy but not really. I know about as many people here who identify as non-left as I do people who identify as Christian. It's not a lot.

More importantly, how exactly would we become apolitical? Deleting all the politics related pages seems a bit excessive considering all the work lost. Would we just protect the pages and leave them there? That might be silly considering errors, new events IRL, and such. Perhaps we could remove the pages that attract all the edit warring, and focus on non-controversial (in the skeptic community) topics? That's the best option I can think of, but even this would delete a lot of people's work. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts

Both how we treat editors and our subjects make us a bigger target for shitty behavior and shitty editors. I'm absolutely fine with covering "politics" insofar as it relates to conspiracist or pseudoscientist or religious etc. bullshit, but covering [1] cutting-edge, [2] divisive, [3] scientifically-not-investigated social issues (eg, "SJWs", regressive left, Sargon of Akkad and friends) seems to alienate a part of our base and make us more attractive to those who are fighting those ongoing wars, whereas eg Globalresearch attracts no such warriors. I also think that our articles on eg, Mitt Romney are just generally subpar, because they don't cover what RW's all about -- fringe bullshit, as opposed to slightly-left-or-right-of-"moderate" and mostly-incorrect-but-partially correct political topics.

I'm not sure how to balance the two. I'm not sure how to enact such a change. But I think RW's future would be brighter if it focused more on things that 99% of motivated, active, well-read people think is bullshit (eg, altmed) rather than things which maybe 75% of motivated, active, well-read people think is bullshit (eg, Gamergate).

If we keep political content, the best methods for making it better seem to be:

1. Extensively quote. ie, rather than saying Sargon is sexist, just quote him saying it, and quote him ad nauseam being sexist. It's much more convincing to a Sargon fanboy
2. Use GOOD sources. Stop citing Tumblr or Blogspot or wherever. Stick to scientific literature, reputable news sources, and the primary sources in all of their crazy glory. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we only apply those higher standards to problem topics, sort of like I suggested above? If there's a consensus rift in the community, the topic has to be up to Wikipedia standards, or something similar. Again, everyone seems to agree on the other issues, like Mitt Romney, so it's safe to fill those pages up with snark. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds like a decent perspective. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. The reason certain topics are focused a lot on this wiki is that there is a lot of BS surrounding them that the public might not be clued into. As such, I don't think we should refrain from covering them, as we serve a valuable public service. Political topics are a part of RW's domain, even if they don't really have a religious bent. I don't think it's the topics themselves that are the problem, but, because of the nature of the beast, we attract a lot of angry people for calling out bullshit for what it is. I'm not sure we have the policies in place to properly deal with that sort of thing, and it's hurting the users who edit those spaces in good faith.

And as it stands, blogs may be good sources, depending on the content. Instead of banning the source all together, we could have a stricter merit on what kinds of blogs we allow, and have people explain why explicitly that blog is a good enough resource for the topic at hand (i.e, smalltown internet drama might not have a lot of reputable sources covering it, or a blog post might be genuinely pretty fucking amazing). - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a single person in the "anti-politics" camp wants to blanket remove any political content on the wiki. Many "political" topics are on-mission. For example climate change is a political article that is extremely on-mission and, as a consequence, well written. Climate change is on-mission because it is a well-researched topic where one political persuasion has significantly departed from reality. The issue is when we enter realms like Gamergate where arguments are based on implicit assumptions of ethical systems, interpretations of people's comments, blog posts and where both sides are highly polarised and ideologically motivated. What scientific principles, laws or findings does GG violate? How does GG not conform to their own internal ethical system? Does GG espouse authoritarian values? What kind of fundamentalism does GG demonstrate? These are valid avenues of inquiry and play to our strengths; unfortunately the article is a mish mash of strawmen, assumptions, poorly thought out and articulated arguments and incomprehensible live-blogging of inconsequential events. Tielec01 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The criticisms would have more weight if they weren't words thrown around with wanton abandon by the crowd that would have us whitewash the article, to the point where those words have almost no meaning in regards to this topic. It's incredibly hard to gauge where you're coming from, because those words on their own don't actually paint any readable picture when the signals are so overwhelmed with them. As such I really don't know how to respond to your viewpoint. Perhaps a different topic might be a better example? - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 02:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't throw my words around with "wanton abandon" and it's amusing that you defend the Gamergate article by accusing me of that (it is, after all, such a fine example of parsimonious language). You also don't need to "gauge where I'm coming from", which I assume is a nice way of insinuating that I am a Gator. If you need more examples look at our Democracy, Brogressive or Liberal articles. Tielec01 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't say you did, but that those words are generally used as such, especially in regards to the stated topic. It was more a "You're using these words that others have turned into meaningless ones so I can't really understand where you're coming from at all with this". I'm sorry that we had a misunderstanding, but if I thought you were a gator I wouldn't have said "It is hard to gauge where you're coming from". Basically, as stated, the words are empty, due to how much they've been gutted by others, and it's hard to find legitimate uses of them without applying any sort of context, and getting into the context of that article brings us pretty far away from the topic at hand. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This example illustrate the biggest problem with the Gamergate article. Republicans openly dispute anthropogenic climate change. They're likely wrong, so we offer evidence to support that but we all agree on their position. With Gamergate, their critics say they want women out of gaming but the gamers vehemently deny it. Stormfront doesn't pretend to like black people, Republicans don't pretend to want safe and legal abortion. How can we write an objective article refuting Gamergate's position when we can't objectively say what it is? That's why we end up with an article that makes claims like "Gamergate sponsored a woman-created game but they really want women out of gaming" or "minority gamergaters started a hashtag to show how diverse the movement is but they're really fake minorities." For readers accustomed to critical thinking it makes for a weak article. – Sarah (HH) 03:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While back when considering a rewrite of the GG article, I had a thought. RW would actually be much better served by a very short article which summarized the scientific publications on Gamergate, rather than a drawn-out history of its every action. The GG article now only serves to convince the converted, but a shorter explanation which shows that GG statistically [1] is a cover for harassment and [2] has hurt public perception of vidya would be much more effective at changing minds. In general, RW would do better to have fewer, smaller, and better-sourced articles than a spawl of snark. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason the article is the way it is is because of the constant gaslighting that was occuring at the height of it's relevancy. We served the public in reporting on the next mass-spread lie about individuals/organizations, so the layman wouldn't fall for it. But I really don't want this to turn into another "Let's bitch about the GG article" debate, can we steer from that, please? (Not saying you're bitching, more that it's such a tired topic that I really don't think we need another lengthy discussion over.) - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 03:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Point holds true in general. If we want to convince, we cannot have chunks of unsourced, snarky text -- or badly sourced, opinionated text. And unfortunately much of politics-space fits that description. FuzzyCatPotato of the Apathetic Raids (talk/stalk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The only real problem I have with that statement is the opinionated part, but I know you well enough to understand you're not pushing for NPOV here. There are plenty of articles that definitely need to be worked on more, here, and plenty of snark that could be gutted, though we cannot remove the overall tone of this wiki, either. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 03:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think maybe we should aim for a more NPOV in very volatile topics in this community. I keep stressing the community part because the fact of the matter is we don't have edit wars over the liberal article or the creationism articles. Adopting a more NPOV in certain articles would not be a slippery slope into pandering to BS everywhere because there are only a few topics which divide the community. Now, by NPOV I do not mean Wikipedia style balance fallacy. We can still call out the BS, and have the articles in question reflect their BS nature, but we should allow a section for dissenters to express their side, provided it is well sourced. You may call that "whitewashing," but believe it or not the readers are not idiots and can make up their mind from the bulk of evidence provided. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The true problem

Was and always has been Mona. Before she came here this page was calm. Even the farms did not start covering RW in earnest before Mona's antics... 79.194.23.48 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For being a BoN with almost no edits, why should we trust your opinion about who's at fault?Typhoon (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Examine your hearts. You know it to be true. 79.194.23.48 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Mona was never "the problem." Tedious twats such as BoN 79 here are the true problem. Fucking square-heads... Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Examining my heart, what it says is "Oh hi Avenger/Arisboch". Which is pretty much the opposite of "We should trust your opinion."
Also, honestly, every time someone says "Person X was the problem of everything (and optionally: and is still the primary blame for everything bad happening right now, even though they're not active anymore)" really cracks me up. It actually says more about you (and your obsession with Person X) than it says about Person X. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Thanks for the assertion? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off BoN. Mona was chased out by twats like you. She's missed. Pippa (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you miss about her? The Jew-baiting? The incredibly bad spelling? The coop case every two and a half weeks? The endless edit wars? The total lack of humor? The attacks against RW on her Twitter? Her drawing attention on the farms to us? True, she is not the only thing wrong with RW, but her arrival coincided with a turn to the worse that she was not innocent of. RW was always going to have a difficult time once the easy targets (Bush, Conservapedia) stop being fun, but the whole Gamergate and Israel-bashing debacle has not made it better. And as to Gamergate (I am sure I will be accused of being a gator) - Why the fuck is it so important? There are just about a thousand more interesting and more relevant news stories. And they involve much less he said she said. What about the rise of the Alternative für Deutschland for instance? Or the conflict in Darfur? No, we have to spend round after round of arguing about Anita Sarkeesian or the other whatstheirfaces... 79.194.23.48 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We still have all the malign you described, BoN. The Chicken Coop was going crazy a few days ago. Edit wars? Check. Total lack of humor? I can name some editors. People are pissed at us? lol always.

Although you do make a very good point regarding the Gamergate nonsense. Pretty everyone here can agree about far right groups and such, and it would be a nicer place if people focused on that and not 2013's niche reddit news. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Avenger, how have you been? :D 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

This is probably not Avenger though I tend to give him more credit then maybe I should. Anyways Ryulong brought just about all the offsite attention here even though we already had a ED page. Idk how this BoN came to the conclusion that Mona brought any offsite harassment here let alone Kiwifarms so this is probably Arisboch.--Owlman (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you two catfight somewhere else? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello there

Since you're the guy that made a huge mess out of my abuse filter code, you may want to take a look at this and figure out why the false positive occurred. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

tempate:globalize unavailable, necessary

this user, referring to the self, holds the opinion that template:globalize should be created in rationalwiki with the purpose of tagging articles and sections which are predominantly written in any nation-specific narrative without any worldwide view of the subjectFAMAS (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't most of RW written in a USA-specific narrative? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Email me

I have some concerns to discuss with you, but I won't be available until later tomorrow. Email me around 4:00p.m. CST tomorrow.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 05:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright my email should work now. For some reason the confirmation email wasn't sending.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have sinned

I did break one of the rules tonight by restoring a politically neutral footnote in the Chomsky-article. The reason was that I had written that in the first place, and somebody cut it down to be ridiculous, probably unintentionally. Still, in the castrated version it looked like Lorentz and Poincaré were linguists. They were not.

So, I have two questions.

1) My edit seems to be there and it is, but I don't appear in the Fossil Record, and this doesn't show up in my contributions either. Is there some kind of time-lock or whatever on this?

2) I did change this and thereby broke a promise. But I did leave a detailed reasoning about this on the talk page. I have not seen anything else to irritate me that way, and I won't do much editing, except for nursing my hobby. But if I can expect disciplinary action, I'd rather know sooner than later.

In good conscience, cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

One for your attention regarding abuse of power

Weaseloid demopped me and threw me into the Vandal Bin for edit-warring. As a matter of fact he was the one who started it. I had removed word „illegal“ from the sentence „Sea Shepherd fights illegal whaling and seal hunting“ and that is quite justified, since Sea Shepherd make up the law on the run. Weaseloid undid this, so the first shot was fired by him. Some time later he vandal binned me, but since I had a mop, I could pardon myself. The next time he did something really clever, he demopped me first and then threw me in bin.

Now, since this edit war which would not have gone any further than my last post on the subject was instigated by him, I'd like to ask to have my mop back. That's a matter of principle as well as convenience, and in any case this was abuse of power by him.

If that is not acceptable to the moderators here, I'll take a couple of days and think about whether it's worth staying at all. I can imagine a few faces: „You're quitting? Is that a promise?“ If I come to that conclusion then yes. I haven't thought so far ahead yet. In any case, I can be of worth to RW, and feel free to examine my contributions except for those regarding to battles with Mona, but those brought out the worst in me, not that she's a saint herself. I just want to have place to cultivate a hobby, which I think you know about, and adding something here and there as the mood tells me.

If it is a moderators' (note the plural :-) decision that I should go then I will go.

I would, however like to know that rather sooner than later. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my request for having my mop back. If you check the history, you'll see that the sysoprevoke was unwarranted. Even more silly was vandal-binning me after everything was over, but I got pulled out of the bin again. If you don't think this is a fair thing to ask, please just tell me. Life will go on. But I can point to a clean history of never abusing my mop. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No you will not be getting your mopp back for some time. You tend to edit war too often, but you will still be able to edit here.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So be it, even if I do suspect a set-up. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Until Weaseloid comments, I won't revert. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry, and I suspect that Weaseloid will take his own sweet time commenting about anything at all. I still don't think he was fair, but that's life for you. :-) Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A question about „ownership“

Hi!

I was brushing up on how to create an article and what is whose, and found, as expected, that User-pages and Essays are the user's babies. But what about sandboxes? Every wiki I know provides the possibility of having a sandbox and implores users to experiment there first. But what is the ownership status of sandboxes? I would imagine that it is considered very bad form to mess with those, but are they community property? If you can expect meddling there, then that kind of defeats the purpose. This is just a question for the future, I don't intend to start anything much quite yet, but I have seen my own sandbox „corrected“ (blanked) when testing. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's "Sorte Slyngel/X", then you can determine what goes in it. If not, not. People cannot own mainspace pages. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the case along with two other pages of miscellania. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry, but I forgot to ask. If you upload a picture or a document (thinking pdf here) and assuming that there are no copyright issues, do you have any control over, where they are stored? As a matter of fact, where are they stored by default? Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to ask again, but I seem to recall you being a ninja

Sorry to bother you again, but my question about uploaded files has possibly been overlooked. I'd really like to know. Whatever happens about other things, I'm not quite ready to give up on RW yet — it can still be fun, and I have a couple of ideas which might involve a couple of graphs and possibly a pdf-document or two.

As for Weaseloid, I'm just resigned to letting him have his say whenever he wants or cares. I do have a short fuse, but I also believe that in between edit wars I have provided something of value although certainly less than I could have or should have. By the way, this is not me sucking up to anybody — that's about the dirtiest phrase in my dictionary. I absolutely refuse to be cowed but then I also have to take the bumps as they come. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

They are stored just like other images. Upload it and the page can give you the perma-URL. FuzzyCatPotato of the Fickle Meringues (talk/stalk) 00:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please un-bot the altmedbox

It's too ridiculously big to be useful on every article. It's literally three and a half screens on my laptop. Please get something resembling consensus before you pull this sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise when you merge several large longstanding articles on disparate subjects. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Another technical question

Sorry to bother you again, but this is the penalty one pays for actually answering questions. :-) I hid the TOC of a page (no worries, it was my own), but apparently it's gone for good, at least I haven't found a way to get it back. How do you turn these things back on? Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

See Help:TOC, normally add __TOC__ to the page.~ Aneris ✻ 16:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Merci! Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is perhaps not the venue, but I'd like Weaseloid to comment

Since a comment by Weaseloid was mentioned here as - as I understood it - necessary but not sufficient condition for revoking the sysoprevoke, I'd thought I'd ask outright for his comment here. As it is, he can just be silent, and nothing happens.

My motive is mainly that he was unfair. There is a life without a mop as well as a life without RW. But three vandal binnings a day for trivial reasons - especially the last one - can hardly be called fair.

I'm sure Weaseloid reads this. If not, I'd ask other moderators to ask him for a comment. At least two seem to have followed this.

Sorry to intrude, FuzzyCat, but this seemed to be the obvious place for me to ask for a reaction from Weaseloid. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: As the day grows older, I'd like this to be my final words for now: I'm not being impatient, but any reaction from FuzzyCat, Weaseloid or SkepticWombat — all of whom have followed this — would be preferable. If the conclusion is that I should just stuff it, then that is what I will do. But I still haven't solved the riddle of, how a moderator can start an edit-war, participate in it, prolong it and then declare that the opponent isn't allowed to do that, and then banish him. If I have understood things clearly, and I believe I have, then nobody is explicitly „allowed“ to take part in an edit-war, and that goes for moderators as well. And this was really a trivial „war“. As I said, just tell me to shut up — I will. If not, I'd like to see Weaseloid's explaining, for he has some explaining to do. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The miracle of honey

Dear Mr. Potato: While searching for an article on honey I found two very similar pages created by you January 29. Should these be merged to one article? Read-Write (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: Apologies if I assumed your gender incorrectly. I figured a woman would use "Kitten" rather than "Cat". Again, I hope that doesn't offend you. Read-Write (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Presuming you're referring to The Miracle of Honey and The miracle of honey as an alternative medicine? No, they're separate Islam-apologist documents, and their rebuttals should remain apart. That said, an article on honey and altmed would be quite missional.

Gender is meaningless. ^_^ The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

the need for a single template containing links to every rebuttal article pages

such a template is heavily needed. request for construction of the template. sidebar format preferred.FAMAS (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1. I have no fucking clue why we would need such a template.
2. LEARN TO USE THE GODDAMNED ENGLISH LANGUAGE CORRECTLY.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Psssst!

*gentle rustling* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why hello there stranger. Welcome back! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been on some kind of well-needed break. But now I'm back. I've got a polish log for fixing a lot of minor crap (stubs/spelling fixes/image alignment/etc) on the site a mile long, so I'll probably take Ninja for a spin and see how that all pans out. Good to be back, buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Good luck! Don't get dizzy with all that spinning. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll do my best to just hang onto the railings. Remind me again how I sneak in and out of Ninja, will you buddy? I'd also like to archive my current talkpage, any clues on that? Damn, I got rusty fast. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to ask

Is there any chance of getting Weaseloid to comment, which is the sine qua non? If not, I'd rather like to know. I can then decide what to do next if anything at all. An answer would be appreciated, either from FuzzyCat (possibly, „No I can't ask“) or Weaseloid (possibly „No, I won't say a thing“). Either way, it will influence how much you will be bothered by me. A „No“ from both would be the strongest possible answer. By the way, there was an edit conflict with the Reverend. I hardly need to remind him, that he still owes me an answer about philosophy. :-) Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to say so, but I'll give it a couple of days. If no reaction materializes, good or bad, I'll just assume that I weigh as much here and am listened to in the same degree as we all are in the end — that is not at all. For the optimistic among you this is good news, but I have this strange aversion to being trampled upon, and Weaseloid will have his way. He demonstrates the proverb neatly: Nomen est omen. :-) Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ask him. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I did. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: archiving talk page

Did I mess up or did I done good? Doesn't seem to have been archived yet at any rate. Thanks for the help with this, anyhow. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't run pywikibot. I'll run it tonight. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no problems man! Also, sneak a peek at the latest duplicate articles. I think I may have found some worthwhile ones to consider and/or goat. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ED

If all you are going to do at ED is bitch and moan about no dox pls, you can save it. Bring something we will actually listen to or nothing at all. As always, I can be contacted there. You are free to request answers from any other crat, of course. —VX 05:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

but FREE ZPEACH! kthx FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking Weaseloid again

I asked Weaseloid three days ago, I asked him again right now. I believe he is obligated to answer. If he does not and if nobody prods him, I can be held in limbo forever. That is not a good outcome. I'll give it a few days. Then I'll have come to a conclusion about whether RW is worth it. (My inner ear hears, again, shots being ordered and drained short order.) Thus not really expecting anything, but for a desire to see, how long a moderator (Weazeloid) can stretch it, just being a moderator. Even in the infallibility of the Popes, a Pope was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and moderators have to abide by the same rules as the rest. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(mod hat on) You seem seriously pissed off by something, I don't even remember what. If you think you can put together a coop case that will convince the mob, the mods are likely to approximately go along with the mob's howling feces-flinging verdict - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am seriously pissed. And no, I won't bring up a coop-case, since I have already been the recipient of one and have seen many others devolve into a lynch mob. For me, the question is, can the Weasel been brought to drop a line and explain himself. As for me and the rest, I think most would probably like me gone, and I understand that. But that is still no reason for flagrant abuse of power. In any case, I am considering whether is really worth frayed nerves. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@DavidGerard PS: The reason I' pissed is that Weaseloid lured me into an edit war, a totally unnecessary one, since he was wrong, he threw me into the vandal bin three times on the say day, the worst being after that minuscule war was over. But he started the „war“, desysoped me, and then didn't even conclude the „war“ since another user undid his undo on the lines I had been promoting. A Weasel will be a Weasel. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome. That was very sweet. ^{— Unsigned, by: Cyberpink / talk / contribs}

No problem! While I'm at it:

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving, yo

Greetings, feline ally! I was wondering if you mind coaxing your bot into archiving everything on my talk page except the very last topic, "Rights and archiving". Frankly, what remains except for that is just past its prime. I hope that's not against any type of rule, for the record - I did go missing for a month and all those topics are from before then, and now that I'm back I'd like a clean slate (except for the "Rights and archiving" topic). Thanks in advance buddy, sorry to bother you. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A little sysop question

Would it be appropriate for me to change the visibility of this edit, or would it only result in the Streisand Effect, drawing more people to view the material? I'm sure you can divine the reason for me wanting to keep it under wraps. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That stuff deserves insta-suppress. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 10:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously

I drive all over town in the middle of the night for this. You just make it more exciting. 172.164.30.103 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time. Maybe talk to Ms. Varney? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I should even ask who that is. I highly doubt it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverends say the darndest things!

Moo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-tikki-tavi, beyotch!

I've been trying to post something on The Other Wiki about this, but they've semi-protected the talk page for their Reference Desk. If you've got a confirmed account there, can you post a heads up as to why we want the info removed? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Which info?

If you're talking about the IP-vandal stuff, I've been telling the Oversighters, they've been working pretty well. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it's been taken care of. Goddamn this guy has a lot of free time on their hands. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Truly. And this is why we need universal employment: to make everyone not be an ass on the internet. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, while I'm here, do you know who needs contacting for the pic on Wikimedia Commons that the guy keeps posting? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Presumably Oversight again. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Good night

Today's been fun. See you around. 172.164.7.224 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sleep well. Don't come back. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Perhaps the gender wage gap is insufficient."

What do you mean by this? It does not follow. ClickerClock (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sargon asks for evidence that feminism is necessary; the GWG fits this. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate further. ClickerClock (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking after a well deserved rest

Is there any particular time you could put on me being remopped? I've said, more than once I believe, that the mop itself is of no consequence except that I lack the power to vaporize my own directories — for me it's just a matter of principle. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'll sign off for now for continued „leisure“, but I'll check back some day. I should mention that I'm only asking for what you might call a ballpark figure — and that I'm asking FuzzyCat, not Pb. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would put it to a vote at the coop. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I should do, but as I think I said somewhere, for me to instigate a coop about myself, would probably be like summoning my own lynching crowd. „Hey, there Billy-Bob, he's volunteering to be hanged.“ :-) Weaseloid will not accept anything even if his last vandal binning was certainly abuse of power to say the least. Apparently the last one was just punishment for being me. The usually reasonable SkepticWombat noticed that and freed me although he has no particular love for me. That last binning was, even if nothing else should turn up, sheer abuse of power: He disagrees with me and I don't like him, so in the bin he goes. That was after the edit war.

So the question really is: Shall I just wait some generally accepted period? I do not see the fairness in this. I won't give myself up to the crowd and not so long ago, people were being mopped and remopped almost on a daily basis.

But still, not having done much of anything lately, is there a general rule of thumb in these cases? Or would a simple sysop do the trick? I do remember that the late lamented Arisboch usually got his mop back in a matter of a few days. (And: No, I'm not particularly paranoid. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Most people don't know who you are and they don't remember anything you've done. Put it to a vote; this is the only way you're gonna overcome "abuse of power". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and you are right, of course, but that is also the problem. The jury will be self-selected and almost certainly consist of those relatively few who do know who I am. An unbiased trial is impossible, at least if I have understood the RW-machinery correctly and I believe I have. I'll give it some thought. I can't say what I'll decide, that is still open, but the question I have to answer is simply: Is it worth it? Thank you for being impartial. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did follow your advice and brought the matter to the coop. I'll be very surprised, if anything comes out of it, but then at least I'll know where I stand. Old, hostile „acquaintances“ have started to show themselves. One as of now, but that guy certainly has a long memory and others are bound to crop up. :-) I probably will not have much to add so I'll just wait and see. In any case, you have at least been fair, and I don't forget the good things. Since my writing days here may soon be done (no, not dramatizing) I'll leave you with one story I saw just now:

Why do American mathematicians consistently mix up Halloween and Christmas day?

Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.

Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor?

There is always the possibility of having that template „Gone and not coming back“, but in least one case, a user, Castaigne, was simply erased. He did arise again as Castaigne2, but I have no intention of doing that. May I ask you what the procedure for permanent disappearance is, and if it needs a moderator, would you help me out there. I wish to be gone, and the template doesn't really mean gone. With thanks for your help. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The user is renamed and their userpage is deleted. That's the best that MediaWiki can allow. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Since I lack the power, could you take care of that for me? The contributions will remain, of course, but I would like to vanish as completely as possible. Cheers and thanks Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Does the renaming have to be Sorte Slyngel 2? If I'm renamed, I'd like it to be Uppivindinn. It's an Icelandic joke - but anything but Sorte whatever is preferred. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lavish Deviants (talk/stalk) 02:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If wanted, I could run my bot tomorrow to replace the text "Sorte Slyngel" on all pages with "Uppivindinn". Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would you do that? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Depends whether they want their username scrubbed from the site or their contributions disconnected from their username. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Who cares if they do? It's not a service we offer, nor should we. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't, but we didn't do it for Uk.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 03:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it was sweet of FCP to offer to do that, and if it helps to fully realise a peaceful LANCB by burying a past user's attachment to the site, I don't see why not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FuzzyCat. A scrub would be welcome. If you can, I'm in your debt, and I thank you for your kind response. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, the User name works. The rest of you may rest assured that I will not be visible for a long time if ever. I know that's a load off your hearts. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A definite farewell

I just wanted to thank you, FuzzyCat, for having scrubbed. That was kind and won't be forgotten although we'll probably not meet again. I wish you the best of luck in anything you do. And I can put RW behind me, which is actually a load off my heart — as well as unmitigated satisfaction to quite a few others, so you've made quite a number of people happy. :-) Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for a novel logic/rhetoric article

Hey, Fuzzy! I had an idea. Basically, I just googled for the "Not all men" expression, because wanted to know more about what it was supposed to mean. I used the following sources to try to get a clue about what it means;

• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_culture#Addressing_the_.22not_all_men.22_defense
• http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/
• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/not-all-men
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=not+all+men
• https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-problem-with-saying-not-all-men-are-like-that-when-talking-about-sexual-harassment
• https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/26ly14/can_someone_help_me_with_the_not_all_men_argument/

After having read through all those links (took a good 20 minutes), I've come to the conclusion that this expression is first of all both notable and missonal for us to have an article on. Further, the expression is inherently one of logic and rhetoric, which we are really good at covering. Thirdly, what is also clear is that the expression actually has two different uses! (Which also makes it vulnerable to equivocation).

The first use is summed up in the Quora link quite well, and entails the use: when someone tries to deflects a specific (often proven) example with a general blanket statement. E.g.;

Problem-solver: Wow, did you know that in 2011, 23% of all auto collisions involved cell phones? We should do something about that.

#notalldrivers: Not all people text and drive. I've never done that. You shouldn't be prejudiced against drivers just because some of them do crappy shit.

Problem Solver: I posted up a video to support anti-bullying efforts… I got really bullied by the football players at my school.

#notallfootballplayers: I used to play football, and I never bullied anyone. Don't judge all jocks by just your experience!

...which is clearly fallacious.

The second use of the term, which is also fallacious, is instead: when someone tries to demand that a blatant overgeneralisation not be questioned. E.g;

Person A: All men are all jerks!

Person B: You shouldn't be saying that about all men.

Person A: Oh god, not another 'not all men' argument, I'm sick of hearing these when I'm trying to fight sexism!

...which is also clearly fallacious.

I find that this is something we should educate about - that is, about the fact that: contained within the "Not all men"-statement are two logically different (yet related) scenarios;

• One in which specific examples, often with proof provided, are fallaciously washed away with solipsistic blanket statements which are essentially non sequitor to the issue at hand
• One in which a claim-maker attempts to bully others into letting the claim-maker overgeneralize as much as he or she pleases (essentially trying to force other people to agree that the defense mechanism of the claim-maker be granted the status of a logically sound or even plausible statement - which it isn't).

I think that this is material sufficient for an article on this. I also think that the info (e.g. from the wikipedia article) about the history of the hashtags and the Isla Vista killings and all that ought to be separated from our description of this specific logical fallacy. That stuff could go in our Rape Culture article or some such, assuming we decide to port that into our article at all. Thoughts on this? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: This comic is really funny and defines the first of the two different uses of "Not all men" which I outline above. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Not all X" is a variant of No true Scotsman, and is also seen from libertarians - could be a section in that - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I would still argue that it deserves its own article, considering the two-fold meanings (both of which may not tie fully into NTS), the search-friendly name, and the associations that exist to it. The petition I'm making here is still for its own article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Not all" would make a great article. It's not quite NTS. NTS says, "If X did Y, then X isn't really a Z". Not all men (NAM), for example, doesn't say that. NAM doesn't say that the men who DO do that aren't men. Rather, it says that the original statement was an overgeneralization. NAM says, "Although [X] did [Y], not [all X] do [Y]. Thus, the example of '[X] did [Y]' is irrelevant to the general behavior of [all X] towards [Y]." While this is logically true, it functions as a conversation-ender -- and usually the person who asserts that "[X] are such [Y]-doers" was trying to talk about the anecdote itself, not the general class of [X]. EG: "My BF just broke up with me. Men are such jerks." It is (usually) unlikely that the speaker is trying to talk about all [X]. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

True. It's already on the to-do list as Not all X, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So we're in agreement then, gents! And with the two separate established uses I've dug up, it'll be nuanced and make for great reading, methinks. :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Smells like rational spirit

What does this look like to you, if anything at all? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Crankery display

Hello FCP, I just wanted to ask you for advice: basically, you probably have noticed, I find a lot of weird crankery online. Whenever I find some form of crankery I like to share it with RW so I can ask the opinion of others and possibly give some material for the pages. To display the crankery, I used the forums. However, for some reason I keep finding more and more crank websites, pseudo documentaries, crank ideas, cranks being cranks and stuff like that. I feel like that's too much for the forums. However, I feel the need to share my finds for some of them are priceless for this wiki. What do you think I should do?--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you could always just add a link and a brief summary on WIGOC or an entry to RationalWiki:Webshites, if you're not feeling up to an article. Something you might consider: finding the "worst of" quote for each site/whatever, and compiling them into a quote-gallery of lulz. FuzzyCatPotato of the Hopeless ROMs (talk/stalk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright awesome, thanks, I'll use them if I find some crankery too small for a page. However, what if it's something bigger? What if it's something worthy a page, something I've been studying for a while, something I dug up some information on and something that I'm still not too sure about and need help either refuting or just someone's opinion/advice (like the IllumiCorp website)? Should I use the forums then? Or something else?--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you wanna share, sure, the forums work. If you wanna write up a page -- but aren't ready to finish -- you can make something in your userspace. EG: User:WeakMindedSkeptic/RandomIlluminuttiWebshite You can edit it to your heart's content until it's ready to relocate to mainspace. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome saucesome, thanks for the help, again, FCP!--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

NP. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The mission survey

Hey FCP, I sort of took that thing, but even when I mostly chose neither extreme, I absolutely could not enter text into the text box for my proposed changes or suggestions. I tried the edit option offered a the end, and still had the same issue.---Mona- (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you click the on grey text (new Google forms) or below the gray text, where you'd expect the entry box to be? (I've had friends do the latter.) Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I also took it, and to quote myself - don't tell me we're reconsidering the mission statement!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not unless people are unhappy with the current, eh? FuzzyCatPotato of the Communist Pizzas (talk/stalk) 01:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. Let's hope I'm not the only one who finds the current mission statement very much on point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We aren't reconsidering the mission statement. FCP may well be though. His idea of consensus appears to be doing what he likes unless people tell him to stop, with detailed explanations of why he should stop. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

FCP is a wanker, don't forget. Pippa (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And here was me thinking he just sent out a survey: after reading this and the Saloon it seems he must have instead nipped round and raped my dog. MyHatIsBread (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, better go check on your dog then. o.O 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

"Did you click the on grey text" Yes. It indicated I could input text in the box. But I could not.---Mona- (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"We aren't reconsidering the mission statement. FCP may well be though." FCP, what is the purpose of this survey? There was a question about several dozen topics and whether one thought they should be here. That question usually has been thrashed through in AfD or maybe the Saloon, and voted on on an individual basis. Both Gamergate and I-P have been, I believe more than once since I've been here. Do you intend this survey as a substitute for those discussions and votes?---Mona- (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about user statistics

I have a question about user statistics after I was asked this question. Is there any possible way to have the statistics for German users, or a way to tell the nation of users who edit? I would think not, but I'm unsure. I wanted to address the point at hand, so if it is at all possible to find the IP address locations for users in a way that doesn't break privacy or detail which users edit from where, that would be great. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Not without using checkuser a whole bunch, or asking users voluntarily. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could a massive checkuser on all users be done, the usernames removed, and the country names collected; in order that we see how many editors hail from Germany? This statistic would be useful in determining whether there are many German editors or only a couple. The person who requested this information from me may be quite surprised when he learns the number of German editors here. See my point? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to a demographics survey I conducted last year, 1 of 92 respondents said they were from Germany. If you extrapolate that (at a mere 1/100) for a average RW userbase of 900-1000 users per month, that would make about 9-10 users from Germany.

Assuming all these editors are homogeneously spread over the entire German population, this means that approximately 2% of those 9-10 users should be Russian migrants (1.8 M Russsians on a total population of approximately 82 M), which makes for one migrant in about four months.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you take from that information? (Regarding Arisboch and Avenger) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So...

...do I resysop rpeh? CorruptUser (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

He's resysopped. Ignore. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly dude

I don't disagree that Mona can be pretty editwar-happy and has kind of a problematic attitude, but what in the blazes made you think addressing it in the coop, right after a previous drama-heavy case, was the best way to go? O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

And perhaps you, 142, can tell me HOW the Zionist are contained from swamping the majority of one is not, like me, supposedly "edit-war happy." And my "attitude" is that I don't put up with submitting to bullies, Zionist or otherwise. They were in HEAVY bully mode when I arrived, and never improved. I suffered personally for that. The main malfeasor has been welcomed back with open arms. But I am the problem. Please.---Mona- (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona, this has always been your great folly from the start. Your overzealousness and self-serving misrepresentations ("welcomed back with open arms" wut?) harm the very cause you seek to defend. Avenger was always screaming "Antisemites! Antisemites everywhere!" and you're always screaming "Zionists! Zionists everywhere!" Even if the latter is (approximately) true when the former isn't, the truth doesn't matter if no one buys it. Stop sounding conspirational all the time and the people might be more open to your views. As for your edit warring, have you ever considered pacing your reverts instead of hitting the button every minute? The world's not gonna end if the article stays in the wrong form for more than a few seconds. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. I've made no "self-serving misrepresentation." In the Saloon a month or so back FCP and others went on and on about how letting banned/binned users like Arisboch come back was just great; why, they could be assets and as long as they don't repeat bad behavior, it's fine to welcome them back yada, yada, yada. It. Was. Nauseating. Not to mention preposterous. And 142, I've had much more extensive experience of vicious Zionists than you have. It's not an accident that Arisboch -- a Zionist -- promoted those harassing me through my adult son. I've had Zionists wish me a long death with the wish that my kids take out a DNR, and on and on like that. (All of us who speak out strongly for Palestinians get subjected to severe abuse. Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald, many of us. It is hard to find more ugly except, as I said, for Gators.) Second only to Gamergaters, they are utterly foul online. (Have you seen the bullshit going on at my talk page in the last 48 hours?) So, I won't be shutting up about this foulness from Zionists any time soon. That all said, sure, I could wait 90 minutes to revert, instead of 9 seconds. If you think that's going to really solve anything. Why is it that you think I'm the one who always immediately reverts? [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How about a cooping of FCP 'cause he seems to think it's his wiki - stamping about giving 'authoritative' opinions all over the place. Demod the wanker, says I. Pippa (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're free to propose such at the coop, or you can start a "Is FCP a wanker?" vote in the saloon bar. ;) I will not allow you to do both, however. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

User:Keegscee

Would you, as a moderator, please tell your fellow RationalWikian Keegscee to stop making fun of cheerleaders at Wikipedia? That very mean of him. Cheerleaders Are Sweethearts (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Technological Unemployment

What do you think about the concept of technological unemployment? You can see the reasoning and opinions of economists here and here. The doomsday arguments are convincing to me for two reasons:

• True A.I. - or really, since most jobs focus on a rather specific area - near true A.I. - is obviously much different than previous technological changes and there is no possibility of humans maintaining a comparative advantage by definition.

• Moore's Law - Even if we assume true A.I. is impossible, as Moore's Law reaches the exponential stage workers will be unable to retrain in any reasonable timeframe before new industries and job categories are themselves automated. Imagine the gradual shift from farm employment to service employment, except such a shift happens every 5 - 10 years.

The "don't worry" arguments invariably revolve around the idea that people have feared technology forever, but so far humans haven't been replaced. But they never address the reasons above. What are your thoughts on the matter? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We should be so lucky that everything gets automated. The question isn't whether this is a good or bad thing (it's a very good thing), it's how do you allocate the (much less scarce) resources among the people who no longer work. Society has to restructure itself to fit.

HOWEVER.

We are far, far away from even coming close to that question. There are plenty of things left for people to do. Freeing up the labor force a bit only means massive unemployment if done without quickly retraining and reassigning people to other productive tasks (e.g., Great Depression), but where the luddites see McDonald's turning away high school grads I see a world where there is less than a dozen kids per teacher, every police department so well staffed no crime goes uninvestigated, and no court is ever overworked. We have yet to run out of possible jobs for people, we just have to reform and adapt to automation and replace the bulk of the welfare system with productive work, work that is only productive because we now have people free to do it. There are reasons we have social services now that we never had 300 years ago, and that's we didn't have anyone available to be a fireman full time, or dedicate their lives to arts and sciences.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm somewhat Keynesian when it comes to economics. CorruptUser (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aeonian: Simply put, Earth cannot and will not continue to have a multibillion population, and the (let's say) 1 billion survivors will, like GMOs, be engineered to be smarter -- so that they can, in turn, make smarter robots. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A world war and the surviving population's gonna be genetically engineered to do it better? You've been overdosing on Cross Ange?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize we could easily support 10B on this planet without screwing ourselves over, we'd just have to eat much less meat, only get energy from renewables or nuclear, be willing to live in apartments close to where we work, make electronics and other consumer goods last for a decade or more while being recyclable... this has a snowball's chance in hell doesn't it. CorruptUser (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No war. Hopefully just vastly reduced fertility rates. There's simply no reason to keep 10B people alive, if we could make every one a smaller number into scientists and industrialists.

I can't imagine people choosing not to GM themselves, if it's necessary to make a living. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure you can, the religious nuts and luddites who oppose GM. And those will be the people that give birth by the litter while the smart people have just one child, turning us into Idiocracy unless unpalatable reforms occur such as limiting welfare based on children supported. CorruptUser (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh, doubtful. Won't be that extreme -- and, if we're talking about modifying humans, who's to say that it wouldn't be far enough in the future to artificially grow humans? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Growing them is easy, getting people to stop making them the fun way is hard. And how do you determine what's the best human to grow?CorruptUser (talk)

Nah, just stigmatize 'the natural way' as gross, risky and abusive towards the fetus and mandate compulsory sterilization. Job done. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the question of population, I don't see a need for a massive population in a crowded ecumenopolis. I support retroviral sterilization of the majority of the population based on intelligence - I will not pretend to prescribe how to measure intelligence, only that differences in humans clearly exist and that implies a way to differentiate biologically. I think we would have the ability in the next few decades. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And what makes you think a society consisting solely of intelligent people is particularly desirable? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd pull the trigger just to get rid of the Abrahamic religions. In seriousness, imagine a world where people aren't complete dumbasses. I can't think of a single social system - be in democratic government, cooperative economy, etc which wouldn't benefit. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Smart people can still end up in cults/religions; intelligence doesn't shield you from socio-cultural factors. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think those socio-cultural factors are created and maintained by majority opinions in the first place? Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but making the majority more intelligent won't magically change those, it'll just make people come up with more intelligent excuses for said opinions. If you wanna get rid of religions and you've got a state authoritarian enough to sterilize people on a massive scale, just get rid of all the intelligent civilians and blast the gullible/obedient masses with state-mandated atheism propaganda. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We're assuming two different premises. Your premise seems to be the rather fatalist idea that people will believe what they're raised with, regardless of intelligence. I'm of the opinion that intelligent people in all societies have a much lower adherence to religion than the rest. I can provide some hard numbers, see this stuty and my view is backed by personal interactions with those who were formerly religious as well as historical overview. From what I have seen among intelligent religious people, be they William Lane Craig or al-Ghazali, all do not really have any justification for belief, they admit they believe because of things like emotional experience and only argue just because. This is also why people like Craig continue to use arguments he knows are debunked - he doesn't really care. Now, I would wager that the reason I can point to the fact so many intelligent people are not religious is because most people do not have these emotional experiences. In other words, the vast majority of the post-sterilization word would not be religious, so your statement that they will just invent "more intelligent excuses" doesn't really matter. They will either see reason, as many do, or die out.

Secondly, aren't you aware of the Soviet anti-religious campaigns? They did exactly as you described, and failed horribly. The solution to religion is not to "get rid of all the intelligent civilians," it is the opposite. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Soviets just weren't thorough enough. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, ignoring the biased way the questions on these kinds of surveys are often posed, the results only reveal a correlation. 'Intelligence causes irreligion' is far from the only possible hypothesis to explain this correlation. Maybe current socio-cultural norms just push more atheists towards American scientific educations than it does religious people, hmm? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

This is just more of the above, i.e. taking individual ingenuity away in favor of socialization. If we say "intelligence" is this context refers to spatial and abstract reasoning, (I would use a much more inclusive view for any sterilization, however) then you must agree the religious position isn't very strong here. As I said above, those who possess this intelligence and remain religious almost invariably have some sort of "divine" experience to provide, as Craig says, "justification wholly apart from evidence." Again, most people don't have such things. Also, regarding your educational claim, I would also argue that extensive education defeats religion in almost everyone, simply because it undermines the reasons most people believe. Intelligent people are more likely to think of these things on their own. In fact, I've heard one (off-hand) definition of intelligence which defined it has how long it takes someone to grasp a concept, and how long it would take them (statistically) to think of it themselves if they lived indefinitely. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to think that "intelligence = antidote to religion" to think that a more intelligent society is worth it. Think of it in terms of resources: if we could get every human to, say, learn things 10% faster, then we could pump people out of school 10% faster -- or have them learn 10% more. And that's a huge deal, when you're talking about a finite Earth. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Fuck you buddy. Quarter Pounder with Cheese (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You area rascal, sir. A rapscallion. Sandflapjack (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ray Comfort

Will you stop undoing my changes to the Ray Comfort page?!

Is it too hard for you to comprehend: ALMOST NOBODY IN NEW ZEALAND HAS HEARD OF RAY COMFORT Understand? So stop saying he's the pride of my country! Aside from making yourself look stupid, It's an insult! We're one of the least religious nations int he world, that's why he's gone to the USA to peddle his nonsense!^{— Unsigned, by: 60.242.202.253 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Besides, you don't own the Ray Comfort article. Personally, I think the current snark is better than your version.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It was sarcastic - Comfort is NOT the pride of New Zealand, and is instead a nobody, as you said. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RBP has changed the snark to something even better - something about Swedish atheist cat eating (!?), I believe.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Curious

How do coops work? Specifically, are only moderators allowed to create them? Just curious.Teurastaja (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please

I haven't done anything wrong. Typhoon eventually blanked over 5k of my words, for no reason given other than insults and ranting that are not substantive objections. What am I supposed to do? I left here for a week or so to see if the page would calm down, and as soon as I came back, she was on everything I wrote and widldly reverting. And just personal attacks as her "reasons" as well as simply wrong claims about my sources. It's the BERNIE SANDERS page. How can stuff about the subject be irrelevant because Typhoon does't like it vis-a-vis the election? PLease FCP, this is insanity-inducing, to see mods just tossing up their hands when I'm bending over backwards to be reasonable and the other person is just not, and you and others take the approach: "we don't care who is right, just work it out." That isn't possible with all people on some issues.---Mona- (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's time for the moderators to step in, to hear people out and to adress the complaints. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rev. All I'm asking for is that the mods and others pay attention to who is engaging in good faith attempts to defend their edits and negotiate, and who is not.---Mona- (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

I saw you deleted the page on Aaron Swatrz in the recent changes, however I see no reason RW couldn't cover him and his involvement in the ongoing question of digital rights and ownership, considering RW covers everything else. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a useless stub of uselessness. No one will learn anything from reading it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)