User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 6 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Possible shenanigans?

Hey buddy; check out these edits.

Also, when pressing edit at the talkpage in question (the one that the BoN created), I'm informed in red letters that "User account "MOXOM" is not registered. Please check if you want to create/edit this page.".

What's going on here, you think? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Could this and this be more like the above? Are the spammers/ban evaders devising some new strategy, you think? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dunno what this WAPTek thing was but I have deleted it.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Article creation

Sorry to bother again, but where do you go to create a new article? I keep forgetting...--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

just search the name of the article -- if it doesn't exist, click on the red link Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You simply type the desired article's name in the Search bar and then click "create this article".--JorisEnter (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks guys--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Donald Marshall

I've been creating an article about said person and I came across some piece of information which states that Donald has Paranoid Schizophrenia. In the article, I've been quite harsh with my snark because I weren't aware of that piece of info. In your opinion, should I tone down some of the snark?--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mm. Just don't snark about them being "insane" or "nutty" or anything like that. It's possible for someone to be diagnosed with a mental illness and still be very lucid and thoughtful. Conversely, diagnosed mentally ill people can also (without their mental illness playing into it at all) be damn, damn wrong. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks again.--WeakMindedSkeptic (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A priori

Why did you redirect A priori to a page that doesn't exist? --MtD^Bogan 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Check again. Also see: RW:DUP. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. A soon as a went back to RC, I realised what was going on. Sorry about that. --MtD^Bogan 23:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll live. =) αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"This is turning into a hit piece"

So you lock it, giving allowing the guy who turned the page into a hit piece free reign? Your lock doesn't stop him, and he went on and removed sourced info and reinserted a crank website. Typhoon (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You know moderator locks can be added & removed by any sysop, right? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Then what's even the point of the lock if the edit war is between two people with sysop rights? Typhoon (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Dunno where you got that from, but I have Sysop and can't unlock the page. Owlman has Tech rights and that allowed him to leapfrog over the lock Typhoon (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You removed moderator protection from the Chicken Coop back in January. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That was a move lock, not an edit lock, which is why I could change it (it's a really bizarre bug that allows this). Right now everything is greyed out when I try to unlock this page. Typhoon (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I've undone Owlman's last revert since he was (perhaps unintentionally) bypassing the moderator lock. Sort out your dispute on the talk page. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon, you needed to stop edit warring. I didn't care whose edit it was locked on -- because then the other person would have whined to MD instead. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Automatically

Just wondering, but how does documenting woo, authoritarianism and similar questionable stuff espoused by people—RW's mission, remember?—not automatically result in a hitpiece? As long as it's factual it's legit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It'd be one thing for RW to take the piss out of Clinton's previous antigay comments and lack of secularism etc. It's quite another to assert she's a corporate pawn. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

But ... she literally is. It's all but required to run as a politician in the US. Sanders is truly remarkable for not doing it this way. (As is Trump, but he's using his own money - which even Romney didn't do.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yea, nope. Getting private donations != being a pawn of the donator. Especially when, as is true for presidential campaigns, there are so many donors. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the "RationalWiki Bias"?

I've been on a few talk pages and a few users were saying something (I think negatively) about the RationalWiki Bias. What is the RationalWiki bias? I assume it's something to do with left-right wing but I may be wrong. Thank you in advance.--WMS (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The site was perfect until SJWs took over and destroyed it in, er, 2008 - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really go into social justice sections so I wouldn't know, but from what I seen from the conspiracy thoeirses, ufology, woo, skepticism and sections/articles like that, RationalWiki is pretty solid--WMS (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's page

So it has been a couple days and Hillary's page is still locked; it is apparently locked indefinitely which is highly problematic. No one else seems to be interested in debating on the edit war but from some of the other comments several users seem to agree with my version. So I am requesting you to unlock the page so I may revert it back.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 04:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So I will take that as a no.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 15:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For now, yes. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Since it is indefinite what will convince you to remove the protection since no one but Typhoon and I have commented about our disagreement.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 17:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

You have new messages at User talk:Peter Chastain

Nevada

There's been violence and death threats from Bernie supporters in Nevada. NV Democrats have filled a complaint against Sanders campaign to DNC. I've added this to the Bernie Sanders article... only for Owlman to swoop in and delete it all. His behaviour is now reaching vandalism levels. Typhoon (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

YAY, the next edit war! What are the bets, when it's gonna go to teh Coop?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've never been cooped before, as opposed to you. Typhoon (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of cooping.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything, darling (ahn♥)!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What is cooping? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at this page.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reddit

Just wondering how much liberal ideology you've derived from that website, given how often you link to it. Withoutaname (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're asking this as a communist/socialist/etc. Is that correct? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean? I happen to be one, but that doesn't have any bearing on my question of why you seem to, whether consciously or not, appeal to the Reddit brand of liberalism in the hidden undertones of your arguments. Withoutaname (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Also I don't know if you're aware, but I voted for you in the past mod election a couple of months ago and I talked extensively with a host of other people on this wiki. Withoutaname (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to know whether you were asking about liberalism from left or right. No, most of my views come from reading the Economist and doing research for high school debate. There were plenty of arguments about whether US hegemony & globalization are good, about whether communism/socialism/etc. provides better economic outcomes than capitalism/libertarianism/mixed-market-states, etc. If it lines up with the "Reddit brand", so be it.

And thanks for the vote, I think! Any reason? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about just that. I'm talking about liberal arguments for free speech and natural human rights, arguments originating uniquely from Reddit liberalism that you don't find here, even though this is a liberal website. Withoutaname (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I've never argued for "natural" human rights -- I agree with utilitarianism, and so think rights are derived from useful social function. Free speech, for example, demonstrably lowers corruption and likely reduces violent protests and increases innovation and social idea generation and communication. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

God, that was a word salad. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm frankly impressed you managed to come up with an explanation for the social usefulness of free speech beyond the average Reddit conception of it as an absolute universal moral good that should not be questioned whatsoever. Withoutaname (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your impressedness is noted. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a specific kind of utilitarianism in mind? Which utility would you seek to maximize? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What kind of liberal would you consider yourself?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 15:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@141: Ugh, it's been too long since I looked at util subdivisions. Rule util, based on maximizing the potential for sentient beings to exist and to expand their knowledge in the future.

@Owlman: Democracy is good, some technocratic impulses are also good; capitalism (or at least competition) works and government programs can fix its failings through redistribution and predistribution; there are no meaningful distinctions between people and so borders/tariffs shouldn't meaningfully exist (and so "globalization" is fine) and racism/sexism/anti-LGBTQ/etc. is dumb; powerful nations have an obligation to help less-well-off nations, and both intervention, aid, and economic integration can be successful at that (listed in reverse order of usual success). FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you didn't need to tell me all that but I appreciate it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 18:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A question for reference

Your opinion may have been different in the past, but do you currently believe that Kugelschreiber is Arisboch? I want to gauge your opinion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsure. However, they are behaving well, and any drama caused by removal is far worse than any drama they cause by presence. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Just wanted to check. I personally believe that he (Arisboch) chilled it after the coop case to avoid further suspicion, but he still continues with his arguments against the "Mona friends" and such-such, which is what makes me as sure as I am. I believe the evidence will continue to stack up, so I won't bring a coop case until absolutely necessary (massive edit wars, sockpuppets, vandalism, likesuch jazz). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"pretty clearly humorous"

1. It's not at all humorous from the context of the article, which goes on and on about how those who use it are obsessed with finally having sex.
2. "It was just a joke" is a bullshit excuse for bigotry, and elsewhere on the wiki we rightly point out how flimsy it is when it's still being used to normalize these prejudices:

• Rape culture#Jokes
• Anglo-Saxon Foundation#The Anglophobe conspiracy
• Environmental classism#The Summers memo

Moreover, the policy on snark makes it exceedingly clear that this sort of shit is not kosher:

"Try to be original and inventive when snarking up an article. Be funny, and not just stupid. Avoid overused jokes, obscure cultural references, or anything childish or overtly hateful. There are also a number of in-jokes and memes that the RationalWiki community has acquired over the years which should be used only sparingly in the main article namespace. Most importantly, the snark should support our site missions (as outlined above), not get in the way of them. Snark is not a cover for hatefulness, shoddy research, or thin analysis. A witty comment or two, added into a factual analysis, can help highlight the more ridiculous aspects of a crank belief or organization, while keeping the reader entertained."

In what way does "they're all angry virgins hur-dur" highlight a ridiculous aspect of the idea of "creep shaming"? Putting aside that even without that bit, the article outright claims that an anti-bigotry feminist (criticizing the tendency to accuse males in a feminine space, such as a single father or a boyfriend attending his girlfriend in the changing room, as a rapist or molester) is instead a sex-starved MRA complaining that women don't like it when they hit on them, the snark in the article should actually...highlight the legitimately ridiculous usages of the term, rather than just slinging non sequitur, offensive insults and misrepresenting specific persons out of context.204.11.142.106 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@204: you should take in to account that FCP is a wanker. Pippa (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. And Pippa, you're duly noted. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This smiley is relevant to the discussion: --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

and something for you

SmartFeller (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, he gets major props for flexibility FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's rather flexible.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 22:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So like us... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A question

Would it be possible for Archivist to replace all instances of <references/> with {{reflist|2|90%}}? The <references/> thing is kind of ugly and outdated - reflist is much more flexible and looks better.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Probs, will try it w/ The Fuzz when I get home. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. 1601 pages updated. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

While you're at it, can you replace all instances of ^{citation NOT needed} with ^{[citation NOT needed]}? This would shorten page size bigly, save server space and (I think?) cost us less money. PBfreespace (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't get the code to display properly here, so please view the source for this page to see what I'm talking about. PBfreespace (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You probably meant <sup>[Citation NOT needed]</sup>? (which becomes <code><nowiki>^{[Citation NOT needed]}</nowiki> when you try to display it, or more properly <code><nowiki><sup>[Citation NOT needed]</sup></nowiki>).

Also, I saw that The Fuzz has indeed been replacing <references/> with {{reflist}}. Thanks, FCP!--JorisEnter (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that! I'd been swapping references for reflist manually everywhere I saw'em for a while. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I ran 5 versions of the replace script. A total of 3 pages were changed. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

LANCB?

Hi Fuzzy, I'm afraid I'm LANCB (the never coming back part is a bit iffy, but still) due to lack of time to contribute and my increasingly busy schedule. I've noticed that some people requested to have their account be archived, but I'd rather have my account be deleted, if thats allowed. Thanks Sierra Nav (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'm pretty sure accounts cannot be deleted.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Shit. Well, do I just do the LANCB thing on my own, or should i get an admin? I've never really done something like this, so Im just wondering. Sierra Nav (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can simply leave. That should do the trick.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A guy called Sorte Slyngel wanted to LANCB and be erased, so he got an admin to replace all mentions of his name with "Uppivindinn". A sort of solution. (seewhatididthere)?PBfreespace (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war

Mona's lost it. Completely lost it. She went on a rampage, rewriting the Sanders article by whitewashing all the criticism and making it look like a propaganda piece, then went and started flooding me with misogynist insults. And then Pbfreespace3 joined in to predict for the millionth time that Trump will win and how I'm gonna be mad about it, etc, and assisted mona in her rampage. I'm aghast about this. Typhoon (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, altho I have insulted Typhoon and will continue to, I have made sourced edits and they are calm and intelligent. She simply wholesale reverts, gives no reason, and refuses to go to the talk page. I posted to the talk page and she simply ignores it. (Please note: everyone in the world is misogynistic to fembots like Typhoon, including older professional women like me who actually fought the real thing.)---Mona- (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You erased entire sections that were critical of Sanders while adding puff pieces that made him look like Che Guevara reincarnated. Typhoon (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do something about this, FCP. I don't want another coop case. Please protect the page. PBfreespace (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't pretend you're neutral Pbf, you joined mona and jerked off about how I'll be mad about Trump winning, and helped her in edit warring. Typhoon (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

When did I claim or even imply that I am neutral? I'm not. To be frank, I don't even care if the page is how Typhoon wants it; I just want the edit war to stop. PBfreespace (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Then back off, because right now you're doing everything to escalate it. Typhoon (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting the page is a realpolitik strategy to get it protected. I don't care if I'm punished for it. PBfreespace (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

My Saloon section addressing those inuring about me

There is no basis to remove that. Please do not do it.---Mona- (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Causes drama. Mod authority, activate. FuzzyCatPotato of the Pugnacious Etchings (talk/stalk) 01:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It developed into a giant pile of Gallus gallus domesticus excrement, which should be kept where it belongs.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The archive? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

[EC] That's also possible.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It was quiescent, and there is no reason to remove it. ---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

[EC] Eh, this was a fine example of drama being on pages where it does not belong. The Coop is for fighting out disputes that aren't about a particular page but about some user's behaviour (or really anything that is not directly related to actual page substance, I should say).--JorisEnter (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

FCP, I lost all respect for you last winter, and this just reinforces it. You tolerate the worst, utterly worst abuse of people, and do nothing, but you can't leave alone an inactive, sincere posting I put in the Saloon that had interesting comments in it. You invite MRAs and Gamergaters here, and never apologize for that, or for the consequences it led to for some of us. Like a whiny-assed baby, you came to me, last winter, to actually ask me, how you should deal with a horrifically abusive commenter. I had to hold your hand and guide you -- and you still couldn't find the nads to do what needed to be done. But oh, you can invoke the mod thing to remove a Saloon section that wasn't causing a bit of trouble and I'd be banned or modded if I countered that once you do. Really, fuck you. Your mod hat was nowhere when I needed it. FUCK YOU.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Asked and answered", Mona. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Right now that section is both on the Coop page and Saloon. Which one are people supposed to respond to? Typhoon (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"nigh a socialist"

So do you support social ownership and democratic control of the means of production? What kind of socialism, if any, do you lean toward? As a socialist and supporter of Bernie Sanders, I find it... difficult to believe you prefer HRC over BS (if those are the acronyms we're using now). PBfreespace (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

^ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

PBF, what will you do once Bernie inevitably endorses and campaigns for Hillary Clinton? Will you add him to the no-true-socialist pile too? Typhoon (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If he actually goes out and campaigns for her, I willsurrogatevote for Jill Stein as a protest vote. "no-true-socialist pile" I have no such pile. I classify people by what they actually believe and how that fits the definition of the ideology. Sanders isn't a socialist, nor is Clinton, nor is Stein. Nor are the French "socialists", or most of the European "socialist" parties. Not that it matters. If you've read about the parties and candidates, you should know what you're voting for. I know that I'm not voting for Hillary. Good enough? PBfreespace (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti-vax, pro-homeopathy Jill Stein is being viewed as a principled vote?KrytenKoro (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can excuse those views if I get other 96% of her platform that is practically perfect. I'd gladly accept unregulated homeopathy (which by the way already FUCKING EXISTS IN AMERICA) and no vaccines if half of everything else is implemented. Get it? PBfreespace (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pb: ie, the only way to 100.00% prevent abuse of workers is to ensure that workers run the companies for which they work. etc. busy. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What's funny is that even non-Americans can see Hillary for what she is, while you, Typhoon, cannot. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Their opinions don't count, they don't have a US passport, you remember?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Aeonian, are you a Turk by any chance? If not, what's your nationality? PBfreespace (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I live in an Arabic speaking country, unfortunately I cannot say more. I long for the day to be able to praise religion from the comfort of a secular state, as certain individuals in the West love to do. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahh. Alright. You can always tell us when it's safe to do so. PBfreespace (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe once Jill Stein learns how to balance a budget, she can be "principled". Jesus. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You're SO hypocritical, FCP. Do you think Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Trump would balance a budget? Obama came close, but then he adopted a larger budget again. None of the other candidates fit this proposal, so why single out Jill Stein as this silly, unlearned person? PBfreespace (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Submitted for your review

Check it, out a thingy! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Did I just goof up?

I just gave BoN 108.59.8.222 a 3.14 month block for claiming to be a known doxxer. I notice you haven't re-reverted his edits to Talk:Rome_Viharo. I'm a bit uncertain if I made the right choice, could you advise me on this? Also, feel free to unblock them or alter the block if I went overboard. Hertzy (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If MDS wants to let us know something, he'll easily find a proxy. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going by what Ikanreed commented - that it was "edge-of-doxxing territory", but not much more. So moderating that whole exchange, as I had tried to do, was in perfect order. But we haven't reached the point yet where the actual participants need to be muted, as far as I know (and I'm not the expert here). I think that particular vein of discusson being scrubbed and FCP locking the page to let them cool off is enough for now. So in my two cents, what Hertzy did was fine, but I don't think we've yet hit that critical point of "allright we're pulling the plug on you guys permanently". But all that could change as I write this, and besides, I'm placing my trust in the wisdom of the elders on this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I will add right away, that if it was an actual permabanned user ban evading, then ban is what he shall recieve. As FCP already pointed out, if he really wants to reach us via sock/proxy, he can. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss something here...?

Any particular reason why you saw fit to welcome the user behind these edits? I'm confused. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me literally underscore how drunk I am right now. And I can't tell if those edits were vandalism or if they were flaming Godlike Productions, e.g. like introducing InfoWars as "an excellent source of news on the upcoming reptilian plans to sleep with your children and teach them evolution" or something. I literally don't know at this point Fuzzy, my buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'm pretty sure that was vandalism.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I welcomed, with a question mark. Sleep it off. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you when I had enough, Dan. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You should better control people who want to misuse their mop and bucket

Before they continue to punish innocent accounts and act like assholes to people who have done no things against the rules. Lying about peoples contributions is little better, as I have not posted in the coop as I was accused of, I have done nothing but attempt to improve the wiki, and yet have been harassed from the word go by a user with no proof I am who they say I am. But I am the douche, for expecting somebody so worried about ban evasion to at-least follow the guidelines of the site. Fix this, that's your job as a moderator. --Die Züge über alle! 17:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you could link to any problems, that would be swell. FuzzyCatPotato of the Peculiar Lisps (talk/stalk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Any and all interactions between me and user:Pbfreespace3, who has harassed me from the time i signed onto the website with false accusations, unwarranted incivility and declarations that I need to leave the website. They have ignored the community guidelines and the rules on proper Sysop conduct and are utterly unapologetic about it, as shown by their long history on the site of doing so. Reign in your sysops when they act break rules. --Die Züge über alle! 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You ask for something and then do not reply. I see. --Die Züge über alle! 01:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Try give him some links. Nerd (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Moderator hat on, dude.

Typhoon is, all by herself, relentlessly edit warring with either a minority or perhaps even even the majority of active editors on this site (!), including (among others) currently Owlman, Nerd, JorisEnter and now myself, over the course of weeks. All the while being outright abusive and toxic in the block logs and edit notices (it's seriously no fun at all - I don't plan to ever threaten to LANCB, I don't want to leave, but it honestly ruins my fun editing RW, and I can't sit here and make myself sad.). I mean, literally - scroll a few pages looking at her contributions. Now look at mine, or Joris'. Again, scroll a few pages. We actually do meaningful things, the vast majority of our edits never going contested by anyone as they are generally quite agreeable (and me and Joris are - for June as well - the 2 most active editors on this site after a bot!). We rarely, if ever, even participate in edit wars, never mind start them. We rarely if ever abuse people in block logs or edit notices. (Consult the Contributions and block log entries for Typhoon and us). Typhoon does nothing but edit war, and is treating us other editors (especially us non-belligerent, non-abrasive problem solvers and workhorses) like shit in block logs and edit notices. This is not acceptable. (She even blocked me for five whole minutes today as part of her all-out war of attrition. There was no need for that, she just wanted to fuck with me (as she does on a regular basis with other editors, too). And the truth is, I didn't even know how to unblock myself. I was just left there to rot by an abusive edit-warrior. By accident I found the unblock button trying to edit my talkpage asking for sanity). This has to end, one way or the other. Please act potently, man. All the best, friend of all, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and PS - I am not contacting you over the edits to the Dawkins article. I have stopped re-inserting them. This is about Typhoons toxic edit practices spanning days and days involving multiple good users. This is NOT a discussion on GG or Hillary vs Bernie. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what's going on over at the Dawkins page, Typhoon has consistently been pushing a pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders POV on several different pages, and in the process has been edit warring with at least four different editors, while only occasionally getting support from Castaigne. She's edit warring against consensus, pushing a POV on something that isn't clearly one-sided (unlike, say, creationism, where the issue is pretty obvious), and has repeatedly removed content that was quite neutral, only to replace it with things that make the page look like some anti-Sanders hitpiece.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And just as much as this isn't specifically about Sanders or Hillary, or isn't specifically about Dawkins or GamerGate, this is really quite specifically about a problem user who edit wars like a bot across half the site, driving a number of good people who contribute to the site to despair. I mean, scroll back among her contributions! Really do it. Compare them to those of any active, non-toxic, non-problematic editor. I mean, it's just edit warring for hundreds of entries, sometimes topped off with pointy words directed at various undeserving members members of our community in the edit summary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fucking rich to accuse me of political bias, while mona and her friends were editing with a blatant pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary slant. Other people have also been noticing the insertion of various Clinton conspiracy theories onto this site by the same users that accuse me of bias. Nerd and Mona spread conspiracies about both Clinton and me, as can be seen here where Nerd agrees with mona's wacky theory that I'm "working for the HRC campaign". I've been called a "Vagina voter" and worse insults by mona, who then got demopped for abusing sysop against me. Percy is now trying to dress this abuse against me as my fault for not rolling over and bending to people who were vulgarly insulting me and accusing me of conspiracies. Typhoon (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice how I didn't even mention Mona in the above post highlighting your unacceptable behaviour. You're the one drawing attention to further recent controversy surrounding you, not me. You clearly do not deny the shitstorms you have been and are currently doing all you can to stay right in the middle of. I suppose you trying to make this about you and Mona is currently your best shot at a red herring defense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

[EC] It is indeed true that the only person edit warring pro Clinton is Typhoon. Percy, Nerd, Owlman, and myself have all found ourselves in edit wars with her at some point in the last week or so, and Pb is also known to be not much of a fan of Typhoon. Besides, looking at the respective editors' 100 most recent contributions, it appears that Typhoon has made approximately 3 edits that are not related to (a) elections or (b) edit warring over Dakwins (one being a revert of vandalism, and two being an accidental revert followed by a revert of that), while Percy and I have made many useful contributions not related to those topics, and Owlman and Nerd have also made edits (albeit fewer) to non-election pages. So it should be pretty clear that the problem here lies with Typhoon. Besides, the only reason the previous coop case didn't end in some sort of penalty for Typhoon was that Mona LANCB'd at some point and got demopped afterwards. Mona is known to cause trouble, but Typhoon is just as bad when it comes to election-related stuff.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It takes two people to edit war, and it's hilarious how you guy's are now hoping that if you attack me at once you can escape without being punished too. Do note, Fuzzy, that Percy went to canvass support on multiple talkpages right after he started this talkpage section. Typhoon (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Atleast I can actually show people my contributons (going back several pages) without having to try and make up excuses for why in the world it looks the way it does. Yours on the other hand has quite the narrative behind it, I understand (without which it's "oh so easy to misunderstand"). Further, the very opposite of mobocracy would be for things to somehow be said and done behind closed doors with the community kept in the shadows - the literally show-stopping issue of your recent activity deserves attention. And for the record, the majority of the people I had to contact as I made the above post intially were people who you had also attacked. Surely you of all people must be able to fully enumerate all the people who you've taken extra steps to offend and annoy? Indeed it can be called "canvassing" just trying to get ahold of everybody you've personally fought just in the recent time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote in that link, Typhoon? Mona made the accusation. I said I have my suspicions but one should give you the benefit of doubt since there is no evidence. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You have to be out of your mind to believe that Hillary or anyone who works for her would care about RationalWiki. THe fact that you continue to being "suspicious" is absurd. Typhoon (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And as Percy said, Typhoon is now trying to sidetrack the issue by bringing in "Mona and her friends", as if the fact that several people agree with Mona (or more appropriately, disagree with Typhoon) proves that they're all just Mona's minions.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

They all share an immense pro-Bernie anti-Hillary bias. This is nothing but another attempt to silence me after mona got de-sysopped for being abusive. Typhoon (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk about being a conspiratorial jonanist muppet. I haven't even participated in any of the heated Bernie/Hillary discussions (and I've only poked fun at Trump), and while I have espoused pro-Bernie views in some situations outside of any type of heated debate, I haven't even yet opened my mouth on my views on Hillary. I haven't ever said anything negative about her, nor protested any of your edits for any political reason. So please. Stop scuttling about like a rat trying to scratch your way out of this one. You're stuck with the bill for how you've been behaving in every avenue in which you have participated, against a vast number of our friendly contributors, over a long period of time. You're stuck with your own track record. Now stand for it, because we won't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Help, help, I'm being repressed! (I'm using this quote too much, I know).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And no, this isn't some sort of attempt to "silence you". This is an attempt to stop you from being a complete asshole who edits against consensus.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

And you have asserted that Bernie supporters are a bunch of racist and sexist white guys who hate Hillary because they believe in right-wing conspiracies. You who has accused me of being white and have used white as an insult. You only see what you want to just like Aneris.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened between you and -Mona- is none of my business. This is about you, Typhoon! Nerd (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand by the complaints made by Reverend Black Percy. She has in fact been involved in multiple edit wars against other contributors very recently, sometimes against a few of them on a single day on a single page. On top of that, she as been quite abrasive towards those who disagree with her. Those logs will show you. I have tried to get her to participate in civil discussions on how to improve those pages in vain. These talk pages will make that clear. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Nerd didn't care a bit when mona was being abrasive, instead opting to help her in edit warring. He's a hypocrite who believes that I'm part of Hillary's campaign. Typhoon (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's hilarious how you continue to bring Mona into this, while this is about you. Four different editors have expressed their disapproval of your behaviour, and all you can think of is Mona and how she was involved.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not facing a Mona now. You're facing a significant segment of our most active and collegial community, and the controversy relates entirely to your own actions. You're an impediment to this project and you will be held accountable. Whoops. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Eugè! Eugè! (this is apparently the ancient Greek equivalent of "hear hear")--JorisEnter (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A separate issue covered here

Just so you know, Percy has tried to insert an imgur link into the Dawkins article. Said link was created by a Gamergator and was blaming "shirtgate" on "radfems shaming a man to tears", which is a blatant lie. Typhoon (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and his claim that I'm "edit warring with the majority" is a lie too. I can count on one hand the number of users I get into arguments over articles, one of which was already de-mopped for repeated sysop abuse against me. Typhoon (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that there was anything in that idiotic "scandal" worth the amount of backlash the guy got? It was a slightly racy shirt for fuck's sake, and it had been a gift to him. There was no justification for any of the attacks against him and anyone who thinks otherwise is certainly a radical something 68.200.26.93 (talk)

That is a completely separate issue, and in response to even the concern that it might be GG-related, I have myself retracted said edits. I based my original edits on prominent feminist Julie Bindel's words regarding the incident. I am a feminist and I come from a feminist perspective on these matters. I am not a "gator", nor have I ever been one. Talk page discussion here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it's important context that you try to hide. Just because I previously engaged in edit wars with mona doesn't mean that now any revert I do is wrong. Your edits were unsourced gator trash that were rightfully removed. Typhoon (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Burn the HRC/BS articles TO THE GROOOUUUND. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actual solution

Maybe everyone involved here steps back and doesnt edit these articles for a week (a month?) and then has a lot more time to edit war on other issues, eh? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

We've tried that before. Didn't work.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mod protection is quite efficacious. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what happened. And here we are again.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That'll freeze the conflict, not solve it.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Until Sanders drops out and his supporters overwhelmingly support Clinton, this will keep coming back. Perhaps a mod lock until the convention? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that some more ardent users don't return it is unlikely this will end after that. What I don't understand is why this was put here and not the coop since the argument appears to be Typhoon's edits.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Even that is not a guarantee, as the so-called "Bernie or Breast Bust" faction is not a mere fantasy; there are people not wanting to vote for the lesser evil Clinton and want to either go third party (which is not throwing away your vote. Throwing away your vote would be staying home, getting rat-arsed and not voting), write in someone who dropped out from the race to the nomination or even vote for the bigger evil Cthulhu Trump (that'd be a tiny minority, thank FSM). E.g. PB and Mona said they're not gonna vote for Hillary and Mona may come back to edit war here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 18:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So I was discharged from a hospital yesterday

Where I was stuck for three days, instead of on vacation. I flew back home on a 6-hour flight that became a 10-hour flight. I caught a 1-hour taxi ride with someone who wouldn't shut up about homeopathy. And then I flopped onto my bed and slept for 14 hours.

And I wake up, and RationalWiki hasn't changed. Drink! FuzzyCatPotato of the Pimpalicious Catamites (talk/stalk) 18:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I hope you feel better and it is too bad that you couldn't enjoy yourself on vacation. You don't have to deal with this and I can move this if you want.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 18:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're OK. Feel free to ignore the fracas above. Typhoon (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, buddy. Don't wear yourself out and take the space you need; I would've contacted another moderator had I known about your plight flight (get it?). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear that you're alright amigo! Sounds like a heck of a day you had but it's finally in the past, welcome back to the land of good health--WMS (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sig-amajig

How do you get your sig to look like that? Do you need to copy the entire contents of the sig page into the sig box in your preferences? {{u|Pbfreespace3|{{#choose: 1=Pbfreespace |1=PBfreespace |1=PBfreespace3 |1=PBfreespace3 |1=Pbfreespace2 |1=PbFreespace |1=<small>PB</small>freespace |1=<small>pb</small>freespace |1=<small>PB</small>freespace3 |1=<small>pb</small>freespace3 |1=PЬFЯЗЭSPД (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) See what I mean? I dun fucked up. User:Pbfreespace3/sig (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferences:

{{User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig|}}

And see:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:FuzzyCatPotato/sig&action=edit

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:FuzzyCatPotato/sigend&action=edit

FuzzyCatPotato of the Contagious High-powered laser rifles (talk/stalk) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's try. {{User:Pbfreespace3/sig|}} (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Argh, it's not working right. Here I type the signature tildes: {{User:Pbfreespace3/sig|sigend}} (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But then when I actually type it out: PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk)

Trying tildes again: PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) That does it! Thanks for the help. PBfreespace (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

NP. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I've recently archived a bunch of old WIGO entries to their respective archives, but these are all still "open" - i.e., people can vote on them. Could you run a bot through the archives to change them all to <vote poll=... closed=yes>?--JorisEnter (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, is there any way to change the second "world" icon I've added to {{WIGO NAV}} to an "election" icon?--JorisEnter (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just go to http://textmechanic.com/text-tools/basic-text-tools/find-and-replace-text/ oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your support of O'Malley

I actually liked O'Malley and would've voted for him if it were him v Clinton but I was curious why you like him beyond what you wrote in your essay. Also, why did you pivot to Clinton rather than Sanders since he seemed to understand where Sanders was coming from but his reforms were more incremental?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: O'Malley: Sanders seemed and seems unelectable. (Don't buy current polls, they exist in a world where 1/5 of news is anti-Sanders, while 4/5 is anti-Clinton. [1]) O'Malley was the left-er version of Clinton, and Obama's pick until Clinton clinched it. More important to move the country leftward than to cross fingers and hope for leftolution. Moreover, good governance from a white guy for 4-8 years could pacify conservatives, which would ensure they never hold the presidency again. (Female Scandal President and Communist Castro President and Black Muslim President rile up, White Liberal President does not.)

Re: Pivot: See electability. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 22:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh btw, what policies of his did you disagree with?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, O'Malley implemented the "Hard On Crime Cuz' It's The 90's" policies in Baltimore, which screwed over black people and cost a lot of money. But, much like with the Clintons' support of the same, said policies were overwhelmingly popular (I think he had over 90% black support in mayoral race, which is insane). Moreover, unlike the Clintons, he was the most damn data-driven guy in politics then, and to my mind, ever. (Hence the "-stat"s. Can you imagine, Excel would fix the world's problems?) Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sanders seemed and seems unelectable." No, he's more electable than HRC due to polling data. Don't buy the polls? Why not?

"1/5 of news is anti-Sanders, while 4/5 is anti-Clinton." How did you reach these numbers. I totally disagree with them. NBC, ABC, and even CBS are all in the tank for her. CNN, with their neutrality bias, will do well for her, and only really FOX in terms of broadcast networks really dislike her. Powerhouses like New York Times and Washington Post really came out swinging for her. The idea that the media, which is mostly neutral to pro-Democrat, is anti-Clinton, is a big and untrue stretch.

"O'Malley was [...] Obama's pick until Clinton clinched it". What the ever-living fuck did I just read? O'Malley dropped out after Iowa. Obama never endorsed him, and it is well-known (by most media outlets) that Obama really grew to like Hillary while working with her for 4 years. She says she agrees with him on almost all policies, so why would Obama say "well, up, y'know, I uhh... prefer Martin O'Malley ... because.. well..." It doesn't make any sense what you're saying. PBfreespace (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Trump can't win, look at all these polls where he's a couple points behind Hillary! Sanders is unelectable, don't trust the polls, they're bullshit!" Lolz. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@142, Pb (re: polls): Sanders has lived in a positive-media environment for the 1-2 years he's been in the public eye. Clinton has lived in a negative-media environment for the last 1-2 years and has faced scandalmongering for 20 years. As such, the public is already widely informed of Clinton's perceived failings -- less so of Sanders'. It's reasonable (to me) to believe that Sanders would have gotten absolutely slaughtered pollwise versus Trump if Sanders had gotten the Clinton treatment. You need not agree with my assessment -- but these numbers are why my support goes where it does.

@Pb: This article, linked above [2]. Maybe I read too much into the numbers -- but it certainly seems to support the idea that "media played hardball w/ Clinton, softball w/ Sanders". Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there that much the media can criticize Sanders on, though? Basically all I've heard is "oh noes he hasn't intricately planned how to break up the big banks yet" and "the BernieBros have done something naughty". The main electability problem for Sanders from the start was that nobody knew who he was, but the media have thankfully (completely unintentionally) resolved that. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

@FCP I mean discounting whether or not the various scandals are true or not, most Democrats don't really latch onto them and polling showed that a majority would still vote for her if she were indicted. I think that calling Sanders' plans detrimentalto jobs and financial security basically calls him a dangerous idiot which voters are more likely to respond to.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 05:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@142: The electability problem for Sanders is "communism" and holding less-popular left-wing positions that make it easier to paint him as idealist. Neither he nor Trump has published a budget that is truly balanced -- which prevents the "I'm voting for Clinton because I want a sane politician" centrist viewpoint. *shrug* Even if I'm wrong, this is why.

@Owlman: Self-proclaimed independents, though. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but what to self-proclaimed independents have to do with this? Also, I would have to be insane to believe that Sanders would be red-baited, face anti-Semitism, or be attacked as an unrealistic utopian. I mean a Jewish socialist as president would have to be the best combination anti-Semites ever could've had. I just find it odd that anyone could believe that Clinton wouldn't be attacked as vehemently as president.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 01:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would've thought so too, but apparently "socialist" is nowadays far less closely associated with Soviet, anti-American affiliations. Russia having completely abandoned the communist ideology and seemingly having become a right-wing paradise might have something to do with that. And since when do nations with the political and economic weight such as the US's need to worry about balanced budgets? Just go full Keynesian and reap all the benefits without any of the downsides. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey FCP. You referenced Bernie and Trump's proposed budgets being unbalanced. Can you show me a recent budget proposal from Hillary Clinton that's balanced? PBfreespace (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

eg, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-fiscal-conservative--look-it-up/2016/05/02/62350526-109f-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope my awkwardness/stupidity doesn't aggravate you too much

Hey, I just wanted to make sure that my laughable lack of social skills and my frequent stupidity don't aggravate you too much. I seem to alienate a number of people with the way I am in real life and it just would be honestly difficult to bear the fact that I piss off a guy who pretty much kickstarted my skeptical view on bunk like conspiracy theories (which I can't thank you enough for! Honestly, if not that Illumicorp forum, where you gave a good debunk and suggested I make an article, I would have still, to this day, most likely been terrified of that and other bunk!)--WMS (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I'm not aggravated -- neither is RBP. :)

And hey, I'm always glad to add another entry to RW's compendium of insanity. The more bullshit that RWians can spot a mile a way, the better. I've always found that writing articles is a nice way to clear up one's own thoughts on something -- especially something as insane and garbled as IllumiCorp, for example. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Awesome :D--WMS (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop Hippocrit

I left a lengthy explanation on the Bernie Sanders talk pages, which is currently mod-protected -- explaining why I'm, not going to spend much more time defending my edits to Typhoon. Weaseloid had told Typhoon and I to discuss our editing differences and I did so to a significant extent. There's no point in my doing so further, however, and I set forth why -- there should be a record on that page as to why I do not do this any longer, even tho as we move toward the Dem Convention and beyond the Sanders page is going to requite updating. Hippocrit keeps page-blanking and posting it in some silly dedicated page he's established for my "rants." Please make him stop this. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Now it's him and Castaigne just trying to end the discussion with various other ploys. Please make the bad kids behave. A discussion had started, but obviously cannot move forward with their obstructionism.---Mona- (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't tried to end the discussion at all; please don't lie. And I'm curious as to what the discussion is, as it seems to be mostly you ranting and ignoring any comments made. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have zero to say to you, Castaigne. For all the reasons many here cannot stand you, for the reasons you've been cooped, de-mopped & etc. You are the worst of bad faith editors with whom I do not waste my time. I've asked a mod to intervene, as against two known problems -- that would be you and Hipocrit. (I have such trouble getting his perverse spelling of his moniker down!) Have a nice day.---Mona- (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bad faith; I merely don't agree with you. But then, you view those who do not agree with you as traitors to be executed against the wall anyway, so oh well.

And please don't wish me a nice day. You don't mean it, so there's no need for pretty little lies like that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I Quote:

Yes, after you finish trying to take out Typhoon you'll move on to me, and then the next, and the next. The politics of personal destruction is certainly strong somewhere. Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And this same "Hipocrite" [sic] then wages war of "personal destruction" against one person (who he most certainly never called a cunt, haha). I am still not sure if this is a piece of performance art or if this is serious... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, now, Carpetsmoker, let's not be disingenuous - that's the same as lying. Let's include the further context.

No, I'm accusing you of being part of the offensive gaggle of people who think that this is a competition to be won, and who believe that the way to win it is to eliminate people who are on what they perceive as the other side of said competition. I'm accusing you of being influenced by the toxic culture that was brought to our project by a stream of shitlords. How you personally got here, I don't care, but someone please bring back the days where people could disagree with eachother harshly and then STOP, as opposed to holding grudges for months. Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that makes his statement clearer. Don't you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker, what Castaigne did to you was appalling. He's been as rancid to many, including me. After we both left for a bit apparently he attacked the wrong people because something was finally done. Neither you nor I should be required to interact with him. At a minimum, he should be topic-banned from wherever we edit.---Mona- (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Since that would be anywhere on the wiki, you are suggesting a perma-ban. Please feel free to start a coop. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, the internet tough guy phase has begun again? Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything tough? I referred to the existing policies and procedures by which she may achieve her desires. I'm surprised you didn't suggest them.

By the by, when will you start your wiki back up? I'd think I'd like to contribute. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I certainly plan to finish my Penn & Teller episode guide, but have little interest in doing so on RW. I'm not sure if that will be as a personal project or if it will be in a "wiki-ish" form yet (it will most certainly not be like WP or RW for various reasons). I am currently busy with other things, although I did write some code for it last week... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Then good luck to the endeavor when it happens, whatever form it may take. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am confused why you are adding that quote Castaigne2, since it only seems to strengthen my argument. Hipocrite complains about other bullying but consistently does the same to other people. Indeed, he is often the one to start the toxic cycle of meaningless fights. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. I don't see Hipocrite bullying, but being bullied. Hipocrite attempts to clean things up, all while being mobbed by 3-5 people who consistently disregard any consensus or discussion that doesn't come from themselves or their friends. *shrugs* Call it a difference of perception.

But perhaps you can enlighten me. If Hipocrite starts such, what agenda is Hipocrite attempting to implement? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't say anything about an agenda, just that he's a bully. And being bullied does not excuse him; that's a "he started it − no she started it!" sort of childish shouting match. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that bullies have agendas; that's why they bully. But anyway.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. I don't see what Hipocrite does as bullying. I do see Mona as one. She reminds me of a faux-liberal version of Phyllis Schlafly. To each their own. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

PLEae re-mop me

I don't believe DG de-mopped me as a mod, and moreover, Weaseloid was a mod who had no problem with my actions toward Typhoon, and in fact told her to behave herself when he re-mopped her at my behest. Typhoon started a coop case about me and Weseloid said it was nonsense. If anything, DG is going against another mod, in this case Weaseloid.

I can't use friendly blocks to communicate with people like this, and that's just ridiculous. I didn't do anything wrong, Typhoon did. David isn't here - indeed, lack of mods being around is what was the problem to begin with. In any event,please re-mop me.---Mona- (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Chicken_coop/Archive49#Stop_being_fuckwits - I strongly suggest not remopping Mona without mob consensus that this is a good idea and not a bad one - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a Zionist now, which was certainly news to me - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone not agreeing with her is a Zionist, didn't you know? Just like everyone disagreeing with a white nationalist is a cuck, kike or both.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 18:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke

I thought putting someone on sysoprevoke prevented any non-mods from remopping that person. Why was Pb able to remop Mona then?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

People can still add them to the sysop group, but they can't actually use the tools. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Moderator

I hereby drop this on your lap. --Ymir (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A possible troll, a probable racist -- but no misbehavior? Clarify, pretty please! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This person's behavior has been quite bizarre. From my interactions with this person, I think your diagnosis is quite correct. Nerd (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's likely that it's someone who's read too many HBD blogs (and also too many postmodernism blogs?) and has yet to realize how their ideas interact with reality. It's like a train wreck that's still in the planning phase. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I like your comparison. Here is the latest example of weirdness. I'm not sure if this person has done any damage, so I have not done anything. Perhaps you will come to a different conclusion. Nerd (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. I do not like that we appear to tolerate people throwing around claims of libel at other editors, as it has a chilling effect. I think English Wikipedia has this right: ask them to retract the threat, and block if they don't. --Ymir (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What Ymir said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, she did mention she was also an editor on Wikipedia, did she not? Thank you, Ymir! I have delivered a stern warning of an extended block, even a permanent one. Nerd (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

God damn, that WP page was the sickest burn I've read in ages. Holy hell. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

At least she hasn't attacked our hard science pages (yet). I'll keep an eye on her. Nerd (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I'll be sure to be on her like a moth to flame if she even dares to touch one of those articles, or any other for that matter. PBfreespace (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My fucking God. I'm looking through the roast of her and her wiki contributions. And people there called me a megalomaniac! PBfreespace (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, calm down, it's just a normal wikidiot. No need for metaphors or stalking. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi buddy! See this. Thoughts? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you restored the Mormon flowchart - so obviously it's not at all clear that every single image deleted by CarpetSmoker today is undeniably outside fair use. Based on this - and since I need to learn how to use the delete/restore dialogs anyhow, which I've never used before - I decided to also "test-contest" the removal of the image from our Trump article. I'm awaiting some kind of reply to this, but atleast we're now two editors contesting removal. Oh well, we'll solve this amicably and in the best way, in due time. Whatever is best for the wiki is best. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No-mination

So, I didn't get one? Now I'm already feeling grumpy and tired! Just let me go fetch my jammy-jams with a pucker... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Pwned!

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoah brokofski; you showed me allright! Hit it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've played knifey-spooney before!

Why, what's this? I thought this was to be accompanied by one of those nice nomination template thingies on my talk page! I'd look so nice, too. I'm waving a tiny flag waiting for it! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Halp

Hey pal! Here, I was wondering - what's the Project thing mean? What type of pages are those? Sandbox edits or something? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Project = RWspace. Bar, Coop and the like.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! I'm happily going to do my best to stay above 50% mainspace edits, though. I'm here to contribute. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that I currently have around 54% mainspace edits - and that this month is very average in that, even with all the coop drama and other non-mainspace stuff (although I guess that all my category adding and removing has significantly boosted my mainspace edits).--JorisEnter (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, in spite of Mona's whining about RW drying up (and even subtracting the 1600 bot edits), RW has alread had more edits than last month. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, that's interesting. That said, Mona herself does not exactly contribute to RW drying up - if anything, she increases the number of edits (though the quality and usefulness decrease).--JorisEnter (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

How often do people read our stuff? Nerd (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are last month's stats. Might be somewhere in there.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a mixed picture. In any case, what we need is more constructive edits and less drama. Nerd (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nerd: DG estimates RW gets 55-60 million views per month. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Nerd (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope those numbers are correct! I contribute in the hope that as many people as possible get to take part... But are they really unique page views, as in, unique visitors to the site, or could many of those be generated from a relatively small number of regulars doing tons of pageloads and/or navigating the site and thus generating requests, etc? I'm just surprised we get so few BoN edits considering if we'd have 50+ million unique visitors? Again, I'm very aware of the vast difference between "page views" and "unique visitors", but I'm just trying to unify the concepts here to maybe arrive at some type of ballpark for a literal enumeration of individual human beings visiting RW to read the contents of our articles? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Alexa puts it at 2.1 million unique viewers per month. Alexa is notoriously inaccurate, but that sounds about the right ballpark. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate your weighing in

On this binding of your hands as a mod. Is that how things work here now? Hipocrite (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fuzzy, please do weigh in. PB created this particular poll. PB replied and said that this was his premise for the vote. The "No" side started out by adding "No" votes to all options. The "No" side didn't decide not to vote, as if the vote was somehow not recognized by the mobocracy. The "Yes" side simply plays by the same rules. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

...Aaand now Hipocrite has went full Mona. Sigh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He'll be back fast, just like Mona.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) 01:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Godfather, please do weigh in. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

*seal applause*

This is so mastefully executed as to almost be quotable for our article on sealioning. Derp. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule

Speaking of which, I think this merits your attention. Nerd (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

Now that the hilariously embarrassing kangaroo coup has ended. May I ask about how the "punishment" (which I received for not bending knees to the abusive editors) will look like? Is my sysop removal indefinite or is it in the hands of toxic people who have my name written in their "enemies list"? Peace. Typhoon (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so that's one way of putting it, I suppose...? You seem to be at that level-headed position where the melodrama has taken over completely, and you now describe your role and activity at this Wiki in terms befitting some kind of fantastical soap opera (when's your big sing-off?). The magnitude of how relaxed you clearly are is pretty palpable. Now, let's see... Since returning, you've been going at: the Bernie Sanders article, the Hillary Clinton article, the Richard Dawkins article, the Regressive left article and the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination in your regular fashion - cutting and adding left right and center to your heart's content. Understandable that you'd mistakenly forget to mention that, what with all the persecution going on. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back to editing stuff that interests me, despite all the insults and abuse I receive from the angry brigade. I intend to keep on editing, no matter how many times mona calls me a "vagina voter" no matter if Nerd continues to imply I work for the Hillary campaign, no matter if Owlman continues his quixotic quest to label me a racist for pointing out Bernie's minority deficit. And especially no matter how mad Percy is that his Gamergate trash got deleted from the Dawkins page. You're free to start another coop case to embarrass yourself, and this wiki, even more. I especially welcome the flood of edit warring made by you and your friends against an editor who can't defend himself. I am not afraid. Typhoon (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I also have a right to know the terms of my "punishment". I'll be waiting for Fuzzy to inform me about it while, ignoring your anger that you can't silence me or chase me away from this wiki. Typhoon (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this the point where I add another instance of {{Helphelp}}?--JorisEnter (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon: Name-calling will not help you. To be honest, I was about to ignore this fracas but you keep making that false accusation against me. A lie repeated often enough is more likely to be accepted as the truth. Mona thought you worked for the Clinton campaign; I said I shared the same suspicion but did not really take it serious because there was no evidence. Don't you remember? Nerd (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty rich of you to complain about name calling, you had no problem when mona threw at me a torrent of insults and happily joined her in your wacky suspicions about me being a part of Hillary's campaign. Typhoon (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't you defend yourself against Mona's namecalling? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, whatever happened between you two is none of my business. Nor do I desire to take part. Nerd (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Joris: That would make a great entrance. Nerd (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the coop couldn't choose one option from the smorgasbord, currently the punishment is "if you edit war, I'll kick your scrawny arse". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to know that edit warring from Nerd and co. is fine. Typhoon (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, since you're all about edit warring.

[3]. AlexanderHamiltno (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Block abuse

Joris has no intention to ever let me edit the Regressive Left article. He ignored all of my argument for my edits. This is now abusive. Typhoon (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me

I am encouraged by seeing that there are indeed voices of sanity left at this place! Much obliged! ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.212.73.246 / talk / contribs}

NP. Behave well, please. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IP 62

I would not be so sure, FCP. That person deleted a bunch of content on the page in an attempt to make "more neutral". In addition, his behavior towards LH is simply unacceptable. And just look at his name-calling on his talk page. Nerd (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Er, you really should take a look at this. Nerd (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Archvist

Eh, could it be that the capital S in "(Sticky)" messes up the stickiness?--JorisEnter (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah, it lowers the title. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald

May I ask why you're OK with removing him as an example while keeping Kumar, despite both being unfairly labeled in the same manner? Typhoon (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're back to editing the article, would you please respond to my question? Typhoon (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

B/c there's no reason to believe that Kumar is not a liberal. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation - Greenwald is a good leftist, Kumar is a regressive leftist. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald has been called a conservative/libertarian a bajillion times. Cut that crap. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

snort By whom, exactly? The dude is an admitted socialist. Socialism is NOT a conservative/libertarian position - and he's not welcome in those clubs. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh, that's fair. (I misremembered, oh do accept my apology.) Added him back in. Enough consistency for thou, O Castaigne? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you're not being consistent. Remember the coop case? I am officially wrong, all my substantial edits are specifically wrong, and I'm one of the "regressive left" that's ruining RationalWiki. I repeat - "It is safe to say that Castaigne's actions hurt RationalWiki's community far more than they help it." I am, after all, by your proclamation a bully and worse than Aneris. Therefore, the correct thing to do is to dismiss my argument, insist on your own, and disregard any protest I make against it. I'll help you get back on track with that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Assholes can get things right. (And you're behaving well -- so does that mean, for consistency, I must trust you 100%?) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You made it clear previously that it is impossible for me to get things right, so for consistency, I reverted your edit so that Greenwald is removed, and did so on the basis that you state Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian.

And I'm not behaving well. You made it clear back in February that I have not behaved well in the past, do not behave well in the present, and will not behave well in the future. Since the vote went against me, no matter what my actual behavior is, I am by definition not behaving well by the verdict and you are required to oppose me.

I really wish you would stay on target and remember what has been dictated. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed small error

Got it, thanks Purebread ^who? 16:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Purebread - Perceptiion WIP

Scientiic American Magazine July Issue has a new thread of articles on the "brain mechanics of perception"

• How visually context will distort your perception of the size of an object

• How you age may influence your perception of time, during a heated debate, for instance

In responding to dubious "positions" RW is faced with 2 choices

• Just debunk - which has it's value
• Replace broken ideas with a more accurately perceived and discerned reality

That's where being savy about how the brain works vis a vis discernment is important

WIP

Purebread ^who? 17:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiny experiment, your help

Hi from Miami

I was wondering if your would try something

The main mission page has the phrase "antiscience movement" which seems silly and probably turns first visitors off.

Antiscience movement ??? Where is the main office???

I suggested "phenomenon" as replacement, and after getting a second from PB3 I changed the template

I guess Weiseloid did not like it and reverted it twice

without communication (changed permissions on the template)

The issue is not huge for me, but I am worried about W's way of handling it.

What if you, if in agreement changed the word from movement to something like phenomenon, only if you concur that this is a helpful change?

BWTU Purebread ^who? 03:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We certainly do not edit the mission statement without prior mob agreement resulting from a moderator-organized vote. Leave it be. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

^. The mission has tradition based in strong mob support -- revisions must win mobocratically. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand Purebread ^who? 02:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sticking dick in (or being dick-stuck by) crazy

Question: is there any particular reason, evolutionary or otherwise, why crazy often has that very particular look, something in the eyes, often related to general attractiveness? Just asking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of these credentials, and the scientific publications she alleges? You think it's something akin to this, or is it legitimate? Why would a person who claims to have successfully taken a medical doctorate at Cornell University and taken a master's in neuroscience from MIT also have bothered to be "certified" as a Integrative Holistic Medicine practicioner? Never mind be such a woo-meister? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Looks: I see smth similar in website quality. Modern crank websites tend to be really glossy. I think that's because real people generally have work to do and so don't budget for snazzy websites -- but style is very important when there's no substance.

@CredsLegit: There are plenty of creationists with PhDs -- the big list verifies this -- and I think it's just another case in which humans genuinely disagree, due to limited information.

@CredsReason: It could be a Lisle situation -- get legit creds to back-up nonsense. It could also be that they genuinely believe that their alternative medicine has scientific backing. Plenty of doctors support altmed; I think this is b/c there are some studies that support almost any altmed (b/c study results for something with 0 effect should cluster around the mean of 0, but some will show positive effects and some negative) and people are fallible. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's happening

You didn't believe me. You said it wasn't likely. But now your own beloved pollster Nate Silver says a Trump victory is the most likely outcome right now.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

Take that cat! PBfreespace (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Who would win the election today. Can you read? Are you actually proud of the fact that you're making this possibility more likely by the second? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I can do much to swing an election. That result says today, who knows how much Trump will win by in November! PBfreespace (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully Clinton gets a convention bump. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference according to this is 0,1%. Hardly much to go on. The electoral system isn't all that fair, it's true, but to quote a friend of mine: „I refuse to believe that Trump can be elected. Americans aren't that stupid.“ I concur. Cheers King Hane (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If we must have a hands-off figurehead President with no governing experience, I nominate Michelle Obama. Her DNC speech transcended the usual garbage. Leuders (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited the wrong page

Could you have a look at my sig-page and tell me what's wrong with that and also what I should enter in the preferences page? There's a list there compiled according to your instructions long ago, but the sig-page itself shows a randomly chosen item with a link to my User page when saved along with a red link immediately attached saying User:Uppivindinn/sigend. I think I have counted the curly braces accurately. Also no talk page is indicated by the functioning random link. As for my signature functioning now, that's simply because I reverted to the original after 1-2 failed experiments. Thanks in advance. Uppivindinn (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Namely your sig-page instead of your talk page. I'm blushing with shame, but I've tried a few things and am probably on the right way. My signature will tell you that I still lack the talk element, but I'm getting there. Cheers, from Uppivindinn, for the time being known as King Budle (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm not getting there, as can be seen from my signature now. I'm reaaly scratching my head over a triviality, but there you go. Not having an answer is like being pinpricked. Cheers User:Uppivindinn/sig (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

NP. See your talkpage. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"/sigend" was a redlink b/c "sigend" was empty. I filled it in; see talkpage for what User:FCP/sigend looks like Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry. It is probably time I admitted my stupidity, but I still get the signature you'll see in a couple of words. I thought I had copied everything, but precisely where in Preferences should I put it? Cheers {{User:Uppivindinn/sig|}} (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it. And judging by the preview I did. A million thanks. It was a matter of a checkbox in the Preferences. :-) Cheers King Harald (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)