User talk:Naqoyqatsi

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Naqoyqatsi!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Feel free to pull up a goat and stay awhile! Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Single Topic[edit]

So, are you actually going to bother with things around here, or are you going to be another Chrimony? --Castaigne (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The photos[edit]

Stop arguing over this one fact. The photos were discovered as a result of the hacking of her personal accounts. That's all we need to know. The fact that you know more because you are privy to this information as a Gamergater is not relevant to the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not remain ignorant of a subject. If this is true, then inquiry will provide further supporting evidence. One of the world's most famous climate deniers did a metastudy on climate change and produced the most comprehensive evidence for it to date. He was also no longer a climate denier after the fact.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You Are Becoming Tiring[edit]

And you are well on your way, if not already at, being another Chrimony. You will be disposed of in the same fashion. --Castaigne (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'm revising an addition now. If you want me to quit bitching on the talk page and make some substantial additions, it'll be my next contribution. I should have it sourced and up by tomorrow or the day after, as I know that any holes and sloppy writing will be reverted in a heartbeat and I'd like to sleep on it. That work?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that works quite well, if done. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We nuked him from orbit? Since when? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And why wasn't it very effective? WalkerWalkerWalker 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We? No we in this, good fellow. I prefer my own, non-site-oriented crusades. --Castaigne (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Intros[edit]

They are by convention sourced and elaborated upon elsewhere. Do put it back. 173.25.47.250 (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove large sections of Gamergate just because you, as a supporter of that movement, think it paints the subject in a negative light. Take the fucking hint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, token minorities. Thank you, white male.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Why can't a white male make this point? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope you can understand how demeaning it is for a white male to tell minorities that they're "tokens" and wrong about something concerning racial or sexual prejudice. Just no.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it factually incorrect?
And keep in mind that I'm not an SJW, so SJW arguments don't work with me. --Castaigne (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just linked to a video which disproves the #NotYourShield lie, specifically:
"The primary victim of Gamergate, Zoe Quinn, later revealed she had evidence disproving everything about Gamergate up to that point, including evidence that the progenitors of #NotYourShield were sockpuppet accounts of straight white guys having stolen avatars from across the Internet of women and non-white people to make new Twitter accounts with."
If this really is about disproving hoaxes rather than ZQ write hit pieces by proxy, then that hoax should probably go. I've tried removing inaccurate information, and of course Ryulong, defender of minorities, puts it back.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't care about your video, since I can't watch it ATM. My question is why a white male cannot make a factually true statement. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it isn't true.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the progenitors of #NotYourShield were not sockpuppet accounts of straight white guys having stolen avatars from across the Internet of women and non-white people to make new Twitter accounts with? I have that correct? You are saying that this source is wrong? Provide a link here to me, please, that the Ars Technica article is incorrect. --Castaigne (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You've been duped.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That video does not refute the article. Nowhere in the video does it say the people presented in the video are the progenitors of #NotYourShield. It's a very specific claim. So let me be specific in return. Please point me to a) who the progenitors of #NotYourShield are, b) where it is confirmed these people are the progenitors, and c) the IRL ethnic data on who these progenitors are. I'm looking for "The progenitors of #NotYourShield were not the people in the screenshots of the Ars Technica article, but were actually Bill Wang, a Chinese-American who's Twitter name is @WangityWangity." - that type of information. Johnny-come-latelies aren't relevant; we're specifically talking about the originators.
Secondly, if the video does show the progenitors of #NotYourShield, what is the explanation of the screenshots in the article? Are they forgeries? What is your proof that the screenshots are false? --Castaigne (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have investigated this myself. Here are my results. Here is the first account which tweeted this hashtag (related to GamerGate). So yes, you've been lied to.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Your research is incorrect. Ninouh may have been the first one to tweet it, but the hashtag was proposed on 4Chan 15 minutes before Ninouh tweeted it. Therefore, logic states that Ninouh was following orders from the 4Chan GamerGate cabal. Can you prove that the anonymous users on 4Chan who created the hashtag - and yes, THEY are the progenitors - are the same people that are in the video? And do you have a source that is not your own research? --Castaigne (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Orders.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
And so you have a guy claiming to be the originator. And you can prove that this guy actually is the anonymous on 4Chan how?
You don't seem to have a very good idea of what "proof" or "evidence" is. Right now, you've set yourself up to where you have to prove jmillerworks is the 4chan anon who created the hashtag, which you could only do by matching IPs and and so on. --Castaigne (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You do realize how elaborate this conspiracy is becoming, right? I have no problem with using your standard of evidence if it will be applied to Zoe's claims as well. I have a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that #NotYourShield formed organically. She has some chat posts which could be from anyone with an internet connection. So do we have any reason to trust her claims over mine?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I apply my standards to everything.
Refer to specific claims made by Quinn and I will give you my opinion.
As for circumstantial evidence, I don't do circumstantial evidence. If you have direct evidence, then I am interested. Otherwise, yes, I assume the professional journalist at Ars Technica has done a better job of researching then you. I have no reason to doubt the journalist's credentials. --Castaigne (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You're referring to that person who quietly updated (archive) the article's inaccuracies without disclosure, are we talking about the same person? Under the watchful eye of a senior editor Kyle Orland who has stated "I would LOVE to use my platform to reproach this kind of behavior… but that would go against Quinn’s valid and understandable desire not to have this personal matter publicized by the media… Maybe we should just stick to Twitter to boost the signal on this one, rather than our ‘front pages.'", we talking about the same person correct?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Quote - "You're referring to that person who quietly updated (archive) the article's inaccuracies without disclosure"
Since disclosure that you're updating an article is not required by law, I see no issue here. No, I do not find updating without disclosure to be a moral or ethical problem, since I know you'll comment on that next. No matter your opinion, it's not something that even Journalism 101 frowns on.
And yes, same person. Your point? Are you saying I should trust you over a credentialled journalist? Because if so, you better come up with some better professional credentials, toot-sweet.
"No matter your opinion, it's not something that even Journalism 101 frowns on."
Always correct an error openly.
Yeah, it literally is.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I consider what he did to be correcting an error openly. He didn't hide that he corrected the inaccuracies. He didn't try to scrub anything. I don't see the problem here.
I expect that you believe he should have put up a big banner headline stating "I HAVE UPDATE THE ARTICLE AS OF BLAH BLAH DATE." Which to me is like saying that every time someone adds a comment to a user page, I need to announce that I have in the Saloon Bar. Sorry, I don't see it that way. And your opinion that what he did is not "open" is just that - an opinion. I find his update to be open enough to satisfy me.--Castaigne (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"I find his update to be open enough to satisfy me." Of course you do.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a point you'd like to make? If so, state it bluntly; I don't do allusions or other crap. --Castaigne (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, each one of those Ars Technica articles had the update announced in the heading. For some reason, a different standard of propriety was applied to this one.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal decision of the editor/writer in question, which you will find if you are employed by them. If I were writing at Ars Technica, I wouldn't bother for minor edits like the ones you've described. --Castaigne (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This just in: White-skinned peoples totes have no differences in culture.--Madman (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I just like how Gamergaters only pull #NotYourShield when they have some inkling that their target de jour is Caucasian and they instead heap racist, homophobic, transphobic, or misogynistic invective on anyone else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Adverbosity and such.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice job using that TIA meme. Showing your real colors I guess.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Were you planning on explaining this? Also, you are aware that you've been manipulated into blowing hundreds of hours of your life playing PR agent for people who have given you absolutely nothing in return, right?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about me or about #NotYourShield?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
He's discussing you. Good joke, except that you are wasting fuckwitted amounts of time flogging a dead camel. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pots and kettles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice job sending us to a search for "23notyourshield" there, btw. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Jet fuel can't melt Naqoyqatsi![edit]

Title says all. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You believe #NotYourShield was a conspiracy?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe you're pushing a whackjob theory of some grand cover-up by the media, RW, and reality at large. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please, go on. I'll listen to your little #NotYourShield conspiracy theory.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You should introduce yourself to FedTruther; he's also quite fond of such lovely evidence for teh grand conspiraciz. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any of your friends will convince me that #NotYourShield was a conspiracy, sorry.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Naqoyqats did gamer gate. Bubba41102Taste the shortness 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In Putin's Soviet Russia, GamerGate does YOU!!--Arisboch (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

That statement was about a misconception. You don't "correct" misconceptions that way. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The "misconception" was an order of magnitude off. The claims could be construed as claiming that 0.66% of the accounts were responsible for harassment. 12% of the accounts had any affiliation with GG, and 0.66% of all accounts on Randi's impregnable blocklist had been accused of harassment. A little math and reading comprehension isn't gonna melt your brain, yo.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The 12%, as written in the article, is referring to GG folk thinking it said "12%" about things it didn't say "12%" about, and then saying misinformed stuff like "0.66%" Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(EC)Also, that number is awful. The data can only be used to find the percent of harassment that was linked to GG. The raw data cannot be used to show how many accounts were harassing. AND operations are not the same as OR operations. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Which you'd know is false if you read it. :3--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Which thing is false? The 0.66% thing is a complete bastardization of statistics. And I hope you've noted the "edit conflict" note there. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How so? Harassment should work with binary logic - an account IS or IS NOT an account which has been linked to harassment. OR operations can be turned into AND operations in binary data. The math is sound, so you'd have to attack WAM's own methodology to get anywhere.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
...No. AND operations make things smaller. OR operations make things bigger. The 12% uses an AND operation on two pools. The .66% uses an AND operation on one pool and then makes a comparison without applying the AND operation elsewhere. The actual result is not ".66%". It's "anywhere from .66% to 100%". It's like taking the amount of people who buy milk at a specific store (AND operation: shops at that store) to get a number on how many people buy milk without factoring in how many people shop at the store (the same AND operation) and instead taking the amount of people in the world. You can't do that. You have to compare the people buying milk from the store to the people shopping there, not the people buying milk from the store to the total population. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see I was mistaken. It's worth noting, however, that the source data does not seem to be available for analysis and that they noted only the reports received related to GG, not the number escalated or even the number acted upon by Twitter. This is actually the first time I've seen such incomplete data reported in a peer-reviewed paper, it's unorthodox at best.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On a totally unrelated note[edit]

Your page's quote is a quote that sometimes pops up on my page. Mine's altered in a different spot than in yours, but... I'm watching you, quote-thief. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 23:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I like the Qatsi films. Do you like minimal music, as your name implies? I assume you got the name from the film. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes and I did. Harmonielehre, introduced through Civilizations 4, is what first got me into modern orchestral music.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I moved both of your things ...[edit]

... (the lies thing and the CON thing) into your userspace. Have fun, and troll responsibly! FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ty.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

tfw you don't check your "lies" article talkpage[edit]

and just keep posting FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

You know you don't need to keep separate archives like this. It's saved forever in the talk page history and there are archives of the talk page as well. Also, your "lies" page is cute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please[edit]

Don't taunt people. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 11:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

wow! From rational wiki. Ya'll really are fucktarded.--166.137.136.19 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a very nice thing to say. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither is your face but it's still a fact. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Amazing[edit]

I don't know what kind of autism possessed you to take on this den of dogmatic, irrational idiots but I salute you. Keep it up, there's a lot of info yet to be released info and you will be vindicated, tho I doubt by these loonies. The facts are rather irrelevant to them as I'm sure you've noticed.--166.137.136.19 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't encourage the idiots, BoN. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
now we can enjoy the complementary recking courtesy the denizens of rationalwiki, (RW is doing the recking btw) get your popcorn folks!. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Also apparently facts are irrelevent to you, Naqoyqatsi, facts were flawed, mined, or just broken, and usually from gamer gate supporters, we on the other hand presented proper sourced evidence FROM ACTUAL EXPERTS, and witnesses not affiliated with GG. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Bubba, Naqoyqatsi hasn't even said anything in this section. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 01:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The responses to this proves pretty much everything. Facts and evidence fly out the window with you people. Where there is a will there is a way, logic be damned. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I love this. "You're tired of a tendentious, dishonest shithead? How illogical". Look, we recognize when one tendentious shithead who needs their views reinforced constantly(particularly when they're vile) and has never contributed anything positive to this wiki is sidling up to another. You could always grow up. That would also resolve your "so unfair to gamergate" problems. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
My views have worked out well for me and I see no reason to change them. Still, I appreciate your concern.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Enough[edit]

Don't post your shitty flawed interpretation of my message not to you which has nothing to do with whatever bullahit you're trying to disprove about the bias reality has against Gamergate. Like what the fuck is your problem?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You've made far worse personal attacks on others. You and Anti-GG can take a valid comparison to your moral panic and Jack Thompson's.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as Gamergate likes to co-opt the usual "SJW" repertoire to pull all that persecution complex bullshit, maybe you can give me some receipts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind you're the one who thinks you deserve a free idiot pass from any form of criticism. As long as you continue to criticize others, you can expect to be criticized in turn. Take it like a soldier or don't dish it out.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Pulling shit I've said out of context to frame your shitty rebuttals to reality isn't criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Then post your own rebuttal somewhere and quit being such a baby about it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
To refute what exactly? That anti-feminism was the root cause of the murders perpetrated by Elliot Rodger in 2014? Because that's just fact. Maybe I phrased myself a bit differently half a week ago but framing what I said like some Jack Thompson bullshit about video games is weak. This is where I'm drawing the line when it comes to what I've done on RationalWiki.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You know, your stated concern for Ryulong's health would seem a lot more sincere if you didn't try so hard to bother him. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to bother him. However, it's not going to help him to treat him like a child. If his health is at risk over what someone writes on a public userpage on the internet, walking on eggshells until a someone who doesn't give a shit comes along will do him no favors.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"Let's be an asshole to someone that I think is mentally ill" is a wonderful defense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I never said that. However, I'm not going to watch what I say about Anti-GG because you take everything as a personal attack. If you think that you are mentally ill and the internet has a negative impact on your life, you should start budgeting the time you spend online.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You're not "watching what you say about Anti-GG". You're taking potshots at me with half of the shit you filled your "Lies" page with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. Deal with it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Eron Gjoni was physically abusive to Zoe Quinn. This is found in the court records that Cernovich acquired. And I'm still not letting you post the shit taken out of context from what I've said here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to talk about that? Okay, we can talk about that.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes. A perfectly biased discussion of court proceedings that the reporter in question probably shouldn't have ever been witness to. No one seems to deny Gjoni physically assaulted Quinn but the denial seems to be coming from how this RO was requested. What does that prove though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do wish you'd stop arguing[edit]

How to make it neutral and please Ryulong? LlamaPastor31 There's a lot of tube cloggage. 00:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC) p.s I'm new.

Are you using a translator? I know some French and Spanish if you'd prefer that.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
So do I. But why? LlamaPastor31 There's a lot of tube cloggage. 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering[edit]

But why is your username the Hopi word for "life as war"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopi? Like Navajo? Or Arapaho? Or otters? LlamaPastor31 There's a lot of tube cloggage. 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the Hopi language is quite different from both the Navajo and Arapaho languages. The Hopi are also rather distinct from otters, last time I checked. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Named after this.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So you're a gamer, the epitome of tech and modernism, yet you name yourself after a film on how tech and modernism is totes bad? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the joke.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am laugh. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Only warning[edit]

Do not link to people's dox.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything is dox to you people. Linking to some porno shoots someone did is dox, proving someone false is dox, breaking a narrative is dox. On top of that, it's difficult to take anything you say seriously when you have this bizarre delusion that everyone is trying to drive their ideological opposition to suicide. Just ban me again for "feeding the troll" or whatever.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No banning. At worst, it had personal details. You're free to appeal the comment removal; I didn't extensively study the link. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Duly noted. I can understand, then, if you'd rather err on the side of caution. Though I hope you can understand my frustration when the person demanding this revdel has made worse statements onsite about living persons by name.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
On further review of the blogpost, I think that the personal information has already been covered by numerous media sources and cannot be considered as doxxing. I have undone the removal and the revdel, pending appeal-appeal. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No it hasn't. Quinn's legal name is not public knowledge except as a result of being doxxed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
But the cat is out of the bag anyway, so all this revdeling make no diff at all.--Arisboch (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fucking ridiculous. Naqoyqatsi should not have posted the link at all. She was doxxed by these assholes, and in particular, the person who runs that blog hired a fucking PI to stalk her for him and Gamergate. The diffs should still be revdel'd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What for? The infos out in the net already and the net ain't got no revdel function.--Arisboch (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
We do. And we don't need the link posted locally. I can't believe that this is an argument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)