Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator elections: Read the campaign slogans here! Voting begins 19 November 2018.

Welcome with bibbangs!

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This beautiful troll enjoys your attention you're giving it.
This user enjoys a troll-free talk page. Do not respond. Revert away (optionally rev-delete), unless the comment is amusing. Is corn grass?[1]


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Have you heard of murdoch Murdoch[edit]

Have you? — Unsigned, by: Rationaldriver / talk / contribs

You have been visited by Speeeed Loog.[edit]

Speeeed Loog.gif
What will you do?

Give him praise.

Give him more fast.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Praise Lugs but praise mayro more. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk 101.182.39.228[edit]

I think 'the computer ate some of the words' in your first comment (as happens). Anna Livia (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your mod rights are coming up for renewal[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 03:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

People leaving[edit]

I'm deliberately keeping this vague but I think you know who I'm referring to. They previously complained about the political bickering they see here and on our social media accounts. It's all about one group talking condescendingly about another group. You know the drill. Then there are the trolls... So yeah. Nerd (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Civility guidelines?[edit]

Do you really think another layer of bureaucracy is really necessary? It's a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist. If we are going to have one it should be this....(but in all seriousness a "courtesy policy" is just plain silly). Acei9 21:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

People already block each other for "being annoying" and "trolling". Establishing clearer rules/guidelines isn't necessarily a bad thing. And having people resort to calling each other the dirt of the earth at the drop of a beat gets pretty tiresome after a while. If having some official policy establishing that "guys, this is dumb, don't do this" results in better debate, then I'm all for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Or you could just, you know, ignore people like the adults do which is far simpler than crafting a whole new set of guidelines for fairly subjective purposes. Acei9 21:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You can ignore if if you aren't a moderator whose job is to, well, stop those things from happening. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I was a mod for a long time and mods aren't there to moderate that everyone be nice and respectful of each other, only to clampdown on the most egregious behavior. Do you really want your mod time to be spent chasing up complaints that someone was mean to someone else? Acei9 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The attitude might be different today. What you think is "the most egregious behavior" might be different for me. A guideline would help recognize bad behavior for individuals who inevitably have different perceptions of what acceptable and not acceptable, as well as a constantly changing community. Our current guidelines, I believe, aren't specific or helpful enough for the most part so I have to rely on my own senses and usually without comments from other mods. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Egregious being doxxing, racism, page blanking and other types of vandalism. Someone saying mean things is easily ignored and reverted. There doesn't need to be bootstrapped civility guidelines because I was under the impression that most of us were adults and it just adds a huge pile of bureaucratic nonsense to deal with a problem that is easily dealt with through user action. Acei9 23:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You bring up "racism" but what's the line between racism and "someone saying mean things"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Has this actually been a problem? This site has operated for 11 years of which I have been a fairly consistent user of it for almost that entire 11 year period and this has never been something that needed some sort of courtesy guideline - even in the wild west like first few years. Why we should need it now is beyond me. Are we going to have a list of allowed phrases and words? How granular to we need to get? This is a solution looking for a problem. If someone believes someone is behaving in a racist fashion they can draw the mods attention, o the community attention, and deal with it as it comes up. Having layers of bureaucracy solves nothing. Acei9 23:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And we already have the guidelines. Is adding further detail really going to help? Seems to have worked pretty well for over a decade. What exactly is the problem you are trying to solve and how exactly do you think laying more specific guidelines will help? Acei9 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

As I have said in other contexts - most RW users accept that the wiki is 'more exuberant'/allows a wider range of opinions to be expressed than many discussion sites etc - but this can still be combined with 'be reasonably civil with the person even as you explain the errors of their ways', 'allow for the divergent responses to the written word without the modification that facial expression would convey in a personal conversation' etc and 'allow for the multitude of viewpoints that are likely to be found here. Basically - the site has to be sufficiently user friendly for users to be friendly towards it. Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

you know what else isn’t very user-friendly? Layer upon layer of increasingly beaucratic nonsense about how people can and cannot express themselves. We already have civility guidelines and they have worked well so far. So why don’t we just stick with what works, has always worked. Acei9 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. We should really be able to tell off the jerks who have been coming here for a long time and discouraging newcomers. I have been preparing a range of devastating repostes that should have a pulverizing effect upon the cerebral cortices of known miscreants.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked: Seems like you have a point. I realize that being rude is a regular thing in the wiki. Experience isn't really something that I can read in a guide but I do wish I precedents to follow on. I wish there are important decisions, failed or passed, that are properly archived than buried in Saloon bar. This way, I can at least read up what has failed or succeeded so I don't need to propose something that I didn't know has been done before and look at arguments for an after. But I still stand by that people have different levels of tolerance and we need to find a way to work with those differences rather than rely on individual judgement that can and will be prone to disagreement and possibly more drama. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

people have a choice with their tolerance. If someone is offending them or the language isn’t to their liking they can ignore. If that doesn’t work and they are being harassed and followed around the wiki it can be brought to the mods. It’s very simple and just requires one to act like an adult. We don’t need rules on everything and every situation. Acei9 03:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"just requires one to act like an adult" Yes, this really sounds like how RW users typically behave. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The unavoidable eventuality of mob-ruled organizations is that they may occasionally act like mobs. I often see people trying to make edits to improve the pure style of English of a badly composed article, and do so without regard to ideology. They can then be reverted by people who prefer stronger condemnation of a particular subject. Moderators like strong condemnation for people on the outs with this wiki. That's fine. But when you favor bad text for ideological reasons, you gets what you pays for. The moderators could, as a remedy, appoint a style committee (I am not volunteering). Ariel31459 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
She's just saying this because she doesn't like opposing worldviews. Free speech trumps all. Incuding Trump, Who's a moron for trying to strengthen Libel Laws and going after reportersTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
I don't like opposing worldviews that rely on Styxhexenhammer666 videos as a foundation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
And 'acting like an adult' can mean deciding that the most appropriate response to juvenile name-calling/abuse and 'many stupid typos' is not going to the mods but a reason for the decline in contributors recently discussed elsewhere.
Will broaden my statement to 'RW is more exuberant than many wikis, and people are able/allowed/willing to give each other a piece of their minds/be opinionated' - especially when the subject of the comments is being a nuisance/looping back to the beginning of the argument/refusing to accept that in the battle between their peculiar opinion and the laws of nature and science, such laws always win.
Many people on RW are willing to play by the implicit rules (and accept that other people have views that are significantly different but valid in reality/give them some benefit and that they are not wrong or a threat) - it is those people who do not wish to 'play up, play up and play the game' who are the problem. Anna Livia (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll love this[edit]

Quick background info, I play Secret World Legends. And one of the agent missions, which sadly unavailable for reference outside of the game, is a Mario Brothers reference. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I haven't seen corresponding information in MarioWiki... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The mission is called "Down the Drain". Description:"A water treatment facility in Lucca, Italy has been contaminated with Filth and has become overrun fungal growth and mutated turtles. The Illuminati sent in an elementalist and and a hammer expert disguised as plumbers to rectify the situation, however all contact with the specialists has been lost. An agent who excels at search and rescue scenarios is requested to enter the water treatment facility, locate the missing agents, and assist them in eliminating the infected area." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yup, this hints at Mario_Bros._(game) Stylized Amanita muscaria.svg, the arcade one that is. One inconsistency is the presence of mushrooms, as the original Mario Bros. doesn't have mushrooms, and it's not until Super Mario Bros. when the Mushroom Kingdom starts existing and the idea of Mario + Mushrooms = power up becomes famous. Mario uses hammers only in the original Donkey Kong. But without the mushrooms, it wouldn't be as obvious, huh? Now, we just need fighting flies, crabs, and icicles that freeze up the place to REALLY nail the reference down. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll let you know what the completion message says. I just thought I'd let you know about this since you enjoy Mario games. The mushroom reference may be related to one of the monster types in the game, or it may be a general Mario reference to give readers that extra nudge. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Completion message: "Your agent performed outstandingly! Not only did they rescue the two agents, who were trapped in a store room, but they also managed to assist said agents in eliminating the contaminated threat." And sorry for the delay. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You and Conspiracies[edit]

You seem rather gullible in some ways regarding conspiracies. Just because there's someone in Mississippi who disagrees with you doesn't mean it's me.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2

Corn is grass[edit]

And popcorn is popped grass seeds. Also, most people are cattle. TheMoreYouKnow!.GIF 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess this answers Luigi's many, many questions of animals he thinks are cows. Also the whole corn thing is a Rifftrax gag.--It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sheeples? Anna Livia (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Mario knows, but Luigi thinks they're also cows. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Conservative wingnuttery"[edit]

I removed this category from Brett Kavanaugh after reading its description. Kavanaugh is certainly a partisan, but does not appear to be that extreme. And while we are at it I would never call him "incompetent," given his track record. One does not simply graduate from Yale Law School, clerk for the Supreme Court, then serve for 12 years as an appellate judge. Whatever opinion you have of him, the word "incompetent" is unsuitable. Nerd (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

He had a meltdown on live television where he claimed that the sexual assault investigation conducted by the Senate was the result of a conspiracy on behalf of the Clintons to get revenge after the 2016 election. He's fucking crazy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 05:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
"One does not simply walk into Mordor" Yet that's still sorta what happened. Honestly, I think the ending of Lord of the Rings was kinda dumb. Also, a thing about partisan hacks. The more partisan, the less "competence" factors into anything, because corruption is precisely the failure of the system with intention. The weird thing about Kavanaugh is that he seems like your average milquetoast conservative on most issues, except when it comes to the power of the executive branch, which he for some reason wants to empower to totalitarian heights. What's the proper category for that? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Yes, he appears crazy at times, but in the cases you mentioned, it was hardly because he was a "conservative." Sexual assault accusations are very serious and could ruin one's career. Thus his meltdown was understandable, though he should have been calmer and asked for an investigation like Robert Mueller did. As for the Clintons, there are people who dislike them but do not identify as "conservative."
@141.134.75.236 I have not watched any of those movies. If you are referring to his belief in the "unitary executive theory," while it sounds authoritarian, it is actually not, at least in the context of the United States. Although Kavanaugh believes the President should bear full responsibility of the execution of federal laws and hold full authority over federal agencies, he does not want the President to have the power to make or to interpret laws, which would violate the checks and balances. Furthermore, Kavanaugh, as far as I understand, has never been accused of corruption. Nerd (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nerd It's how the "One does not simply" phrase entered into pop culture. And with totalitarian executive power I'm mostly referring to his unyielding backing of the PATRIOT Act. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I have never heard of that aspect of Kavanaugh's career. Will research.
Indeed. I do declare I cannot recall when or why I first used that phrase. Nerd (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
So what do you say, Ms. Mario? Nerd (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think his Clinton fear-mongering is enough for category? To clarify, that's the primary reason I added the category in the first place. That's on top of his other actions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Right-wing activists could be a viable alternative. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Why not both.gif. But maybe we can wait and see how this guy behaves pans out. Oh, and conservative wingnuttery is a subcategory of what you're proposing... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I mentioned to Il Duce, there are those who do not like the Clintons one bit but do not identify as conservative. @141.134.75.236 made an ideal proposal. His views can be described as moderately and uniformly conservative. Further, there is no reason to expect him to change dramatically as he has always been like this. Nerd (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't really agree it's that moderate. I seen comparisons drawn to Antonin Scalia and that character is categorized as a conservative wingnut. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that one line. Unlike Scalia, Kavanaugh does not insist on originalism. Nerd (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Expression of support[edit]

Seeing you patiently engaged with toxic provocateurs and hearing of the traumatic story with your family, I took a liking to you. Just dropped by for a thumbs-up. I think we all need it from time to time. Gewgtweg (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Lankaster[edit]

Do you think there'll be a problem if I autopatroll User:Lankaster? He's not a vandal, he's recognized by the community, and patrolling the 8 million edits he makes in a day is a pain in the ass. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a really big problem but the user has a history of edit warring and handling conflict very badly (passive agressive attitude). Maybe give autopatrol but proceed cautiously. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Could You remove me from the Vandal Bin?[edit]

Providing my opinions isn't vandalism (Not that I've been active that much anyway I guess this is turning a new leaf)TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
You got into that hole yourself, but I'll ask other moderators. If they let you out, it's only because you're a persistent irritant at worst. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you.[edit]

I'm not trying to edit userspace, I'm not trying to edit anything. I never did anything like that, yours is the first talk page I'm on. It's also outside of my wheelhouse right now, you maniac. I might need to edit, and I might edit poorly, but screw you, I'm on your side. If anyone asks, I used words to say you're shit, then I took it back. Because I'm undecidedGol Sarnitt (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mean my creating userspace on somebody else. Sorry, I didn't follow. I'll try to respect userspace from now on, didn't know it was generally respected, haven't been afforded that. Didn't need it, but fuck me, that's my privilege.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I will unequivocally respect this rule from now on. I have spent some time thinking about how I wasn't really at fault, but I was. I am over my butthurtedness. Thank you for addressing it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I understood later that you were really mocking TheDarkMaster2's bad signature but you ended up confusing others (one deleted the page you made). But yes I am not trying to antagonize you but only offering advice to try to avoid more unnecessary conflict especially with that user. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 15:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

James Earl Cash keeps suggesting that my real surname is McLaghing (1, 2, 3). Since you said that such behavior is strongly discouraged, you could remember him about that. -Lankaster (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)