RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

User talk:Owlman/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 5 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back)

Dude[edit]

You even removed the recent poll. Why??? Typhoon (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Because rollbacks sweep up several edits.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Then be careful when using them, duh. That was your fuckup. Anyway, there's literally nothing wrong with me adding criticism of Sanders to the criticism section. You should find a good reason for your edit wars or face inevitable page lock. Typhoon (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I already gave sources that disagreed with the Vox and NYTimes article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with what? He expressed confusion over how to break the banks. You can't deny that. Typhoon (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Clinton claims to have the same kind of power through Dodd-Frank and the NYDaily was factually wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, since only the sources you post are acceptable, I've decided to insert it into the article. Typhoon (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't what I said. When I say that your links may be wrong because they are contentious it doesn't make my links right. Economists are constantly disputing each other's claims so the burden of proof is higher.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 20:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, folks! It is great to see we are engaging in a dialogue on how to improve that page. But could we please use the talk page next time? That way, everything is easier to follow. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

2Mandy[edit]

Thanks, Owlman. My patience was running thin. Nerd (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. If they do it again I will bin them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC) 01:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Turns out you don't have to, in a bad way. That one is persistent. Nerd (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This is just a disgusting display, truly. Thank you guys for standing up for what's right and preventing that rectal abortion from rampantly destroying what we've all worked so hard together to build. You both did the right thing by not letting RW get trampled. Stay vigilant. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Reverend Black Percy I hope you weren't turning your gun Sysop tools against your allies. But seriously, thank you for taking strong actions against that persistent vandal. My patience has run out. I tried to guide them multiple times now, assuming good faith. You are right. Jesus! I was just away doing something else and this happens. We stand for truth, justice, and the rational way. Nerd (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

2000 doctors[edit]

Hi. Did you read your article beyond the title? It says that their letter "appears to resonate" with Sanders proposals, but that doesn't make it identical to his plans. Also, in that article you linked I found another link to some interesting stuff about Sanders that I added into the criticism section, so thanks for that! Typhoon (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure but if it resonates I would say they support it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No. Just because some of their ideas are similar (and even then the article doesn't assert that beyond a prudent "maybe") doesn't mean they support it. Stop posting stuff that you know are stretches and overreaches and then fight to keep it in despite all sense and logic. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I undid Typhoon's edit because it undid non-controvesial refs to Sanders supporters running for office.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC) 18:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon, did you seriously say that you could find me thousands of scientists who deny global warming is real? You argument by analogy does not stand up for the following reasons. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change and global warming are real (for which human activities are largely responsible). Second, I chose to add that the part that says many physicians support Sanders' healthcare proposals in order to illustrate the support it has among professionals. I am not saying that their support proves decisive; that should be given by the success of the Nordic model and the fact that most other industrialized nations have already introduced universal heathcare, from which Sanders draws his inspiration. Owlman's objection seems more reasonable in my opinion, and that is why I will not undo it. Nerd (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

...Wait; don't tell me Typhoon is actually a global warming denier!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that. But that's what she wrote in the edit summary where she overrode my inclusion of the fact stated above. Nerd (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Link please? I'm certainly not saying you ever called her that; I just wanted to know if she'd described herself in a way suggestive of such :O Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Here it is. Nerd (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh... Yeah, well, it seems that Typhoon's point was that lists of "X amount of scientists deny global warming" amounts to a fallacious argumentum ad populum. So, I'm going to assume that the butt of the reference was the global warming deniers - quite the opposite of endorsing them in any way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh look. Nerd is making up shit about me, again. I never denied global warming, I only brought it up as an example of the common argument ad populum. Owlman is the one who's borrowing shitty debate techniques from global warming deniers. Typhoon (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm! Did you actually read what I wrote? Making false accusations will not help you case, Typhoon! Nerd (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
How are 2000 thousand doctors supporting a healthcare plan comparable to scientists who deny climate change? Are they on someone's payroll? Doctors would know more about the cost of healthcare than a neurologist would know about global warming.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd, Owlman... You're moving to where she wants you by responding like that. Typhoon is implicitly trying to get you to agree that the argument made in the "2000 doctors" link is that the reason given for why the healthcare plan is good is because 2000 doctors support it.
You guys need to not fall for that trap and simply point out the obvious - that while it is true that, in this case (which clearly doesn't count against it), 2000 doctors can and have indeed been found to support X, it's not because two thousand doctors support X that X is worth supporting. X is worth supporting for actual, non-fallacious and good political reasons regarding how to conduct welfare in an industrialised nation and so on.
By trying to defend the 2000 doctors ("Are they on somebody's payroll?", etc), you're allowing her to make you agree that the basis for determining the argument is now somehow resting on this number of doctors - which it of course isn't. Unless you're made to agree it is (in which case, you're in trouble). It's just factually true that these 2000 doctors support it (and thus notable for inclusion in an RW article thanks to having a good source and being newsworthy), but "nothing more" than that. This is because notability for inclusion in our articles depends on newsworthiness and sourcing, not on argumentative logic. Again, unless you are made to agree to something else by falling for it.
By defending the doctors per se, you are inviting that the validity of the support of the healthcare plan would now somehow rest on the 2000 doctors not being shills, and so on. The fact of the matter is that the claim that they are shills would be the statement in need of evidence (lest it can be dismissed without evidenceWikipedia's W.svg), not the assumption that they aren't.
So do yourselves a favor here and stop allowing yourselves to get sucked into definitional quagmires by somebody who obviously does not assume good faithWikipedia's W.svg on your part. Signed, a university student of fallacious reasoning. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough[edit]

United we stand, divided we fall. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Coop vote on Typhoon[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi buddy! Don't forget to make your voice heard in the Chicken coop, and maybe cast a vote, if you feel that any of the options is right. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for RationalMedia board election[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

HEYOOOO[edit]

Hi buddy. Don't miss the fact that all punishments for Typhoon with more "Yes" than "No" votes will be strictly enforced. (This means you can toss a few additional votes in the Coop, where prudent). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Big fat whiner[edit]

Thank you for standing up to that big fat whiner. I find it bizarre that one of our editors actually apologized to that guy after being insulted for doing pretty much the right thing. That page could of course be improved but not like this. Nerd (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem but I don't think we should block them just yet.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 01:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, then. But please keep an eye on that guy. Nerd (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently he can't spell, making the exact same mistake multiple times. Ha ha ha! Are you paroling him out of amusement then? Nerd (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
HAHA HA keep people in the bin and block them and make fun of them and feel super great about your awesome self. Because spelling. Assholes. Conscience (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Conscience, Conscience, Conscience! I am using a different meaning the word "parole"; I did not know this person was in the bin. Were they? And no, I did not block them because of spelling. Check the logs before you make lazy accusations. Nerd (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see them as completely problematic and was willing to engage with them since the page was locked. They then went on to create the BDS article which was, again, bollocks and Ikanreed has blocked them for this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 02:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Huh? The point is to stop them from edit warring when they don't listen. And I'm fairly lenient. A lot of other people would have blocked them long ago. --Ymir (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the premise of the block but I think it would be more constructive to protect the page and force the BoN to the talk page since their edit is rather small.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 08:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea is if it's just one person, prefer blocking over protection, because with protection you lock out a bunch of innocent people from the article. If, after being blocked, they finally decide to listen to all the messages and discuss on the talk page, they just have to say so on their user talk and they can be unblocked. --Ymir (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
^ What he said.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Which side are you on![edit]

If you aren't a reactionary pig, stop taking their side in the wiki block wars. You are better than that.

Or are you just another neocon infiltrator troll?

Make up your mind which side you are on.— Unsigned, by: 196.52.16.78 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
Also an advice for your future writing career, question marks are used for questions instead of exclamation marks. Don't succumb to the level of the reactionaries???!!! NameThatNobodyTakes () 05:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my page. We disagreed with him, a true progressiveTM, therefore we are reactionary racist fascists. Ha ha ha! Nerd271 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for running![edit]

See the main article on this topic: RationalWiki:2016 board of trustees election/Results

Thanks for running in the 2016 RMF board election and adding some movement to turgid electoral waters. I believe that you were a great candidate and a good editor, and you gained my vote (or at least part of it, given STV rules). And, if you so desire, better luck next time! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, it is probably for the better since I was probably the least qualified candidate. Good job on getting elected even if you were hesitant at first, I trust you will do well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for running, buddy. You had my endorsement, as you are aware. And you know what? By running, you and Bongolian made the election worthwhile (as we'd have 5 people for 5 seats otherwise). And that's no small undertaking. For that, I thank you both. You both earned this. Now, as for my part, I promise I'll do my best not to muck things up too badly around here. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Th hug.gif-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretend I blocked you back just now[edit]

'Cuz this account has never been demoted to one. Yellow (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are supposedly 4 people but should I demote you?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a question for you and others to decide. Just know that this account was originally established by Tyrannis and Gooniepunk and is still jointly held by other members of RationalWiki's past, they just wanted to try something different with an editing account and escape their old skins and reputations. Beyond that, everybody behind this account is mostly harmless indeed, and it has not and will not be used for abuse purposes. Yellow (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Well if the intent was to simply edit then I will hold off.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Laurogeita bin[edit]

Now that? Was a dick move. I understand you don't like the tagging of sources, but you're really fucking arbitrary on this. I will be voting against you in the coop. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I will simply be asking for a desysopping only because said user can't seem to stop edit warring before a vote has been made in the bar.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you're so pissy about adding sources to everything that it requires a vote in the first place says a lot. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
That is ironic coming from someone who wishes to uphold the status quo w/o exception.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think that, then you understand less about me then you should. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop this vindictive petty bullshit. You so pissed at having people know what they click here? You want to convert the WIGOs into some kinda rewardless clickbait farms?! Someone should open a coop case about taking away your sysop tools for this shit. And I'm gonna vote against the revocation of Laurogeita Hamabost's sysop tools, btw.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thin ice, man[edit]

First of all, desysopping is an example of a punishment that the mob should vote on in the coop; it's not for you to haphazardly enact — in order to intimidate and harass — like Mona or Ryulong would. The fact that you combined the desysopping with vandal binning the guy means that you've essentially attempted to plug his ability to represent himself as well. Not cool.

Second of all, where's the "non-stop edit warring"? Laurogeita's last 100 edits contain three undos. Your last 100 edits contain ten undos. Now, I wouldn't call those ten "edit warring". And by extension, you likely realise if I agree with you that Laurogeita's three undos constitute "non-stop edit warring".

You better have one hell of a case to present at the coop, or you might just see your own sysop revoked by the mob. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I only vandal binned them in order to stop their dumb crusade from spreading to WIGO:W. They can still defend themselves but if this is such an issue then I will un bin them; I desysopped them only because they can easily unbin themself but I might as well reverse that is I unbin them. The reason I have undone so many edits is because Jagulard had been on the same crusade; my issue with LH is that they not only continued this crusade without having a majority on the vote but also spread it to WIGO:W--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not calling you the devil just yet. I will give you this advice, however — provide as much documentation as you can to your coop accusation (it wasn't clear it included Jagulard, for one). Also, make sure NOT to change the headlines of the actual vote, since people have already started voting. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I am unconcerned what you call me or how you perceive me. I have not change the headlines and have included the third party.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So much for you acknowledging my sincere openness to hearing your side out more closely, and for not voting against you in haste. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to act aggressively towards you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough! Me neither, towards you. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

Don't forget to vote, yourself. I suspect you will want do vote "Yes" on removing Laurogeita's sysop, and vote "No" on losing your own. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't miss this one, either. Just saying, in the name of a speedy and orderly resolution to all this. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that case will go anywhere so I am going to ignore; I have already explained why I desysopped LH and I gave them back their rights.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You announced that you were cooping Laurogeita, asking the community to come and hear your accusation and to debate it and vote on the punishment you suggested for Laurogeita. If you are "going to ignore" without telling people in the coop, you've essentially cried wolf in the coop. Which is also not cool. You are very free to disband the charges and end the coop, but please, do so personally. And do it asap, if so. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about the coop against me. I have already explained my reasons for why I cooped and desysopped LH. I am not sure what else you want me to argue about.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right — my bad. I thought you meant that the coop against Laurogeita was the one you were deciding to suddenly ignore. My bad. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible...[edit]

...to get a comment on this? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the vote[edit]

Does reading this affect how you cast your vote? If so/if not, what's your reasoning? Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why exactly it would. I am curious of what you are inferring from that quote but all I am reading is that Jagulard is abandoning that account and some unrelated wish about bringing off-site users.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit conflicted on the vote (for various and nuanced reasons), and I'm just trying to gain some new perspective on it, that's all. Thanks, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I am curious what has got you so conflicted?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Aside from this, it's something along these lines... I think. Rather vague, I know. Just trying to do what's right. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert my headline edit.[edit]

I am not starting an edit war with you. You have no legitimate reason to revert back the headline to the way it was before (as you did not provide one), especially since it's filled with your trademark non-sequitur bullshit and mindless, opportunistic Democrat-bashing that has nothing to do with the subject. You want thuggish behavior to be the law of the land? Fine, but don't clog up the WIGOWs with your mental diarrhea. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Continue your bullshit reverting and gloating and there'll be trouble coming your way. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry![edit]

If you even noticed that is. Clumsy fingers on a phone screen B) talk 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

When'd you ever hear anyone use the term "kimism" to refer to Juche? Y'know, since Juche is already the term for the particular brand of Communism run by the Kim clan — meaning nobody says "Juche" and means anything else than, well, what "kimism" purports to mean. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well most people call Mao Zedong Thought "Maoism" so I guess that someone who doesn't know what ideology NK follows would find it by looking up one of the Kims.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh. I'd probably have ballparked it around "Kimperialism". But hey, that's me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if I would consider it a kind of "imperialism".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Scholars agree it would be a great pun, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It certainly would be.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocks[edit]

You can block but I can't block back. This is rigged, I can assure you. Something's going on. NeverTrump! (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comics[edit]

Do you know much about Frank Miller? I'm toying around with a proto-article on him in my sandbox, and I guessed from your username you might know a thing or two. Just wondering. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not a big comic nerd so I am not super familiar with him but I do know he made that deeply Islamaphobic comic, Holy Terror. I have a friend who knows a lot about him, though, so I can refer to him if you have any questions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on article[edit]

Hi. Seeing that you are fairly active as well as a sysop, I thought that maybe you could take a quick look at the article of Timo Soini I just wrote (it's my first article). I tried to make it well-sourced and neutral, but still in the style of RationalWiki. I would appreciate some feedback. QuackMan (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response, my phone deleted the text from the earlier message. Anyways, it looks good but I would say that his Catholicism and sexism could be put in a category. According to Wikipedia, he is against laws that attempt to curb the damage of climate change. The party he belongs to, the True Finns, are agrarian so he my have some woo beliefs about GMOs.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

About the Election...[edit]

I'm sorry. I always disagreed with you and Mona and PBF3 about Clinton. As I just posted in the Saloon, I think the lesson I learned is that we can't allow the center-left to take the reins in the hope they will defeat the far-right. Just thought that you might have something to say about this. Warren 2020! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am actually surprised that it ended being the way it was with the failure to retake the Senate. I hope Warren or someone even more progressive (specifically on foreign policy) runs 2020 but I have some doubts that the Democrats will survive this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it? We were all talking about the GOP's demise, now it looks like the tables may be turned. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It may be for the best since the Dems have become a hallow shell of the New Deal Coalition. Meanwhile, I guess we can all look forward to Keeping Up with the Trumps.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Don't We Ban IPs?[edit]

Is it because, if we ban the IP, others won't be able to access the site from the same location? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is why we don't perma-ban them. It is also ineffective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. I will remember that in the future. Thanks! RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
However RoninMacbeth, please note that we do ban IP's for up to 3.6 days regularly. Just not for 3.14 months unless they're highly repeat offenders (who come back every single time the 3.6 ban runs out), and never for infinity. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. FuzzyCatPotato of the Luminous Plastics (talk/stalk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)