User talk:Miekal/Archive6

people talk

What's with reverting my edit?--TemplarJLS (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The revert: unimportant "leak". the deletion: we've deleted 2-bit internet user articles before so precedent says that'd be4 the same--Miekal 04:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Another question: Why did you delete my article for Godandscience.org?--TemplarJLS (talk)

Because i considered it a waste of time to hold a vote on deleting a two-bit guys article--Miekal 05:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait are you calling me a two-bit? What was wrong with the article?--TemplarJLS (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

He's referring to both illumicorp and godandscience.org as two-bits not worth knowing about, afaik. Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Something tells me that asking why you reverted my edit without explanation would be a complete fucking waste of time.OGRastamon (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you told me what that edit was, and then i can tell you if it was--Miekal 04:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After finding which it was, it was a dislike of how you equated liberal with freedom and then did conservative with the inverse. It was a bit to black and white. And damning unfairly.--Miekal 04:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose ehr?

Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

+1

Correct action - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

+1. And locking that talk page (even if I could still edit it) kept me sane. Thanks! MarmotHead (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your request for automation

Can you get me some links (even red ones) to the train-related wandalism you were talking about? I need to see what/where it was to be able to do something. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Still need it or?--Miekal 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a chunk of that stuff, you could check my logs. Sophie^Wilder 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was able to find a bit in the deletion logs. Unfortunately, the filter I wrote is a little instable, so I going to only use it if they show up again or else a more permanent fix will have to wait until I have time to reprogram it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you feel the need to block me? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

boredom. Teacher was answering a question i knew at the time--Miekal 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Right --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

college is a boring place--Miekal 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC

A smear necessitates untruths. Everything I've posted is true and public domain. What specifically needs referenced in YHO ? ^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

One is less likely to trust someone who can't even SIGN despite being reminded at least thrice. Pillock. Scream!! (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

How about quadrice? I really couldn't be bothered to learn your little traditions. I've had a look around at what RationalWiki has become and these days it's only worth trolling, not actually doing any work for!! Have a nice day little scream! ^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

Gonna vandal bin you now. Bye! Scream!! (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

About those giant free Scotland ion Scots

Osaka Sun (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Either way, scotland was going to get something: Yes gave them a country, no was going to give them more devolution. In the end, this is going to be a different united kingdom after this than there was this morning. --Miekal 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect magician categorization

The page said its for stage magicians otherwise it would be too long and confusing. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:

If they return, leave links to what happened and where on my talkpage, so that I can better create programs to fight against it. As it stands, I've amped up the abuse filters to deal with a lot of what went down in case the skiddie troll shows up. I suspect they will "dox" me next, even though I've given out my name numerous times on RationalWiki and am not scared by some twit with a computer. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But, but the fear of revealing! And alrighty. --Miekal 14:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Could I please have your assessment of what I need to improve on to be given sysops privileges back.

Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

help help I'm being repressed

:( King Skeleton (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just don't know how to feel about that discussion and am glad I got out of it when i did--Miekal 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's like a horror movie, it's grotesque and disturbing but you want to see what happens next. King Skeleton (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

EE

While it looks like the vote is going agaisnt him don't you think that you should wait for a decision before acting?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

He's going to other sites to encourage people to Harass DG while linking to a lot of Personal info on him, waiting for a discussion is just pointless. who's really going to come out of the woodwork and go "yah let's not ban him!". From there, If there's a quibble with the length of the ban, which is the only thing open to discussion based on voting, feel free to change it. 10 is just a nice good number so i picked it.--Miekal 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the appropriate page I've not been closely following the drama either here or anywhere else and I'm not going to vote either way. It just seems odd that you would act before a decision has clearly been confirmed on the appropriate page. But I'm not going to reverse your block as I have no intention of getting very involved.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say 11 and counting votes on "ban", with everybody jumping ship from earlier votes in the same discussion (even nutty, who'd so far been defending EE's right to be here), was enough moral authority to go ahead. That and, using my mod hat, he was doxxing david while making threats about using Anonymous and other threats against users. To me, atleast, that is enough to preclude a discussion on banning a user, at that point they are a threat to the wiki/editors and shouldn't be given the time of day or the courtesy of a discussion.--Miekal 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that your rather out-of-date mod hat gives you the authority to short-circuit discussion then so be it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Even if i wasn't a mod I'd short circuit it anyways on the same grounds. A doxxer, (let alone, again, going off site to harass users) doesn't deserve the time of day, especially one who's doing it in revenge for edits on a wiki of all things--Miekal 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Life is short.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry, I'm sort of out of the loop on all of this but it seems that the aptly named User:ExiledEncyclopedist is in some serious trouble. He made some really interesting contributions to Caligula so when I saw that User:Ryulong had reverted and blocked him, I unblocked ExiledEncyclopedist as I wasn't aware that he'd broken any rules. I know Ryulong from Wikipedia as a sadistic bully who blocks users on a whim and assumed that he was just picking on EE for sport. What exactly is going on? You seem to be doing the bulk of managing EE's affairs so I thought you'd be the right user to bring me up to speed on the case. Maybe I can be of assistance. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a ongoing Coop case on banning/binning him that had switched, after he decided to try to Doxx David and seek out external help in harassing users here, towards banning, so i decided to just cut it all short and let us move on with our lives. --Miekal 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that he lived up to his name, by getting exiled. Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, obviously that's not acceptable. What does doxxing mean though? And who's David? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerard?--Miekal 23:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is nothing to do with the fact that he created a category called slaveholders and (accurately) added Muhammad. Is it? Nothing to do with being too afraid too offend people by telling the truth? Oui? Non? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EE's contributions have been fairly uninteresting from what I've seen (mainly of the trivia/pub quiz variety: not entirely irrelevant, but hardly crucial either), and they were often sloppily written and sourced, leading to complaints from others who had to clean up the mess. EE also seemed to have a weird obsession with categories. I nominated the slave holder category for deletion, because I thought it rather silly - especially after having read EE's argument for its relevance which reeked of conspiracy logic and seemed to me to actually be an excellent argument against having such a category. Things quickly escalated after that as well as a scraps EE got into with several other RW editors. This led to a vote on the chicken coop on sanctions against EE, who responded by first continuing to attack other RW editors with increasingly paranoid and incoherent rants, culminating in EE going on a vendetta on other sites and doxxing David Gerard which in turn led to a landslide of votes in favour of kicking EE off RW. According to what other users have written, as well as what seems to be EE's Wikipedia account, EE apparently pulled a somewhat similar stunt (and was blocked) at Wikipedia, which leads me to suspect that EE is a right nasty piece of work. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad being categorized as slaveholder has nothing to do with EE's ban. If you think we were trying to hide that fact about him, don't you think the section of content addressing it would've been removed? If you want to know what doxing is, here's a link. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the slave holder category, it wasn't created by EE, and he actually argued that having Muhammed and not U.S. Presidents in it was a sign that David Gerard is an Islamophobe(?!?) and that Wikipedia and RW were all just conspiring to hide the slave holding history of various POTUSes... ScepticWombat (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Man, that guy has some serious issues. Let's hope his time away from editing RW and Wikipedia will lead him to get a better perspective on things. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Sounds perfectly fair to me. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Board

I thought it was worth a try--TiaC (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: You only have until 26 January to accept your nomination. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The sphere is all black!

The problem I have with trying to present a totally polarized view of a situation is that it leads to this sort of scenario in which people are deliberately looking away from the facts. It's like how people don't want to even consider that Hitler might have had some good qualities and valid points. The result is that you have to go to unsavory places to find any arguments that oppose the orthodoxy, because those arguments have been banned from everywhere else. The censors just end up looking like assholes, before it's all over, and the censored end up looking like more reasonable people than they otherwise would.

I don't that it's effective in the end at suppressing the opposing arguments. Conservapedia tried that too, and it led to RationalWiki. They would have been better off giving their opponents a fair hearing. But they couldn't do that, because they viewed their opponents as basically the unredeemed spawn of Satan, and their opponents' doctrine as blasphemous. Secular dogma can be the same way, when people decide that there are topics off-limits from free and open debate. Landmartian (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

most people interested in free and open Debate on the "possible positive benefits of csa " are people who aren't deserving of the debate space, & what possible positive effects are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the negatives. As well, There -are- benefits of mass genocide, such as less resource strain, but that doesn't mean we need to hold debates on the pros and cons of conducting mass genocide. Refusing to debate on whether "CSA is all that bad" isn't us being censoring assholes, it's us being decent people, and the people pushing for "Legitimate free and open debate" on the topic aren't going to be coming out looking all roses as you seem to fear. --Miekal 04:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

?

How is that vandalism and why did you protect the page (until the 17th ?!). That was an obvious hasty generalization which I had to remove for more objectivity.--FedTruther (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It implies that hey, the Fed is a conspiracy to sell us all as slaves to the Jewish black atheist liberal fascist statist Illuminati communist Marxist whoeverthehells. The POINT of the article being to point out the problem with that notion, that is very much counter-productive. Also go dig up our not an encyclopedia policy and our POV policy. PacWalker 05:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool. This site might as well be renamed to irrationalwiki or censorshipwiki

"we arent objective or unbiased. we think fed truthers are bullshit" ^{— Unsigned, by: FedTruther / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 02:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahem

Okay, knee-jerk bad snark aside, I do intend to present a new asshole to our concern troll friend, with LEGITIMATE SOURCES®©™, and protecting your new pet edit war is hardly good form. PacWalker 13:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And i'd like us to, but not from how he was doing it. Protecting it made sure he didn't keep edit warring over the inclusion of how we essentially never do refuttals unless it's a side by side. --Miekal 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not vandalized the page as you claimed in your edit summary, if my edits were problematic, i will address it. Please be mature and unprotect the page so that I can refute the crank claim. --LobPo (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Would it be considered rude to run a prelim draft/source gathering elsewhere (i.e. in userspace?) PacWalker 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

no? go for it. Besides something about period blood i have little knowledge of the bullshit claims as to why women can't fight in the military. --Miekal 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, on a not unrelated note, you just lowered my blood pressure by at least 5 points. I guess I probably ought to thank you. PacWalker 13:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

US superpower debate

Please don't delete this page. It is a very interesting and relevant topic. --LobPo (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, sunshine, but you're an idiot. Were it down to me, you'd be blocked. Scream!! (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of LobPo's stupidity, what made the discussion deletionworthy? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean after all it *is* serving as a nice repository for all of our spare {{DFTT}} templates... oh. not how that works... ah well. PacWalker 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Some bullshit is not worth the time it takes to read it. MaillardFillmore (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

BC, BCE

Same shit. Both are backwards systems, in every way possible. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they're both backwards, but there's a reason the weatherman doesn't use the word Kelvin. PacWalker 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A very very bad reason. Everyone should speak in SI-units. :P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Because Kelvin is unfamiliar to his viewers, not because it's actually good or bad. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant, actually. Likewise, the goatple are woefully unfamiliar with alternate epochs. PacWalker 13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Plan: Turn every single RationalWiki page into nothing but a loosely-topical set of dates, each one hyperlinked to a multi-megabyte page explaining the Grand International RationalWiki Dates System. Soon, they shall know... FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

GIRDS. Hmm. PacWalker 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That acronym looks awkwardly similar to GRIDS. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Grand Omni-Anthropic Temporal System. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Butbutbut TimeCube. PacWalker 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The age thing (Clinton et al)

Hi Miekal.

I just noticed that you cut the "she's too old"-thing from the Hillary Clinton article and I raised the general question about when & why someone is "too old" on Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination#When and why are someone "too old" to be POTUS? I'm wondering why we have this objection to Biden and Clinton (though I tend to agree on Sanders, but he has no chance anyway), but no one has made it about a slew of Republicans in the same age bracket, or about lesser known Democrats, such as Webb. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

History according to Andy

Seriously, even by batshit wingnut (sub)standards, Andy's magnum crapus is an atrocious bit of shlock. Badly written, historically illiterate and bizarrely tangential in places (especially, this bit, WTF?!?) it makes me, a historian, going what-the-what-what-what-WHAT?!?

However, in his hilariously inept way (made readable and enjoyable by the RW comment track), Andy demonstrates an extreme version of the pseudohistorical narrative of world history that seems to be flourishing on the wingnut fringe (and sadly has made inroads along with the nutters well into GOP ranks). Andy-Pandy manages to hit, if not all then a hell of a lot of the conservative tropes (and his fingers) with his patented Holy History Hammer of Doom^TM while bouncing around on his Historical Pogo Stick^TM. For instance, every time the U.S. fails to win (or win big enough in Andy's eyes) it's of course because them evuls lib'ruls betrayed the brave boys in the field and Andy is completely oblivious to (or at least silent about) pretty much all of the less salutary things that have given the U.S. such a bad rep in much of the world (typically shenanigans involving the CIA).

Of course, Andy also puts his very personal touch on things by shoehorning rants about taxes, persecution of Christians, evulz Moooslims, and abortion into all kinds of situations, but the "macro-historical narrative" seems pretty illustrative of the rabid rightwinger history perspective. The one thing that really surprised me is that Andy didn't push the "Saint Ronnie defeated the Evil Empire"-interpretation of the collapse of the USSR any harder. After all, this is the typical retroactive wingnut justification for SDI, the support for the Contras, the Mujahideen and so on and so forth (while conspicuously omitting Reagan's complete turnaround to a more conciliatory line, especially after the infamous Able Archer 83 exercise almost turned uncannily real...) ScepticWombat (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does the Hillary Clinton article need to remain sysop-editors only?

I saw you just protected Hillary Clinton so that only sysops can edit. Is that really necessary and proportional? FedTruther's edits lie some way back and sysop-protecting seems a bit overkill, but perhaps I've overlooked something. I agree that the article should remain off-limits to BoNs to cut down on the level of clean up by mudflinging occasioned by the current campaign(s), tough. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The typical "nobody has repeated their [still undiminished!] objections in the past five minutes so I'm about to do what I want" spilled out of FedTruther's maw on the talkpage shortly before. That said I think the question is better posed as how big a nuisance those edits will be. No answer yet from me. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too, but the two-fold question is: Will FT actually become a nuisance again and should we pre-empt a possible edit war by shutting out all non-sysops?

I'd prefer to let the sysop protection lapse (but keep the article registered editors only) and reinstate it if there's a problem, or simply put FT in the vandal bin (or possibly block him if things gets really out of hand) for edit warring if that's the problem, instead of this style of collective punishment. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, it's not like there's a lot of active registered users that aren't already sysops. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Preempting the obvious: FT doing an edit and being reverted til its locked again, makes more sense than dealing with FT trying again. If you wanna undo it go ahead. The only reason he hasn't so far is it's been locked for the last week from the last time he tried. --Miekal 13:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is FT, why not dish out successively longer blocks for edit warring if he keeps trying to reinstate the breitbarf? And yes, .236, I know that there are plenty of sysops, but there are even more non-sysop editors, and it seems rather out of proportion to prevent all of them from editing the Hillary article, just because FT has a thing for this breitbarfer (and also seems to be right out of the 1990s Clinton-scare, Arkansas Project-style). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the protection doesn't bar help via talkpage, but still you have something of a point. I don't care which course of action is taken, personally, but then again I only have a half dog in this. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, he is binned already, so that's not a further action. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

We're obviously voting to make it crystal clear to Castaigne that he's not executing the will of any mobocracy save for the strawmanny one he's made up in his mind. Separately from that, though, the forum was aimed at figuring out consensus about possible changes to RW's style, so a vote doesn't seem misplaced. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact only fuzzy cared to think there was a real chance Cast was right should be enough proof what the mob wants. That forum was also a dead discussion, the only real agreement is bad snark should be removed and good snark kept--Miekal 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he didn't think there was. He just wanted to make Castaigne look (more) silly for presenting his actions as representing the "will of the mobocracy". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Miekal, lay it out for me: What harm did the vote do? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What good did the vote do? I can send 10 armed guards with freefire on into my minimum security cellblock in prison architect, but it seems a bit excessive because one guy had cigs. And cast already was silly for doing so, no need for more showing.--Miekal 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Kurdistan page

I am really well-versed with the Kurds. I'm sorry about the nationalist bias, I was trying to add some humor and cheekiness to the article. I'll tone it down in the future. Once you have finished with the article, can you unlock it so we can discuss edits, please? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We already can discuss edits, but when you try to tell me somebody "well versed in kurdish topics" doesn't match up with even the cursory glance at wikipedia i'm doing to fill out bits of the page, and has a decidedly pro-kurdish message, i'm not going to have faith in your ability to contribute to our kurdistan article. --Miekal 00:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing - for somebody who claims to know a lot about Kurd topics, going old school history book "We don't know the answer' when apparently we do and they themselves give one is somewhat funny. --Miekal 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry. I was under the impression that their exact origin as a people was not widely known, but I stand corrected. I really like RationalWiki and I want to contribute to this community as much as I can. I thought that because I knew something about this topic, I would add it to the wiki, but you were right, I was too nationalistic in my rhetoric. I will strive to maintain a neutral tone in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User pages

why delete if not notable? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it was only remade in user -because- it was deleted from mainspace. --Miekal 01:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty common practice on some wikis—keeping a personal copy of a deleted article in userspace. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also known as ignoring the desire of the wiki - in this case not having an article. he's also not even a user here anymore so why behold to his wish to not delete the article. --Miekal 01:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cuz it doesn't hurt anything? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It didnt hurt anything for us to leave anything tisane said in places either--Miekal 02:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My desysopping

I understand why you felt the need to do that, and I accept that without complaint. I have denounced the person who elevated me to that position on my blog, should you wish to peruse it, but that is neither here nor there, as I will abide by your decision on this matter. It is also obvious neither my opinions nor my further presence here is welcome or appreciated, so I plan to again take my leave, but I bear no ill will over your decision to remove those rights. Arcane (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)