Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

User talk:Miekal/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you're gonna vandal bin a guy who has made dozens and dozens of good-faith edits...[edit] should probably leave him a message that makes some fucking sense and clearly explains why. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably. --Mikal | lakiM 00:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

MIT Romney Snark[edit]

I think that that was funny and true. I'm not vandalizing, I was just adding a joke so please do not undo it again. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be a joke, but there is little value added in stealing somebody else's joke and transplanting it here. Think of something original instead of just ripping off other people. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your block summary[edit]

Didn't realize it was a talk page, eh? I'm always particularly paranoid that I'll make that error and revert something I shouldn't... - GrantC (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I was distracted by watching glee with my girlfriend, what do you want from me :P --Mikal | lakiM 05:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuses, excuses! :P - GrantC (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I think it was a good excuse--Mikal | lakiM 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Probably true... - GrantC (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an explanation for this?[edit]

Or not? A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

On page 18, Table 2.2 it states that 1.1% of American women were raped in the previous 12 months. On page 19, Table 2.2 it states 1.1% of American men were "Made to penetrate" in the previous 12 months. Under the new definition of rape, that is rape. A Real Libertarian (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you kindly cut the crap out?[edit]

I don't think it should be practice on this wiki that if you don't like what somebody has to say, you simply block him. If you don't want to engage me in debate, then just stop, instead of blocking me. I do want to have this settled in good faith, but clearly your temper tantrum can't simply go on. Octo8 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no other way to settle an argument with somebody who is arguing that russia has the moral highground. I don;t assume god faith on you --Mikal | lakiM 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So your opinion on Russia is so infallible that everybody who dares disagreeing has to be blocked? You're not exactly being reasonable here. The Saloon Bar is for discussion. If you don't want discussion, don't post there. Easy as that. Octo8 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You also seem to be the only one in it saying "Russia is allowed to invade countries because "it has to protect the status of people and a language it forced into the area"--Mikal | lakiM 16:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
...yes? That still doesn't give you the right to block people for disagreeing with you. Not even if your opinion is the majority opinion. Octo8 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(EC2)Blocking is generally an acceptable means of communication on RationalWiki, provided that the blocked person can unblock him/herself. It is one of the strange conventions of this community. The one drawback is sometimes people get annoyed. Nullahnung (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It is to me when your opinion is "the oppressive homophobic nationalist dictator is right!"--Mikal | lakiM 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Putin's homophobia doesn't even have anything to do with the issue! But I see you just want to see the world in black and white. Octo8 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, how else can i see putin and his throwing around russias weight besides bad? How else can i see it besides "Black". that isnt a black and white world, unless you want to argue i can never call anybody bad without giving up the gray vs grey.--Mikal | lakiM 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't about how you or I see Putin! Putin could be a saint or can be a dictator. He is the latter. That has nothing at all to do with whether his actions in the Ukraine are justified or not. Octo8 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You guys are both unbelievable asshats, but I've got to give the edge to Mikal, for seeing blocking a guy who can unblock himself as a viable strategy for getting him to shut up. There's being a prick, and then there's being a stupid prick. Advantage: Mikal. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I block him because i know he can undo it--Mikal | lakiM 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I know. That doesn't change anything, though. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually it does, because i wouldn't use it to shut him up if he couldn't. --Mikal | lakiM 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I realize that from lurking, Nullahnung, but there is a difference between "occassional block with witty message atatched" and block-piling on somebody. Octo8 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if you weren't defending russia with "i can't believe people are mad at russia! all it's doing is defending it's ethnic compatriots by invading another country!"--Mikal | lakiM 16:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, we heard you before, you think yourself infallible and hence everybody disagreeing with you deserves to be annoyed. Right. Octo8 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Articles[edit]

Keep your eyes on this. If you want to axe an article, be absolutely sure of the why and check if there's already a discussion. Your deletion of Falconist Party felt more like a dive bomb without care for discussion. Zero (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and did a google search, thats all the justification i needed on why we diddn't need an article on a political party whos only first page mentions were their own websites and places they;d shilled themselves at, --Mikal | lakiM 20:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, you seemed to be acting like JJE (Judge, Jury and Executioner) when a discussion about deletion was already underway. Zero (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
/underway implies the last edit before you saying "inconclusive" wasn't 3 weeks ago, with the votes being "it's mission", yours, and "who are these guys". They are a bunch of nobodies, and i see no reason to waste time on your process for an article on a group of people who's only mentions were them talking about themselves.--Mikal | lakiM 20:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting an article[edit]

Maybe it was best to delete the oblivion article. I don't know. I haven't edited much here. That being said you deleted it SO fast it's impossible that you fully read it, let alone consider the value of having such an article.

In any case, if you really think it should be deleted then that's fine...but when someone spends a couple hours trying to contribute to the site, the very least you can do is say "thanks but no thanks" and offer even a tiny explanation such as "this doesn't really add to the site" or "this is already covered in other articles". Otherwise it's pretty embarrassing and an extremely shitty feeling. --23:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I left an edit summary and two others commented that we have two articles to fill the place of that article Good on you though--Mikal | lakiM 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It could be userfied -- that is transferred to your (Shabidoo's) userspace to be worked on there. --MtDNotorious Sodomite 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you kindly cut out the crap 2...[edit]

Look mate.... Maybe you've had a bad day or something but I've just introduced a mate (RDKL) to this site and he's made two useful, relevant and entertaining edits to the pages on masturbation and the UK conservative party and you've nuked the lot. What is your problem?

Now apparently he's been banned... What a great way to encourage new users.

I've spent the last six months boring the guy rigid about what a great and useful (and entertaining) wiki this is and how he, as an intelligent, articulated and educated rational man, would be well suited to the place... Now you've made me look like a total cunt... Cheers pal.Longdog (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

RKDL's block should have worn off by now. Also, Krej did this, not Mikal. In fact, Krej blocked Mikal for half an hour, too (but having sysop rights, Mikal could unblock himself). Though I must say I'm not quite seeing the point of Mikal's reverts, either. Octo8 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn';t ban him, go talk to somebody else about that. As for entertaining, two dry quotes about why masturbation is a siren song may be funny but it isn't exactly in the way we do snark, which i was actually explaining when Krej intervened. --Mikal | lakiM 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same article? There's four boxes of dry quotes in the Seventh Day Adventism section and as for the snark then we obviously disagree on that one too. I would have said the inadvertent humour of the dry quote was part and parcel of the RW snark.Longdog (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


I wonder who is the troll in this case Gipp (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


We don't block people for more than three days after 3 edits you plonker. Acei9 04:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While the US and South Korea could likely beat the North Koreans completely, the ultimate answer still remains "for what" and "at what cost," neither of which can be answered by the West.[edit]

The United Nations did not go to war in Korea to bring about regime chance and/or liberate the North Korean people, but to protect a sovereign member state, South Korea, against an illegal invasion from its northern neighbor. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

apparently ive misread what that said, i guess, as i read it as "we cant justify an invasion of the north". --Mikal | lakiM 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I've misread what it sdaid, I thought it was about why the KW was fought, not, why we don't go to war now. so the answer is, while under R2P it might be conceivable to make a case for an armed humanitarian intervention, 1. it will never happen against a nuclear-armed state and 2. remember how hard/expensive it was to integrate the East Germans into West Germany? That's literally nothing compared to what it would cost to try to turn the North Koreans into members of a productive capitalist state. It would probably bankrupt South Korea even if the war itself were cheaply fought. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You're like a dog[edit]

Even when kicked, you're still loyal to your master.

Hey, you wanna act all nonchalant in response to this? I understand, you've got to cultivate that cool new personality-- (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"My master"--Mikal | lakiM 03:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
He jumps, you say "How high?" Because you're dumb. And loyal. And he's dumb too. Unfortunately not in the mute sense.-- (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh so very much loyal.Would go into the line of fire for him.--Mikal | lakiM 04:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would definitely explain why you're helping him cover his tracks at Technical Support.-- (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Im reverting them because i dont like you, not because i care what the messages said or that nutty removed it. If somebody ELSE want to revert and put it back up, that's for them, not you.--Mikal | lakiM 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit, letting a personal grudge get the better of you sure oughta make Nutty proud.-- (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a former fundamentalist christian pansexual liberal living in jesusland, You gotta figure i'm not always going to be the most rational.--Mikal | lakiM 04:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
AND you're feeling sorry for yourself. If Nutty Roux didn't hate you, he'd kiss you.-- (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for myself? Meh. --Mikal | lakiM 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Protecting technical support[edit]

Are you fucking mental? Level with me here. That's some high-grade irresponsible wiki-shit, for as innocuous an edit as somebody saying they don't want their rights removed or get permabanned for no good reason. I'd like to see how you consider that vandalism.-- (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered using counter productive edit warring, which is the better choice actually. As for protecting it, i figured 4 hours during the western night/early european morning and only disallowing bons wouldn't kill us.--Mikal | lakiM 04:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit to the Moon page plz? Stickie (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that our moon actually is named "Luna," just as the moons of Mars are named "Deimos" and "Phobos," may I please change it back? Stickie (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really accurate to say it's named "Luna." In Latin, it is, but we're talking about a body that has been separately named many times by many different cultures. English astronomical organizations use the proper English name, "the Moon," and given that this is an article written in English, and not Latin, why wouldn't we use that terminology? - Grant (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hm ... Fair enough. It seems weird to me though that we refer to every other planet and moon in The Solar System by Latin or Ancient Greek names (Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Phobos, Callisto, Pluto, Titan etc...) but make an exception for our moon. I accept that I was wrong about "Luna" being the Proper Name, but the sentence about "The Moon's" name being "unimaginative" still bugs me a little seeing as a far more romantic / imaginative alternate does exist - one that fits with the naming scheme used for the rest of the system. Stickie (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Historically, most astronomical bodies are named by their discoverers. Is "the Moon" unimaginative? Maybe, but for a body that was named so very long ago, I doubt there's any real interest in changing that. - Grant (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my article[edit]

...which in and of itself is fine but I'm trying to use it to explain stuff on other pages. I was using another account when I created it (Dildz). Next time could you talk to me before you do that? I reverted it now, but we can discuss. Femilisk is watching 08:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I did what now?--Miekal 16:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut it with the deletion rampage[edit]

Take it to RW:AFD if it's had any significant work, which a pile of that stuff had - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of it was "micky made a stub, some people did minor fixing". Not "Significant".--Miekal 13:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User Rights re: Hobby.[edit]

Ballsy move. I support. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it was the easier way of ending the edit war then going to moderator level protection so, yay for ballsyness. --Miekal 18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Major Motion Picture Association Page[edit]

Just wondering, how come you deleted the page on the Major Motion Picture Association?Micky12 (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Talk Page Section[edit]

I deleted a talk page section on Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory and you undid it. When is it okay (or not okay) to delete a talk section?Corpse in the bed (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Imperial Russia[edit]

Here I was thinking in pure kneejerk Soviet terms, not back to imperial Russia. Thanks for the catch. Mayo2017 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, empire has you! Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I will get everything i possibly can out of my history degree :P --Miekal 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And I KNOW all this stuff too, but the Finnish blood takes over the brain when you talk Finnish-Russian relations XP Mayo2017 (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to use correct capitalization[edit]

Remember the beginnings of sentences and the word I should always be capitalized. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

one of my favorite things I ever got back from my history professor last semester was a long note on the back about the terrible grammar rules of my midterm about paul being a founder of Christianity.--Miekal 18:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

LBJ on my talk page[edit]

Some lunatic from static IP's mostly in southern England thinks it's clever to put a paragraph from LBJ's surprise speech on my talk page. No idea what that wanker is on about, and I don't want to know. I've responded once, and I consider further instances as trolling, to be vapourised without hesitation or mercy. Feel free to revert and ignore, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Carry on[edit]

It's what you do routinely that counts.

Just saying thanks for carrying on, and reminding you that it's OK to play with your food. Unique pinion (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That James1938 guy.[edit]

Are you sure he should be blocked? Or would he probably count as vile trolling? I mean, I don't really see him as that bad (and, to be fair, he did say that he would give his name of asked). Nevertheless, I don't really know if I want to unblock him, but it just seems kinda meh to block a guy just for disagreeing with us. So, what are your thoughts? MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM And joyously screams out its painDolan.png 21:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A user whos first and only edit is "I thought things would be cool here but you are all just cowards hiding behind fake names!", who says so while hiding behind a fake name, is likely not going to be anything more than trolling.--Miekal 22:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Likely, yeah, 95% likely, but can't we wait for proof? Is the criteria "looks like a troll" or "acts like a troll"? MarmotHead (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

television broken links[edit]

You broke a bunch of links by deleting it... You maybe should have gone through the AfD process, as people will often help you delete the broken links following a decision. Nullahnung (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Last i checked, i did go through the AFD process. the vote was delete.Should i make sure i see what links where? Undoubtedly, and i shall try to remember that next time.--Miekal 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Why did you make GhostyTrickster a Sysop? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

cause.--Miekal 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Cause why? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not?--Miekal 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not me? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Because --Miekal 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Because DG didn't ask you to? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What?--Miekal 01:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Good for you--Miekal 03:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Chicken coop discussion[edit]

I'm notifying you I've brought you up at the chicken coop. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I love you too, ill see it at 3 pm tomorrow after i get home from work--Miekal 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)