User talk:Kugelschreiber

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Kugelschreiber!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hello and welcome to Rationalwiki! This wiki can always use more Europeans! And also, we should put a stop to calligraphy snobs 146.185.147.55 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but I'm no calligraphy snob, I'm just remembering my school days, where the teachers forced us up to a certain grade to use fountain pens instead of the awesomely convenient and very cheap (if you look hard enough and roam your local bigger mall a bit, you'd sure find a free one intended as a freebee) ballpoint pen. The pens themselves were inreliable, broke easily, the ink cartridge had to be replaced often, your fingers were often dirty with ink as was your pencil case. Thanks goodness that's a thing of the past now for me.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Your edits at Sargon of Akkad seemed pretty high quality. As a result:

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wowzers, thanks!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


By the way[edit]

How do I get a website accepted to the 'webshites' page? -Webshite Hunter

There is no special procedure, AFAIK, the webshite list is no different from other articles. You just add the webshite to the list under the appropriate category (a description is optional but welcomed) and if someone objects to the inclusion of this website, you discuss it on the talk page (please no edit wars, there's been too much of that lately and it wasn't nice to look at).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Chickenhawks[edit]

I noticed your Rand Paul edit and someone else's revert. Margaret Thatcher is listed as a chickenhawk too. Sometimes the labels seem to get carried away. I agree with the other person that chickenhawk's don't have to be draft dodgers, but this label isn't very useful if it's applied to anyone with no military experience who advocates a military response to anything. --Read-Write (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line then and actually, in most cases people mean exactly that (draft-dodgers going all war-happy. Why not calling people, who clamor for war but were not subject to the draft "war hawks" instead of "chickenhawks"? It would be spot-on).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Argumentum ad dictionariam? Fuck right off with that. There is no consensus on the chickenhawk talk page, not even if one includes Arisboch's dribblings in the discussion. How has Rand Paul "supported the troops" that he is enthusiastic about sending off to fight? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question about war hawks, calling someone a chicken hawk adds a layer of hypocrisy that is not present in all warhawks. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No need to get abusive about it.Read-Write (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That is making the definition of "chickenhawk" even more broad, than it already is in the article. Really orwellian.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If Rand Paul is a ckickenhawk then Hillary Clinton is too. Read-Write (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
How about "armchair warrior" then? More or less in the same category as internet tough guy. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why not.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Presenting my opinion of fuckball's reading comprehension, since he chooses to shit up my page.[edit]

It's not spam, shit-for-brains. What part of "Comment here again and you get double the comments on your own page." do you not fucking understand? Are you retarded, you fucking cum stain? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What else would call copy-pasting the same message over and over (and over and over... you get the picture) on someone's talk page? I'm no expert, so what is it called? Wandalism? Flaming? Shitposting? UBE?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, since you lack the reading comprehension to understand what was being said, I would call it the necessary amount of dictation required to allow something to seep through that thick fucking skull of yours. If we were in person, mong loving nutsack handle, right now I'd be slapping you every time you opened your mouth. Yes, I'm being serious here. You're apparently one of those who only understands physical instruction. Must make educating a bitch for you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Degenerate and base you are, friend of a dick tranny rider. You are absolutely determined for me to have fun with you. Well, my dear erection basher, I have never been one to pass up invitations. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock status[edit]

Hi Kugelschreiber, some people suspect that you are a sock of a recently banned user User:Arisboch. It seems to me that I may as well ask you directly so that you can state it yourself one way or the other. As you may know we don't use checkuser here so there is no concrete way for us to determine if you are a sock or not. You may also be aware that if you are a sock of Arisboch you will be banned for evading a community sanctioned ban (albeit one that I personally disagreed with). Tielec01 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. The only things I did was piratecopying his signature (which was apparently in turn piratecopied from somewhere else (many other people have links in their signatures, so that people can joke-ban or e-mail them easier)) and contradicting Mona (which quite a few others did). Mona has a history of calling anyone disagreeing with her a sock of Arisboch or Avenger.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 14:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you should have a checkuser tool to avoid those witch hunts as to who is a sock of whom? It gets tiresome to hear accusations against pretty much everybody that they are a sock of someone else just for sharing an opinion... Pizzameister (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not so much an opinion as it is all of them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Some of us admit to being socks. Mostly so I can edit on my phone but still. StickySock (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Editing RationalWiki on the phonr despite the RationalWiki having no mobile page like Wikipedia or even Conservapedia? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
RW has a crappy mobile support. But I think David Gerard knows that and is either unwilling or unable to do anything about that... Pizzameister (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Mona[edit]

You and Mona have had an open feud and idk why you need to bother her. We all know your "welcome" wasn't sincere. She is barely a recurring user and only edits a few pages she seems to have an attachment too; if you don't like the edits then change when she is gone.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the welcome was ironical.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 19:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

I had no idea this was going to be this much of an issue. It is silly pointless disputes such as this that are hurting RationalWiki. In order to try to calm things down, I'm going to refrain from participating in this stupid skirmish. What you do is up to you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And by "refusing to participate in this skirmish" you mean raise a coop case accusing him of being a sock, that scores a 10/10 on the irony meter. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 12:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I said I wanted the edit war to stop. This is one way of achieving that, and resolving all future edit wars involving this user. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In other words having users banning, that disagree with out on trumped up charges. Cool.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The coop is the coop,not mainspace. There were edit wars in the past that went on for weeks with dozens of reverts. That was very bad, much worse than simply resolving our differences in the coop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 12:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 12:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird block[edit]

What's with this weird block?!--Harkinian | Oah! (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just a fun game among the gods.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 01:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

HAIL ZEON![edit]

HAIL! HAIL! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Death to the Zabis! Death to the Feddies! The teachings of Zeon Zum Deikon will lead the Spacenoids and all humanity into a bright future!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 21:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Valar Morghulis! Pizzameister (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Irreligion as Intellectual Privilege[edit]

Can you make a serious contribution to the discussion rather than asking inane questions like "why not"? And if you really don't understand why, I recommend you pick up some economics textbooks to understand the terms being discussed. It's implied you should come to the table prepared to contribute to the discussion meaningfully rather than have someone spoonfeed you every minute detail of the terms involved. Otherwise if you haven't done your research, you should not butt in. Withoutaname (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's really pathetic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Except this isn't about conspiracy theories, this is about you being an obnoxious child asking "why" when someone talks about how trying to move faster than the speed of light will break relativity. It's more accurate to call your strategy an attempt at sealioning and my dismissal an appropriate response to that. Withoutaname (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a goddamn lie. You were the first one on that thread resp. page to claim, that the end of religion necessitates the end of capitalism.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, the end of capitalism would certainly help, but I was merely commenting on capitalism's relationship to the public education system. Which, by the way, is a well-known fact, and not the product of any conspiracy theories. You didn't so much provide a counterargument as ask a silly question that you should have known the answer to beforehand, and now like a child caught in the act, you yell "that's a lie" when someone points out your sealioning. Withoutaname (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There was no sealioning. It was a honest question on why you think that the end of religion necessitates an end of capitalism coming before it (that's how I understood your post). Well, according to the article, the existence of sealioning leads to newbies being suspected in sealioning (and sometimes, this accusation is used to silence other people).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've never really given it much thought until David mentioned it to me, but you're starting to sound more like Arisboch with every post you make. That's not supposed to be a compliment, by the way. In any case, I highly doubt you're a newbie.
The existence of just about any monetary system really, and in particular laissez-faire capitalism, prioritizes those who have the ability to pay for their education over those who do not, i.e. who has more capital. The means by which knowledge is produced and reproduced are privately owned. Even if it were the case that "univeral" education was provided with "free" tuition, as proclaimed in some social democratic countries, under capitalism the cost of maintenance and upkeep is shifted financially to a government responsible for oversight of the education system, whose politics would then be greatly affected by whoever's in charge of the government. The government then shifts the financial burden to the rest of the working class population through taxation, and may decide to levy out punishment for those unable to pay the taxes (i.e. not the upper class). This would again boil down effectively to prioritizing who is able to pay for education. Not to mention the cost of transportation to the education system itself, which may or may not be subsidized. Withoutaname (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I recommend moving the second parapgraph to this page.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Fine, but it should have been self-evident to everyone who was already in the conversation and wanted to contribute something meaningful. Withoutaname (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It isn't even remotely self-evident, you absurd prick. At best, you have a valid claim that monied elites generally have preferential access to a higher standard of education. Good luck explaining how that necessarily prohibits universal education about religion. Robledo (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And what has that all to do with education about religion??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 20:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Good god, I give only part of the proof and you start demanding the whole thing when I told you this is all covered in Introduction to Capitalism 101. Pick up a goddamn economics textbook. The very title of the essay is "irreligion as intellectual privilege" for chrissake.
Sealioning verb 1. Demanding answers, usually of entry-level topics far below the actual conversation.
Withoutaname (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You're the only one here to make that kinda connection. There was no sealioning on my part, no matter how often you'll claim such a bullshit.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That's because you decided to go and interject yourself in a conversation with an utterly inane question that given enough effort you could have answered yourself. I'll wait until you can muster an actual rebuttal to my statement. Withoutaname (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And magically prevented others and you from talking about it any further. Really, fuck off.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 21:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kugelschreiber: As you're apparently shit at this stuff, SFTU for a bit.
Withoutaname: Proof or wind your fucking neck in. Protip: Can't be done, so you'd best stop digging. Robledo (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Robledo: If you know what you're talking about and you can provide a counterargument for universal education being possible under capitalism, feel free to do so on the essay talk page. In my understanding of capitalism as an economic system, it will first funnel the money and resources from the many to the few (via surplus-value extraction and capital accumulation) and then commodify public education to sell it for profit. Since access is held under private ownership, it will be restricted against those with the least ability to pay for it in terms of money, so it will not be truly universal. Do you agree with this? Withoutaname (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll keep the discussion here, thanks, unless KS objects. And unsurprisingly, no, I don't agree with your analysis, and I find it genuinely difficult to believe you do either.

  1. You're claiming a) universal education about religion (UEAR) is impossible under a capitalist system, and that b) this should be self-evident to anyone with a sufficient understanding of capitalism.
  2. These are extraordinarily strong claims to make about a complex system of human interaction over an indefinite period.
  3. a), in particular, can be contradicted simply by showing that UEAR could be possible under a capitalist system, regardless of likelihood.
  4. That's an incredibly low bar, and you don't get to raise it any higher by self-defining what "truly" universal looks like.
  5. You'll also find it difficult to deny that the infrastructure is already in place, unless you really want to go batshit insane and pretend there are no such fucking things as publically-funded schools and libraries.
  6. Equally awkward will be explaining away the progressive movements of the late 19th and early 20th century that saw educational provision steadily increase for ever more children of ever higher ages.

In short, you've picked a really dumb hill to die on. Wind your fucking neck in, and knock it off with the retarded hyperbole. You also owe KS an apology. Robledo (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you view capitalism as a monolithic block, the same way McCarthyites view Marxism - but I suppose all zealots are the same under the skin. There is no reason you can't have quality state education in a capitalist society, that's why taxation exists, so the government can do what the free market isn't good at doing. If you think otherwise, you should have addressed KS on the talk page of my essay instead of resorting to the Courtier's Reply like a defeated theist. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"why you view capitalism as a monolithic block" I don't, where are you getting this? I'm talking about capitalism as it functions worldwide, how every implementation including state sponsored solutions simply shift the problem elsewhere. I could point to the historical implementation and development of capitalism since the 1700s onward and say that there has been no examples of universal education under capitalism. I also think it quite strange you call heated discussion on a website "zealotry" as if it had any real world consequences.
I've already addressed why publically-funded schools and libraries (what you nominally call "universal education" and one that I'm already familiar with) still fail to provide proper education for the lowest segments of society. You've also used "universal education" to mean education in a single country, which wasn't what I meant at all and one objection that would have been more appropriate to the discussion we were having on the talkpage.
Kugelschreiber walked into a conversation asking a question that he could have taken two seconds to answer himself by using Google rather than providing any sort of counterargument or expecting me to provide all the answers for him. I find it baffling none of you see how frustrating that is. Withoutaname (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
"I don't, where are you getting this? I'm talking about capitalism as it functions worldwide, how every implementation including state sponsored solutions simply shift the problem elsewhere."
There are many implementations of capitalism. It does not "function worldwide" at all. That is an example of the monolithic thought I'm referring to. And why do you say "every implementation...simply shift[s] the problem elsewhere?" You're assuming the Marxist understanding of society is correct, when that is what you're supposed to support in the first place. Circular reasoning.
"I could point to the historical implementation and development of capitalism since the 1700s onward and say that there has been no examples of universal education under capitalism."
Once we figure out what you mean by "universal education," sure. But expecting "universal education" without a universal government is silly, so your criteria wouldn't be fulfilled regardless of whether Marxism or capitalism was in place in the diverse countries.
"I've already addressed why publically-funded schools and libraries (what you nominally call "universal education" and one that I'm already familiar with) still fail to provide proper education for the lowest segments of society."
And you blame this on...capitalism? Culture is much bigger factor. East Asia - the Marxist PRC and the capitalist SK and Japan - have excellent educational systems not so much because of quality as opposed to culture.
"Kugelschreiber walked into a conversation asking a question that he could have taken two seconds to answer himself by using Google rather than providing any sort of counterargument or expecting me to provide all the answers for him."
Your original statement was begging the question. You basically said "we all agree education cannot be accomplished in a capitalist system," which is not only a false assessment of your audience but a silly statement to began with. You addressed the issue with the Courtier's Reply rather than even providing resources you think would convince people your implication is correct.
"I find it baffling none of you see how frustrating that is."
And I find this ironic. You act as if we have never considered these questions, and most importantly, you act as if Marxism is the obvious solution and anyone who disagrees is uneducated on the issue. And because of this - shall I say, presuppositionalism - you come off as ridiculously arrogant and over confident. Lord Aeonian (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Just because there are many implementations of capitalism (laissez-faire, liberal democracy, social democracy) does not mean it cannot function worldwide. In fact, you can even analyze how much more international and globalized modern-day capitalism is. And I think you're just throwing "monolithic thought" around as a buzzword because I don't view capitalism at all as a monolithic block, the same way you're different from a McCarthyite and a free-market capitalist, but just as ideologically committed as any of the latter two when you zealously condemn all "zealotry" as being the same.
"You're assuming the Marxist understanding of society is correct, when that is what you're supposed to support in the first place. Circular reasoning." It wasn't circular reasoning as much as my assumption that everyone in that thread was up to the same level of discourse as I was, and in that level of discourse we had already assumed/proved it to be the case a priori. But I guess you can't even muster up to that level of discourse, the overestimation of which was my fault.
"expecting "universal education" without a universal government is silly, so your criteria wouldn't be fulfilled regardless of whether Marxism or capitalism was in place in the diverse countries." First, why would we need a universal government to provide universal education? And secondly how can an "implementation" of Marxism be an economic basis for universal education? Marxism is a positive, not normative, philosophy and countries alone cannot provide universal education for anybody other than those within the country (and even then, sometimes not even then).
"You addressed the issue with the Courtier's Reply rather than even providing resources you think would convince people your implication is correct." I suppose I did err in trying to assess my audience, but the page you linked specifically tells me I'm allowed to tell people to read a book:
In addition, it is not fallacious to tell, for example, a creationist to read more on evolution, if they clearly do not understand what they are talking about, and are basing their evidence on false premises (such as, for example, believing that abiogenesis = evolution) Courtier's Reply
"You act as if we have never considered these questions, and most importantly, you act as if Marxism is the obvious solution and anyone who disagrees is uneducated on the issue." By the arguments that you use, like how capitalism "does not function worldwide at all" I have to wonder how much you really know about the historical developments of capitalism and globalization over the last century. So I have to wonder whether you really have considered these questions. Also Marxism is a method of analysis, not a solution in and of itself — it only points to possible solutions. You reject the Marxist "worldview" as "presuppositionalism" because you disagree with its validity, while seemingly refusing to criticize the validity of the base assumptions that form your own Enlightenment worldview. I rather think it's arrogant to dismiss an entire "worldview" out of hand simply because you feel a little too comfortable with your current one. But don't mind me, continue eating out of that trash can. Withoutaname (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yay, necroposting for the glorious revolution!!!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 02:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 02:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What's necroposting? I am not the Ombud's man 16:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Posting stuff on a thread no-one has posted in weeks, months or years.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my edits[edit]

Well your site is a "crank" wiki too. Why do you deny it?I guess just as Conservapedia likes calling its opponents biased, you are no different. You like calling wikis you disagree with "crank" when you are one of them. And don't call people a "damned crybaby" you filthy mouthed fellow. Knowthefacts (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
do you want references for the "alt-right" article edits? Kashifv (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages were invented for a reason. But why would you use this talk page here instead of another one? I am not the Ombud's man 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sysoprevoked and deautopatrolled[edit]

For 1 day due to edit warring. Note that this doesn't imply you're in the wrong -- merely that you warred.

If I forget to give your rights back (autopatrolled, sysop), feel free to pop in to my talkpage. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Just doing my monthly or so check[edit]

Hi, and blessed be!

As it says in the title, but I couldn't resist leaving a message. You seem to have the heart in the right place. How can you stand this environment? By observing just every now and then, I think one may gain a clearer picture than by being involved daily. And RW is obviously an even worse place thaen when I left it even removing myself out of the whole thing. Well, at least, nothing that has happened for most of the year can be blamed on me. Cheers Uppivindinn (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

TBH out of boredom.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 21:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 21:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not worth an edit war[edit]

But we can and do remove WIGO pieces that people downvote enough as not really worth the visual space and promotion they get from being on the WIGO. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the treshold? How many downvotes is required for a removal?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 18:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
No threshold. Hence why it's not worth an edit war. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, that this is the right way to deal with WIGO entries, at least not with WIGO entries that are not spam, trolling, blatantly racist, xenophobic or similar.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 19:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
That's because you're quite silly. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you harassing people about uploads in progress?[edit]

I'm confused. Images take about a half hour to process due to weirdness and you seem to just be angry at random editors for it ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This bug has been known for months or even years and none of the tech staff (which, AFAIK, consists only of David Gerard. Correct me if I'm wrong) did anything about it. The Wikimedia software version is hopelessly obsolete, too and lacks many features even this goddamn Conservapedia has. What are the techs doing???--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
What kind of powers do you think that tech rights give me? As far as I can tell it's the following: the ability to edit the wikitext supporting special: pages, the ability to access a few specific tools(such as the edit filter), and the ability to edit the mediawiki namespace. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the users of this wiki who're in the user group "tech", I'm talking about the "technical staff" with direct access to the server. AFAIK it's only David Gerard who has such access and he does nothing to fix all these numerous bugs and update the wiki.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 20:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 20:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Equivocating academic criticism with mob lynching[edit]

That's some serious doublethink you have going on there. Withoutaname (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Coop case[edit]

Since you've expressed an interest in voting in it, don't miss the current coop case. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)