User talk:LANCBUser/Archive2

Rrstuv

What's up with that? Give a reason, don't be a mockingbird.

1) Sign your fucking posts.

2) New topics go at the bottom of the page.

3) Your edits are whitewashing the article and make it wordier than it needs to be. See Missionality. --Castaigne (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"I prefer my own, non-site-oriented crusades..."

I probably don't care about what you do on other websites or in "real life.". I would prefer, however, that you not use this website to issue veiled threats about those activities. Thanks much. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No actual threat, veiled or otherwise was intended, but I take your point nontheless. It was ill-worded. --Castaigne (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

News

http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2015/may/06/how-can-our-future-mars-colonies-be-free-of-sexism-and-racism Could you incorporate the quip at the end somewhere useful? I just found it and I'm not at my desktop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Castaigne (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

STOP!

Why are you capitalizing every word in random articles' section headings? The style here is pretty much sentence case for those, except proper nouns. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

He seems to be instating a high-brow no-humour style. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

High-brow and high-letter, to boot. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

On humor

People are cool with humor when it helps an article make a point. When it's just gratuitous, then it's just wasted text. Stop, pls. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Are you going to let a minor discussion about a misunderstood joke become the grounds for seriously annoying behaviour on your part? You know the rules about talk pages. Stop being a jerk about this, and stop getting ALL CAPS SERIOUS about basically well-put-together articles. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My talk page, my rules. Your talk page, your rules. I'll do as I please with my talk page.

And hey, I've only decided that I'm tired of arguing Every. Single. Thing. I'm just doing what you ask for. I'm doing the bidding of the mobocracy as presented to me. It's not my fault if what you asked for isn't what you really wanted. I am being obedient to the dictates provided.. And y'all start blocking now that I'm producing the results you asked for? That's just schizophrenic. Make up your own fucking minds. --Castaigne (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll also point out what Tielec01 said: "Nothing Castaigne is doing looks like vandalism to me, seems more like over enthusiastic editing...."

I'm doing what Tielec01 wants. I'm producing the RationalWiki that he and others think is supposed to exist. The will of the mobocracy, put to power. Why object? --Castaigne (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And why the fuck do you give a good goddamn anyway? You're not going to listen. You don't know me from Adam, so you can't possibly give a shit. Stay the fuck off my page. --Castaigne (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's OUR talk page and OUR rules apply -- I'm on my way out for a bit, so you'll have to believe me or look it up yourself if you don't. And I give a good goddam because you're generally a solid editor who makes good contributions to a community I care about and you seem like a basically decent sort of human being. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't need this shit on my page. It's useless talk, isn't missional, and I'm not discussing anything further.

And I didn't ask you to give a goddamn, so you can piss off with that nonsense. No one gives a shit. --Castaigne (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you please...

...stop removing random epigraphs and unproblematic jokes from articles? Nobody said the wiki should be humour-free. I made a specific objection to a specific joke that I and others thought was poorly written/woven in/executed. I don't know why you've decided to make the jump from "valuable contributor" to "edit-warring literalist pain-in-the-ass," but I really wish you would stop soon. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandal bin.

I am very regretful that you have decided to continue removing good stuff, to edit-war over those removals, and to not participate in any discussion about this shift in your behavior here. When you've gotten over whatever it is that's leading you to do these things, and I hope it's soon, let us know. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

These edits are necessary for the continual improvement of RationalWiki in accordance with its stated goals to provide refutations against anti-science woo. The removals are not "good stuff"; the removals consist entirely of non-missional material that harm the wiki as a whole. Please revise and modify. --Castaigne (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just curious, but..

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.

Are you doing this for the sake of a potential trout-smacking? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How can we be sure that this is actually Castaigne, CONSPIRACYYYYYYYY.Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am doing what people have so desperately argued for in the past months. I am being obedient to the will of the mobocracy. Why should there be any problem with this? --Castaigne (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. No critical mass of regular and sane editors have argued for the removal of all snark from the wiki. You know that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No critical mass, but someone seems to have gone nuclear. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since what I did previously was argued against, logically, doing the opposite will be acclaimed. I am simply doing what Smerdis, Tielec01, CorruptUser, ConfusedLiberal, Weaseloid, Raysenn, Nutty Roux, FCP, and others have wanted. I have stopped arguing and am just obedient. I fail to see the problem with this. If I cut GamerGate down to about 5K and slant it to favor GamerGate, then I will have then furthered ConfusedLiberal's goals and obeyed Chrimony, Naqoyqatsi, and Parogar too. I fail to see what the problem is. Since when is it an issue when someone bows and admits defeat? There should be celebrations. You should be happy. Become happy. --Castaigne (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is obvious trolling. As you don't seem to be below-par in the intelligence department, you're probably well aware of this. The question is why you're persisting in this behaviour. Are you trying to score internet smartass credits? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That or he wants someone to import wp:Template:Whale. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not trolling; I am deadly serious. Every point I have attempted to make for months, from use of SPOV to cutting long articles to this or that or the other has been argued against. There have been no victories. Therefore, it is exceedingly unlikely that I will gain any victories. Therefore, what I posit must be incorrect, or it would be victorious. Therefore, everyone else is right. Therefore, being wrong, I should admit my wrongness and do what is correct.

It is very simple. If I am wrong, they are right. Thus I should be doing the opposite of what I was doing, as that will be the right thing to do. I do not need to think about it. I do not need to introduce complexity where there is none. I just simply need to acquiesce to their wishes. It does not matter what my opinion is so long as the correct action is taken.

Nothing really more to say. --Castaigne (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"I do not need to introduce complexity..." You assuming spherical cows is precisely the problem, though. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "spherical cows". --Castaigne (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Whew, my false dilemma readings are going off the charts! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is only a false dilemma if you allow compromise. It is not my nature to compromise and I resent it heavily when I have to. I would rather lose completely and suffer any penalty, up to and including death, than compromise. So that makes it simple; there are my arguments and their arguments. I can continue to fight, or if I am tired of fighting, I can just obey or abandon completely.

I am no longer interested in argument. I am not interested in abandoning. Therefore, with the options presented, what is left? And so it goes.

To further better understanding: I am not saying "You can have tea or coffee." or "You don't want tea, therefore you must want coffee." I am saying "You will have tea or coffee." and not presenting an option for refusal. --Castaigne (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Put simply, nobody requires your presentation of an alternative to have one. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like to compromise, I suggest you look for literally any other hobby that is not editing a wiki. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets} 20:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's how false dilemmas usually work. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yare yare daze. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin'} 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

However you try to rationalise it, you're being a dick. You're self-evidently not "being obedient to the will of the mobocracy" since all these stupid edits you've made have been reverted with no objections from anyone other than you. As for resenting compromise, this doesn't seem like a good quality for anyone editing a wiki. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For the first time ever, Wikipedia says it best - how to make a point. Tielec01 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

" regular and sane editors" who are they ? Hamster (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne: Almost nobody wants a humorless RationalWiki.

You list "Smerdis, Tielec01, CorruptUser, ConfusedLiberal, Weaseloid, Raysenn, Nutty Roux, FCP". Yet Weaseloid has spoken out. Tielec01 has spoken out. Raysenn has spoken out. I've spoken out. And so have several others. When half of the supposed supporters (already a minute group) aren't, it's hard to call it consensus.

At most, these people just think much of / some of the humor on RW is ineffective -- hence why AgingHippie recently culled an obscure joke zhe didn't understand. But when humor is effective, almost nobody protests it.

I apologize about removing that joke from Chopra. I didn't, and don't, think it helps. That doesn't mean that all humor on RationalWiki is sanitization-worthy and unmissional.

Ultimately, this is not the way to make a point. Please go back to being the normal, stubborn, intelligent Castaigne, not the burn-with-fire anti-humor crusader. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Too late. There will be obedience. --Castaigne (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your compliance with our antihumour, pro-GG agenda is doubleplusGOOD. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Do you accept Madoka as your Lord and Savior?} 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Obedience? Don't worry, the Secret RationalWiki Cabal ensures obedience. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unbinned.

I've unbinned you. Probably wasn't necessary in the first place. If you feel this is important, I suggest taking it to the coop. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't ask to be unbinned.
• Not my problem anymore. --Castaigne (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

By the by, you have until 1230 EST before I go back to exactly what I was doing yesterday. Fair warning. --Castaigne (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, I've taken the liberty to re-bin you. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's not exactly The Matrix, is it? Maybe the third one} 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It was only fair to warn. Although to be accurate, it is not vandalism. It is sanitization and the will of the mobocracy as expressed in text. Of course, what people ask for is rarely what people actually want, but that is also Not My Problem. --Castaigne (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, if it's "Not Your Problem," why are you invested in carrying on this discussion or in stating that you intend to carry on the edit pattern in question? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Banning

I formally protest this banning as unwarranted. I am engaging in missional editing in accordance with the will of the mobocracy. That people do not like getting what they have asked for over the past several months is Not My Problem. If one does not like getting what was requested, one should have been more precise in what they asked for. I am neither troll nor vandal; I am contributing to the furtherance of RationalWiki in its proper role as the repository for rebuttals of skeptics. See here. ^{— Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs}

To check whether such a view has community consensus, I've started a vote and unblocked you. Please don't do anything to articles using this logic before the vote finishes. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

*looks there* I see a few proposals to cut back on the snark and virtually no support for them. Not sure how that forum supports your perceived "will of the mobocracy", Castaigne. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god. This drama has eaten half the recent changes today. "I was wrong and I'll stop disrupting the wiki to make a point" would a better path to take. You're not a martyr. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with any votes or whatnot. I have made no calls for them. And what's happening over there is None Of My Business. I am simply making the type of edits that I have obviously wrongly argued against for months.

I truly don't understand all this. I gave up. I surrendered. Defeat was admitted. And now people are complaining that I should have fought on? That's nothing but foolishness. If there was no problem to what I was doing previous to starting these edits, then I would not have been argued with at every turn. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dude, if RationalWiki teaches you anything, it's that people will always disagree on things, even among those who self-identify as rational (perhaps especially among the latter, even). Also, the point of life is struggle. If everyone agrees with you and fulfils any and all requests you may have, wouldn't you be bored to death? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly? No. I would not be bored at all. I would be content.

No, not happy. I do not do happy; even my wife says so. I do content. That and "mildly pleasant" are about as happy as I get.

And really, content is enough for anyone. Life is not fair, or meant to make you happy, or meant to be interesting. Life just is. A content life is the most optimal outcome to be hoped for. --Castaigne (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, arguably the hardest and most profound challenge in life is the struggle to derive contentness from mediocrity and staleness. If you've got that down, then I must congratulate you for you've transcended life and entered nirvana. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly do not know what you mean about mediocrity and staleness. --Castaigne (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Guess I went on too big a tangent there. Nothing to worry about. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Work that sucker to death} 22:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/1vRsqPa.png |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I like... being punched in the face.} 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think banning was probably a step too far here, vandal bin might have been a more proportionate response until Castaigne gets this out of their system. However, as I am not really around to revert I can't complain too hard.

In the interests of having everything in one spot - FCP I totally get why you wanted to have the vote but I tend to agree with Miekal et al. that it is not necessary. The danger of having votes over petty shit like this is that you may not get engagement from the community which leads to a watered down consensus because most people can't be fucked voting, and also that you can get voting fatigue where people start to ignore votes because 90% of the time the topic being voted on doesn't interest them. It's pretty clear that Castaigne is on their own here, no vote is needed to demonstrate that. Tielec01 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandal bin doesn't expire. Banning a short duration is less severe. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy being vandalbinned

I'm sure it feels nice to get what you want, through vandalism and anger. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 19:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

NOW you fucking listen. Why do I have to resort to blanking pages to get a point across to you, huh? Is there something you're not willing to pay attention to? Are you contrary by nature or does it come by degrees? I shouldn't have to write whole paragraphs and engage in wasting the better part of my lunch hour in being what I think is quite crystal-clear about how I feel when people do things that I didn't ask them to do. It's really not that difficult. Did you think I wasn't being serious? In which case, I have to wonder if you've ever read my edits, because I'm never not serious in any way, shape, or form. I always mean what I say and do exactly what I mean.

At least now you have the clue. JESUS.

And in reference to your message, now you're going to cause me to waste an edit archiving that bullshit too. What you should realize is that it does not matter how a person gets what they've asked for - and not, I did not ASK for anything, just a refusal of your gift - all that matters is that they got it. The destination, not the road. The ends define the means.

I mean, really. 43 minutes of my lunch hour. I have to resort to blanking pages to get your attention, to get the point through to you, to make clear what I'm saying. This is really unacceptable. I don't play around on here; why are you playing around with me?

And do you realize how difficult this playing around with me makes it for me to do actual missional edits, after responding to the daily litany? I'm vandal-binned, that means an edit once every 30 minutes, and I got be Johnny-on-the-spot if I'm going to do what I need to do in the day. Which requires patience I do not necessarily have.

I don't ask for much, I swear. I say, don't make me Sysop. People make me sysop anyway and then I have to ask and swear and finally rampage for removal. It's a matter of principles. I didn't ask for it, therefore it should not be given to me.

Same for vandal-binning. I get vandal-binned because people didn't like how I interpreted their requests. Do I complain? NO. I take it like a fucking man, because you do not complain when people punish you for acting on your principles. Do I ask to be taken out? NO. That's a sign of weakness and I don't indulge in that either.

And then you take me out. Did I ask you too? No. So what is it? Charity, another sign of weakness. I'm not some sick beggar at the church door, subsisting on the crusts and pennies the richards toss down with the sneer. I'm a self-sufficient adult with a goddamned job; I don't need charity. I don't even ask for presents on my birthday for Christ's sake (Actually, I don't even like acknowledging my birthday; it's useless. One year closer to death, oh joy.)

And when I make it clear that no, I don't want your charity, fuck off with it, take it back? You make light. You make fucking light. I swear to God, it's like I'm Rodney Dangerfield or some comedian. Newsflash: I'm not funny. I don't joke. My idea of humor is pretty much limited to "morbid" humor, schadenfreude, "grave dancing", and more schadenfreude. When I say "I swear to God, if that puppy does not shut up I will kick it into the field goal.", you should not laugh and you should not be surprised if I do that. After all, I said what I was going to do!

Now that might be an extreme but unrealistic example, but it seems that's what I have to do around here in order to get the point across. It's just not that hard; it's all very simple. --Castaigne (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"I take it like a fucking man". Are you sure? Because that isn't what this looks like at all. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? Am I not allowed to speak as I please on my own talk page? What is it that you are trying to accomplish here by arguing with me? --Castaigne (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Am I not allowed to speak as I please on my own talk page?" Public wiki, all that jazz. --Miekal 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

please explain

Please explain to me your logic, you star vandalizing pages and get vandal binned, you then get you get unvandalbinned because of good behavior then the first thing you do is blank 3 pages because you didn't want to be unvandalbinned? That is very illogical, Bubba41102^{Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor} 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to Fuzzy above. Also, I don't find the trout slap funny. Maybe if you actually beat someone to death with one, but that's unlikely. --Castaigne (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I didn't start out by vandalizing pages. I was correcting the pages to what people said they wanted, which is what they didn't actually want. People do that all the time, saying what they don't really mean. Precision and definition are required, else tension, apprehension, and dissension will begin. --Castaigne (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled, out of Bin

You want? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Because I'd be willing, if you are. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to do this? This guy has repeatedly vandalised pages and held the community to ransom for some obscure unspecified reason and still insists he has been right to do so. He's in the vandal bin by his own choice & will shit on you again as he has done before if you take him out of it. Why bother? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

'Cuz if you never try to let him be nice, he never will be. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? What's his problem? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Castaigne disagrees with the no-humor-on-RW argument, and so acts to follow it to show how much useful content would be lost. Which we already know. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

He disagrees with a non-existent policy so let's all indulge his disruptive behaviour & uncooperative attitude. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Straw man FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 00:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I had sat down and written this nice long essay on what my "problem" is and why I took the stand of principle I did. But frankly, you wouldn't give a shit and you didn't understand it when I laid it out last time. So delete that. Instead, feel free to coop me and have my perma-banned. Or do it yourself on your own authority. If you think I'm that much of an asswipe pedoraper, you should have no qualms in doing so. Until then, I have edits to make. --Castaigne (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I hereby give you permission, FCP, to remove me from the vandal bin. --Castaigne (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I paroled you. Play nice. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edits?

Barring any policy-based explanation I will restore them. Sarah (HH) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Because your edits were not necessary and confused the flow of the conversation. I will refactor inappropriate indentation - for anyone - as necessary. --Castaigne (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Sarah (HH) 19:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't really care. --Castaigne (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with this "archiving" debate?

In confuses the heck out of me. Why are you deleting your conversational history? And why are you calling it archiving? I'm quite confused. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are duplicate items on my talk page and my archive page. I'm eliminating the duplicates. People are reverting without actually looking to see what's going on, which has resulted in three separate explanations on three separate talk pages. --Castaigne (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Grow up and stop being a twat when you don't get what you wanted--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We're either going for a neutral, neither pro-Zion or pro-Palestine, or we're going Mona's way. She brigades everything anyway; time to make a choice. Stop trying for an agreement or balance neither Avenger or Mona will ever do voluntarily. It's not going to happen and the only way to correct the situation is to force it. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is pretty neutral IMHO... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it shows BLM as a pro-Palestinian allied group, mostly based on the conclusions of Breitbart and GotNews and other conservative tabloids. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

he's done this nonsense before and I don't trust cast to be the one to solve the issue correctly--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think this edit was a good one, favoring neither side, featuring no propaganda and keeping to the mission of the wiki? --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a "good" or "bad" edit is besides the point by now. You did your edit, at least 3 different users reverted it and said "don't do it", and you insist on making the same edit. If you feel this section needs a rewrite then discuss it on the talk page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And it shows you don't know the history. It's not 3 different users. It's Mona & her cronies who objected to it. It's the exact same people who accept everything Mona says as gospel and who refuse to allow any deviation from her view. I see this as a problem, as do a few others. Currently we're slanted, due to Mona & Cronies, as "Palestine can do no wrong."

Apparently, you do not think this is a problem. Very well. There's no reason to discuss it further, is there? --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. As I've said on the talk page, I don't really see the need for this section, and if we must have it, it can indeed be shorter (as I doubt how wide-spread this sentiment is in BLM). So now we are clear on that, I don't think my opinion is somehow better than every other opinion on the site, or that my opinion is so superior that it trumps the consensus. This section is the result of much squabbling and arguing over details. If you feel it should be different, then carefully explain why on the talk page and perhaps people will agree with you. Taking it on yourself to turn the section around is not how to do things, and arguing "Mona and her cronies are ruining it!!11!" is just about the worst argument you can make and wants me to stop reading everything you say.

So here you have it: with your abrasive and arrogant attitude you've managed to piss off someone who's pretty much on your side on this matter. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you feel it should be different, then carefully explain why on the talk age and perhaps people will agree with you.- Carpetsmoker

If I do that, then Mona and her four followers will just brigade it and deny it. That has happened on every page that Mona has edited, no matter what is said. I have no interest in engaging in futile argument with a block of 5 people.

So here you have it: with your abrasive and arrogant attitude you've managed to piss off someone who's pretty much on your side on this matter.- Carpetsmoker

Then side with Mona. I don't need people who engage in tone argument on my side; I'd rather lose.

Besides, I've already given up. Victory for Mona. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mona and her cronies are ruining it!!11!"- Carpetsmoker It's true, though.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it shows BLM as a pro-Palestinian allied group, mostly based on the conclusions of Breitbart and GotNews and other conservative tabloids. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can suggest a change in wording to point out this is not a BLM-wide support but only the support of some activists, or some such. Insisting on going through a much-fought over section like this is will only get you vandal binned again... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I did. Ignored by Mona & Cronies. No point discussing it further when it is a foregone conclusion that Mona & Cronies will vote-brigade any process. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked, on the talk page, if documentation exists of widespread ignorance or opposition to the BDS trend in BLM. [crickets] All the evidence is that Zionists themselves are disturbed by this trend, and not just on U.S. wingnut sites. I cited and documented Israeli and American Zionist alarm in the article.---Mona- (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are a really hypocrite little shit. Normally, you wouldn't even believe these sites, that the sky is blue and would call any kind of concerns about, say, the Hamas or Hezbollah not being all rainbows and unicorns ponies, but now you use their unverified claims about BLM as a proof, that BLM as 100% on BDS line? YOu fucking kidding us??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a principle of logic. Statements against interest have a rebuttable presumption of truth.---Mona- (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NO FUCKING OUTDENTS. SHOVE THE FUCK OFF. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GET OFF MY FUCKING PAGE. NOT. HERE. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deemed you a concern troll. I understand that you have asserted that BLM is funded and allied at the hip with BDS/Palestine/Hamas/whatever. I am not going through weeks-long arguments where you, as you have repeatedly done, throw out any source that you do not personally approve of. We have nothing to discuss. Do not respond to me; I will not be talking to you or editing the pages that you own further. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to say this once

Your talk page is not your own and you do not get to decide who gets to post on it, attempting to do so will very quickly get you marked as a vandal, as others who attempted this in the past have learned. Don't be a twat about this. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)