User talk:Mr. Anon

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Mr. Anon!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hey there, good sir! Ace of Spades 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good find on the gore/Al Gore thing. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Mr. Anon (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


for what it's worth, this is the article i read. if you've something more recent, feel free to ask me to revert it. --Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My source is Wikipedia, which says . The journal in question was Scientific American, which is a pretty reputable source. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, i'd say those are pretty good sources. lol ! you might link that article to the mars, if you were so inclinde --Pink mowse.pngGodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 02:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to do it...[edit]

...but if you want to blow up the Afghan war article and rebuild it from scratch with better cites than a sinfle MSNBC report where anonymous sources allegedly say stuff, you have my full support. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to do it right now either. I've got finals coming up, but maybe in about a week or so I'll be available. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem rude, but so? Just because TV and Radio is regulated for moral reasons doesn't put them above the internet. Journalistic freedom and free speech are the same in the eyes of the law. One just happens to part of an industry.

Yes, you can not post Libel on print, but it also still happens. That doesn't meant Newspapers should be regarded as unprotected speech. --Revolverman (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a moment...[edit]

See, I've had a longtime problem here, and there's probably not another editor on the site with the same problem. Everytime I contribute of mainspace, it's reverted. This is very CP-esque and a disincentive to contributing. If a contribution of mine is to remain in mainspace, someone else has always had to re-insert it. There are numerous articles I'd love to contribute to, but it's not worth spending hours on research to have it reverted in minutes. Unlike CP's 90/10 rule, I find RW talk pages much better for fostering a spirit of collaboration and vetting content, which only improves balance and the quality of articles. Nonetheless, P-Foster, et al, simply revert any contribution I make without even examining the context or content. And I just don't have the heart or patience to use sockpuppetry to keep my edits from being reverted. nobsWe Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop making stupid contributions and they won't get reverted, idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that your edit to the Obama article shouldn't have been reverted like that, at least without a proper reason, and reverts should be based on the edit, not the editor. However, I've seen you troll a lot of other users here on talk pages and such (that said, there has been a lot of trolling towards you as well, and I'm not sure who started it), and frankly I'm not surprised that you've built up the reputation that you have. If you contribute good mainspace edits that are reasonably backed up, then I'll make sure it isn't reverted. You were pretty helpful on the Obama talk page in clearing out some errors and poorly worded statements, but quickly the conversation deteriorated to some argument about drug usage that was irrelevant. Again, I agree that some editors here could be less hostile towards you, but in return you shouldn't make yourself known as the troll. That's just my advice. I'll look into some other mainspace edits you've made, and I'll make sure people don't just arbitrarily revert you without reason. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations: you are doing them wrong[edit]

Seriously, WTF? You didn't want to link to the original source, or?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't...[edit]

...drop long blocks on BONs for no good reason. Bin them if necessary, but unless they've done something egregious....Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I get carried away sometimes. If my war on Ron Paul is going too far, just say so and I'll try to tone it down a bit. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Speech[edit]

So we don't spam the Block Log.

The only difference between the Internet and Radio, TV, Print is the barrier to publishing (some would say that's the problem right there, but I digress). If someone printed something I wrote in the paper, why would that be different then if I posted it on a Blog site? --Revolverman (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But radio and TV as they are can be regulated to a certain extent; for example, you can't say "fuck" on public airways. This is different from restricting your private right to speech in your own home. Similarly, you can't intentionally spread false information in newspapers. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, if you are going to continue this, you need to argue that the internet constitututes as Freedom of Press; however, that generally referes to published material, which is usually isn't relevant to matters relating to piracy. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem rude, but so? Just because TV and Radio is regulated for moral reasons doesn't put them above the internet. Journalistic freedom and free speech are the same in the eyes of the law. One just happens to part of an industry.

Yes, you can not post Libel on print, but it also still happens. That doesn't meant Newspapers should be regarded as unprotected speech. --Revolverman (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I admit this is one of my worse rants. I really should have thought more about freedom of the press, which is really what is at stake here. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Freedom in General I feel. This isn't any diffrent then when people poo-pooed the Radio and TV as "not counting" when it came to free speech. --Revolverman (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Glad you made the move with Rob and it didn't have to be me --Revolverman (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this your version of Andy's 90/10? nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Talsley is community property, you know. You can't just claim her for yourself Anon. Peter is procrastinating. 03:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
RobS: Your trolling only disrupts the conversation. There is a chance we've encountered someone legitimately stupid, so I want to test her.
Peter: Sure. But make sure RobS doesn't get in the way. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC)She's been around for ages, no need for a 'test'—we know. Peter is procrastinating. 03:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
In that case, let me have some fun with her! I don't get much of a chance to battle these kinds of trolls. Usually I'm just stuck with RobS. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was more concerned about the contiguity and placement of my alleged trolling comments, but big deal. FWIW, comments such as "war on the poor" appear trolling, hyperbolic, and to derail the topic, from a conservative perspective. So I'm not sorry I butt in. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Using CP to guilt the site to not kicking you the fuck out is old Rob. --Revolverman (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
But... butl.. if we kick Rob out we wont get those SECRET EMAILS explai9ning EVERYTHING on CP!--il'Dictator Mikal 03:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Pssst, I got a cheat sheet. It saids "Andy is a liar, Ken is insane, Rob is parinoid and violent." --Revolverman (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting stuff[edit]

Don't unilateraly delete stuff. Use the delete template to nominate it, see what happens. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I hastily deleted that particular article because it seemed short enough, but in the future I'll be more careful. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Cool. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 01:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

About your debate with AD[edit]

I don't want to make it seem like I'm ganging up on you, and AD does a good enough job defending his own points, so I probably won't be as active in responding there as I might be otherwise. I actually disagree quite a bit with some of the essay itself, so if the debate shifts at all (even just to Libya or something) it might end up more interesting. Q0 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstract art[edit]

Michael Savage actually ranted about how it is a symbol of liberalism, fascism, etc. in one of his books IIRC. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 03:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find the opposite views. What I was really trying to say is that the correlation seems a bit sketchy, and its better to ask clearer questions. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

your hatred of paul[edit]

honestly; its about as annoying as his fervent supporters. you don't need to constantly freak out about him--il'Dictator Mikal 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

k, I'll cool it down. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you doing?[edit]

AceModerator 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just showing what Mikal's slashes mean. I completely agree that this hacking needs to stop. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Equivilant [sic] to BBC and NPR, no?"[edit]

The BBC is not funded directly by the British government; it receives most of its funding from the licensing of television equipment. NPR gets about 2% of its funding from the government these days. Russia Today, much by contrast, is a propaganda outlet. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh heh, I probably shouldn't have done that. I knew my statement was false, and I was essentially trying to parody some people who have defended RT while claiming BBC and NPR as being "propaganda organizations", in order to bait people here. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Are those "some people" RationalWiki editors? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
So, Anon, you openly admit your purpose on this site is to "bait people here". Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Not my singular purpose, but it can be fun, I admit. My main purpose on articles is clearing up factual inaccuracies and misconception. I have my occasional rants in edit summaries and the bar, where I talk about politics and religion. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


You 'revealed' that information here if you don't remember. Peter Blessed are the cheesmakers 02:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that this is one of my sockpuppets?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK. No additional information is needed. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Goats Anonymous[edit]

GoatsforSterile.svg sterileGoatsforSterile.svgno new information 05:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy birthday to you too? Mr. Anon (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

I see that you don't like MRAs. I don't like MRAs as well. Have you seen ? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)