RationalWiki's 2020 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 2021.

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: $3380Goal: $3500

User talk:PolarBearInTheJungle/Archive10

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Have you abandoned Authoritarianism?[edit]

I'm impressed. Though this is of course tactical, not principled. 86.40.199.148 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Little of Column A, a little of Column B. Partly I'm just tired of seeing the same edits appear, disappear and reappear on my Recent Changes; partly I think Gerard Takes Himself Too Seriously; partly I'm ticked off at how well we do at feeding you (and impressed at your tenacity, for what it's worth...). P-Foster (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Right there Gerard has suffered a massive, irredeemable blow to his authority. He swaggers around here with his big cock complex, thinking he's the daddy of the forum. All I know is that if he behaved like that when I started posting here, he would have either have been mocked, or bullied off the site. 86.40.199.148 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete WIGO CP talk page[edit]

No! That would be akin to division by 0! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Banhammer, Renamer, and Goat 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Were you not around when I pulled that stunt? Epic laughs. I thought Trent was going to send hired goons to my house. Srsly. P-Foster (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember that - hilarity followed. Acei9 00:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocks[edit]

IPs are one thing, but what's the point of unblocking a vandalism-only account, other than whitewashing the block list? Also, you should take a look at the vandal bin next. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked the vandalism-only account because we have a vandal bin to deal with those types--not even TK has an infinite block, ferfuxsakes. Spambots are a different matter to me, FWIW. The vandal bin worries me less b/c people can use their half-hourly eit to appeal. P-Foster (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not pay any attention to 89. He/She is my nemesis. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your devotion to the liberties of mankind will be justly remembered[edit]

You are a modern day Daniel O'Connell, leading the trolls of this world to free themselves from bondage, and through their courage and passion, shame the British State into granting Catholic Emancipation. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"leading the trolls of this world to free themselves from bondage" I'm not sure that's a good thing. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Its better than allowing the pencil pushing wikipedia geeks with an authority complex to rule the world. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) It would be a good thing. A better thing would be for the people who care so desperately about this wiki to be able to ignore such banalities, rather than lash out and/or censor them. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why should the kind of personal attacks and abuse thrown around by MC be allowed to remain? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
ECthey shouldn't. But blocking IPs does nothing about that and only makes him have to run from one Internet cafe to another. Think of the carbon emissions.P-Foster (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The salient question is why you are provoking a fight where it is not warranted? I rarely if ever strike the first blow. Know your place, cretin. 86.40.194.130 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yeah right. There would be no fight had you not provoked it. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
yeah. This is much better. Quaru (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The policy not to remove comments promotes an open and transparent atmosphere which is free from censorship and authoritarianism. Why should the comments be removed (or changed, as it was in the latest round of ridiculousness) rather than ignored? 193.200.150.125 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Open and transparent atmosphere free from censorship is one thing, but why should pure trolling be allowed to remain? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides, he will just whine louder until he annoys someone enough that they respond. He is a troll. It's as simple as that. There is no value in anything he says, and there is no reason to tolerate him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you've been here long, but removing it altogether provokes an even stronger reaction...with an even better reason. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. There is nothing worse for a troll than silently removing their comment. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
One problem is the subjective nature of trolling. From a position drunk with power, legitimate criticisms start to look an awful lot like trolling. CP, as a whole, is an excellent example. We are getting dangerously close to that. Why can't you just ignore it? 193.200.150.152 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But in this case it's not subjective [1]. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why a post like that would be deleted. What does it accomplish? Or are you saying that because he identified himself as a troll, everything he contributes subsequently can be summarily labeled trolling? 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's illogical, but then again I always tell the truth. 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? He admitted to being a concern troll. He continues to exhibit the behavior of a concern troll. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If a man tells you he's lying, it's not necessarily the truth, is it? 74.63.112.137 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It still looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And let's not forget that MC has been tolerated for far, far longer and given way more good faith than he would've on any other sane place on the internet. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, you have the problem of subjectivity and corruption by power. You don't think Aschlafly thinks run-of-the-mill fact checking looks, smells and swims like trolling? Or are you saying it is trolling and those people deserve to be banned from CP? 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Run-of-the-mill fact checking is not trolling, and neither is run-of-the-mill criticism. But MC's "criticism" is concern trolling, and some socking on CP is also trolling, because it is done in bad faith. But your analogy sucks for various reasons, including the fact that Andy is objectively wrong on many things. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your non-answer is an admission to the personal bias in identifying trolling. Andy does see those people as trolls, even though by our subjective standards, they are not. Trolling is still subjective. And I'd still like to know why you're seemingly incapable of ignoring what you perceive as trolling. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's subjective. So what? I'd still like to know why purely disruptive and abusive comments that have no value whatsoever should be allowed to remain. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'd still like to know why you can't ignore it. If the people being trolled could ignore it, what would the problem be? Seriously. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Littering talk pages with abusive and irrelevant comments. And someone is bound to respond anyway. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. In answer to your question, removing trolling is, by nature, the epitome of feeding the troll. The trolling itself might not add anything (in some cases, but that's subjective), but removing it causes more problems than it solves. If everyone could ignore it, there would be no problem. That's an ideal we should strive towards, even if some people have a really hard time doing so. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I disagree. Secondly, like I also said, MC has been tolerated for a long time and has been given a metric fuckton of good faith. Finally, he won't go away even if he is ignored, so there are only two options: clean up after him or leave his droppings alone. If you do the former, he will edit war, but there are tools against that. If you do the latter, he will continue to whine and spam talk pages with his shite until someone responds. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your example refutes your point. David had removed the post, which led to more trolling, which David can't ignore, so he removes it, so he gets trolled, can't handle it, removes it... Nothing was solved. He wasted some of his time warring. Now if David was able to learn to ignore it, what would the problem be? More trolling that doesn't bother him? Which path should reflect RW policy? 193.200.150.137 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't understand me. Try again. If David had ignored it, MC would've spammed his talk page with more trolling. Why should David be forced to put up with that. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid that I do not understand you. If trolling didn't bother David, why would trolling bother David? 193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Who said it didn't bother him? 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I can only assume it does by the amount of time he wastes trying to make it go away, which demonstrably exacerbates the problem. On second thought, I suppose it could be a BDSM thing. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What it demonstrably did was annoy the troll, and probably make him go away for a bit. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
oops. I think you misunderstood above. I said if trolling didn't bother him, why would trolling bother him. It's a hypothetical situation where David learns not to let trolling bother him. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the ramblings of a loser like MC bother him, but the constant spamming of his talk page probably annoys him. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Forgoing the censorship issue, it seems like more effort for the same effect. The page will still be trolled, he just completely wastes his time reverting it. 193.200.150.125 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
But the end result is also different, which justifies the effort. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you feel like letting someone waste your time is justified, you have other problems. I understand it's your way of "getting back" at the troll, but...it's not. You're just being trolled. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But the waste of time isn't the result of David reverting the troll, it's the result of the troll having no life and nothing better to do. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So let's step back and think for a split second... What are you here for? "Getting back" at trolls? Or are you here for other things? Did you get sidetracked from what you wanted to do while "getting back" (aka feeding)? Who really won? Not you. It's pathetic. What does the troll want to do? Troll. Who ends up doing what the want to do? The troll. The troll wins. You lose. Every time. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The troll is here to get an emotional response and to cause drama. If they do not succeed, they lose. Reverting their comments denies them that which they seek. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GIVE ME BACK MY TALK PAGE!!!! P-Foster (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Trolling == success. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
lollol ur wrong
--194.197.235.240 (talk)
lol, you don't acknowledge the WP:Liar paradox. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat on the back #2[edit]

For deleting the ultimate troll magnet. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Doc salutes you
I do what I can. P-Foster (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrational censorship[edit]

What happened to tolerance of opposing POV? To a rational mind, there is no need to censor stuff like this. --Uncle Ed bug me 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1--consider the source; creationism.com. Hardly worth anything. 2. So what? You're trying to argue that religion or the "glory of god" is somehow relevant to contemporary scientific practice because the founder of a contemporary science magazine thought that way. It was the nineteenth century, and religion occupied a different space in public discourse then. That might be interesting for a history of scientific thought of history of mentalités approach to the question, but it has nothing to do with the article in question. 3. You're a fool who has displayed a particularly unsavoury type of persona in his online activity and I will prolly revert everything you try to insert into the wiki on sight. go away. P-Foster (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

You really are a guiding light of virtue in this dark dark world. Its only a pity that Gerard wouldn't bugger off to Timbuktu though. Cheers. 86.40.105.186 (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer[edit]

"Don't like the trolling? Kill the troll with fire" EddyP (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Get the Community standards changed to reflect that, and then bin away to your heart's content. P-Foster (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we're supposed to deal with IP trolls by blocking for a few hours. That ok with you? EddyP (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In your absence....[edit]

...I'll keep your seat warm and drinks cool. AceX-102 00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

....And I'll keep your drinks warm and your seat cold. !!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance[edit]

Looks like I can finally wiki without fear of real-world retribution from the likes of savages like you. FYI, I've moved and the address is not listed, so you can quit the games. The new owners aren't happy about the little "surprises" they've received from you. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Look what I acquired[edit]

And you can be sure I acquired it legally. Yes sir.
i9 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

FYI you've been nominated for this thing. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back...[edit]

...if you are not just here to decline and run (no pun intended). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LX. Nah, I'm pretty much back for now--if maybe a little less actively. Missed the joint. P-Foster (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yo![edit]

Long time, no see. How are things? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thread[edit]

I really think that thread, if we can't deal with it, and soon, would be enough that I'd have to leave here. It's disgusting. Aconite (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then leave. What's more disgusting is your attempt to censor words you don't like. That makes us no better than Conservapedia. --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, Aconite; it's an ugly conversation that I wish wasn't on this wiki. But it's not up to any one person to decide to shut it down. Read the sysop guide linked to on your talk page, learn how the community deals with such things, and guide yourself accordingly. P-Foster (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The people who made it an ugly conversation are the people who hijacked the thread because they couldn't just ignore two off-handed rather tame comments about Liza Schlafly and focus on the recall issue. In the name of Political Correctness, they made it a far bigger part of the thread than was necessary, consuming the thread, and then try to censor it. What surprising is the PC bullshit is over saying she's bony and that someone would 'do her' - nothing we haven't said about many other men and women. --Leotardo (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(EC)You should discuss stuff like that in the thread first. And you especially shouldn't start an edit-war on a high-edit page; you'll just give people edit conflicts and piss them off. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Block[edit]

I've blocked a spammer, I don't think the vandal brake would have worked as Erik spammed less than once every 30 minutes and he's already been binned once. Kirk Johnson (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sysoping me and thanks for reading the article I developed but I’m not obsessed with Scat. I’m from a Germanic background so I’m less inhibited about toilet humour than most Brits and even when people have usernames that aren’t their real names there is inhibition about writing on such matters. I decided to use this account to improve bowel related coverage in this wiki and to use other accounts for other subjects. Kirk Johnson (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop it[edit]

If you could stop being such a sanctimonious tosser, I'm sure the rest of us would appreciate it. Let's give you a big fucking round of applause for causing Psygremlin to leave.

Clap clap, clappity-fucking-clap.

Tosser. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what's wrong with what i did: I (no difflink, as it was deleted) said "That's a little too much personal info there" about a now-deleted comment he made about TK. I then asked him "Why did you delete my comment? after he deleted that comment. Then he left. Where exactly did I do wrong? P-Foster (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Psy posted. The information is already out there on the Internet, and also already on this site: here, for instance. By being yet another whining fuck complaining about nothing you've caused a great editor to leave. Now if you look over there, your high horse is waiting. I expect you're about to go for a ride. Don't stop is all I can say. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You see, that's why I didn't delete it on sight arbitrarily, but offered my opinion and asked if this was something we should care about. You know, to talk/discuss/or even respectfully argue about it. I didn't cause a great editor to leave--a great editor had a hissy fit and left. Hey, if you think I crossed the line, take me to the chicken coop. But I won't otherwise be held responsible for somebody else's actions. Stay beautiful, baby. P-Foster (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh please. You had no idea the previous section was there, and your reaction to my link was probably something like "Fuck. Maybe I overreacted". Your name appears once on that archive, so I don't buy that you were hugely active at the time. There's no point taking you to the coop because the chickens have left the roost. Once again, well done. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here--which previous section? Which link of yours? Which archive? P-Foster (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe it. I go to bed and wake up, and this is still going on? Ladies and gentlemen, as someone who is an outside party to this incident, I assure you that what happened between P-Foster and Psygremlin (both editor whom I respect heavily) looks a lot worse than it was, and the fact that an HCM ensued is doing nothing more than making Mt. Everest out of an ant hill. Now fucking stop this bickering. Looking at the deleted posts in question, there's no reason for this. Let's all take a deep breath and move on. I'm sure Psy will return once they've had a chance to cool it. LANCB happens, and usually it ends after the person has a chance to put their rational hat back on. In the meantime, we can all sit down and imagine world peace. Thank you. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"Still going on?" I posted 40 minutes ago. P-Foster, I can't tell if your ignorance is real or feigned. With you it could easily be either. If you can't find the relevant post on that archive then it suggests "real". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I referring to when this whole thing started: this morning CDT between Psy and P-Foster. Either way, this whole ordeal has gotten waaaaay out of hand, and needs to stop. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT ARCHIVE? Me ans Psy were hashing out something still on Talk Wigo CP and his own talk page--no archives involved at all. P-Foster (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you obviously can't read, there's no point continuing this. Well done once more for pissing off somebody far more productive and entertaining than yourself. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Where on that archive (RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive60) is that information? I can't find it. Anyway, TK's and his family's RL problems have no place at RW. He may be a scumbag, but let's not descend to his level. -- Nx / talk 02:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Up until now I had assumed you were one of the people who could read. Here is a more-specific link. Look for Psy's first comment under that heading. If it's still causing trouble, search for "eminent domain" (without the quotes, since I seem to have to spell every-fucking-thing out). Now count the number of replies that objected to the post. That would be a big zero. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, calm down. I told you it's 3 am. As for the link, it's sad that no-one objected and no-one removed the link. -- Nx / talk 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you've now suppressed that link, Nx. Well done. Terry Koeckritz himself would be proud. Twat. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I just echo what Goonie said and say that everyone concerned is overreacting massively? Seriously calm down, before you all make each other LANCB. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I’ve read all I hope all the discussion round this topic but I’m fairly new and don’t know the background. It seems to me that P-Foster and Psygremlin are both respected here. Let me say in general terms that it’s sometimes difficult to avoid upsetting other people over the Internet because we don’t see the other person’s reaction and even tactful people can make mistakes. Perhaps it’s best if P-Foster, Psygremlin and all the others calm down and accept that a mistake happened. If others are too hard on P-Foster now, we risk creating a climate where users are afraid to make constructive criticism. I'm not Jesus (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What Ace reckons[edit]

P-Foster is an angry, brash "fuck ya, I am P-Foster!" bastard. That is an adrimable trait in a man.
Psy is a calm, collected, cool gentleman. That is an adrimable trait in a man.
So, what can we learn from this? I'll tell you what.....fuck this arguing shit. You are both gentleman and should save your anger for those that deserve it - your significant other and/or your children. Ace McAwesome 02:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Was it a joke block, cuz I used to be around here and would contribute a lot. δλερνερ διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

Sorry about that and thanks for reverting it. But CAPCHA..... pleaseOldusgitus (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback fail[edit]

Ha! He got you good there! :P Scarlet A.pngnarchist 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

D'OH!!! P-Foster (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this did not happen, and PFoster remains awesome. Fact. Me, The First (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. (talk)[edit]

20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

I'm tired. Can you please deal with em? Тиранесreiterate mouse, loll newspaper? 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, yeah. sure. sure. P-Foster (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Тиранесdehydrate monster, burst deviant? 04:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame[edit]

Someone who understands mecidine needs to check this edit. I'm not Jesus (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not me. P-Foster (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy[edit]

I sort of have been meaning to apologize for my strong language the other night debating with you. Admittedly, I was a little toasted. I should have been nicer, though. --Leotardo (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have been meaning to apologize for my own strong language to you -- I prolly am at least a little guilty of race-baiting in that exchange, as well as just being a dick on the internet, and there was no excuse. Hugs and kisses. P-Foster (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Now you're gonna be the best man at my wedding! I expect a lavish bachelor party. --Leotardo (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sysopping Knobs[edit]

P-, I ask you to reconsider your decision here, please. Whilst he may have never abused sysop rights in the past, and probably won't do so in the future, I still concur with Mr McWicked on this. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. P-Foster (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that "being a dick" is not against the rules, I should've made it clear that I was referring to Ace's comment that there's no need for him to be a sysop. I too hope this doesn't cause HCM! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You and Ace be damn sure to patrol his edits. I fuckin' hate me some red exclamation marks on my recent changes, boy. P-Foster (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
May I plug recommend User:Blue/scripts/markpatrolled.js? Just pop this into your /vector.js:
importScript('User:Blue/scripts/markpatrolled.js');
And voila, much easier to patrol RC. Blue Talk 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
What's it supposed to do? I think I did it wrong? P-Foster (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It adds a [mark as patrolled] ajax link next to unpatrolled entries on RC. As to your /vector.js, it looks like you didn't add the importScript part. And then, like it says, you have to clear your cache. Blue Talk 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
SWEET. Thanks! P-Foster (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Blue Talk 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's some good shit there boy, dagnammit! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Delta, your & Ace's criticism amounts to little more than unjustifiable retribution against some imagined wrong. Conservaleaks proves my points. Desysoping me only makes you & Ace look petty and unfair. Fine. A telling testament about your sense of justice and fairness. Can't handle a little well rounded criticism of your valued beliefs? Go ahead, remain the intolerant pricks that you are. wp:The whole world is watching! nobsdon't bother me 02:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't said anything on this recent sysopping. Can't handle a little well rounded criticism of your valued beliefs? Will you let me create an account on CP? Also, being a sysop or not doesn't in anyway restrict your criticism or ability to speak on RW. Idiot.Ace of Spades 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"This page has been accessed 11,604 times." The whole world is watching! All of them! Blue Talk 02:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ace, have I ever blocked you or any of your socks at CP? and dammit, give me an answer on this. Show me a diff, if so. Stop your innuendo & bullshit, and stop confusing, or blaming me for what TK (or Andy, or anybody else) ever did to you. nobsdon't bother me 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

TIME, GENTLEMEN, PLEASE. Take this discussion off my user page. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BoN on Post-Keynes[edit]

Wasn't spam so much as weird antigay rambling. ТyTalk. 21:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was being a giant bigot by thinking cyrillic script = spam. Not cool on my part. P-Foster (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Saloon Bar.[edit]

Okay, I get that you don't like my sense of humor. But please don't blank entire sections of the Saloon bar, that's censorship. JeanPaul (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Go eat a bag of cocks. P-Foster (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Trolling this place used to be so much more fun. JeanPaul (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Thanks for improving the articles I have created. --Maratrean (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the articles I've improved. I live to copy edit. SRSLY -- nice work. P-Foster (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes ya wonder..[edit]

...can someone really be 1. so arrogant 2. so blind and 3. so hypocritical?. It's like they are inspiring people to not think. Rationalize (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kill Everyone.[edit]

Do it. Ace of Spades 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My userpage....[edit]

Is mine. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!!!! If you have a problem with me protecting it for a couple days, then take it to the Chicken Coop! That way, there can be a big ass fight over nothing, and I can LANCB the proper way! Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That article[edit]

I don't know why you're being an ass. It stands to reason there should be some discussion before deleting an article that someone obviously put some effort into - especially when that someone is a new user. Let's create a more inviting community here. ONE / TALK 14:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh by the way, do you remember this edit you made to my userpage? The hyprocisy is hilarious. ONE / TALK 14:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There was discussion -- three folks chimed in, nobody objected, nobody made the case that Alan O'Reilley was notable enough to have an article. Hugs and kisses, P-Foster (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
We have been using a three-votes=delete as anything else results in perpetual arguing and the article remaining forever. I say let him attempt a rewrite though.ТyTalk. 14:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No skin offa my nose. P-Foster (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Where did the third vote come from? I only count two people. In any case, the "discussion" should at least allow for some defense by whatever users want the article. ONE / TALK 14:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
i agree the article in question should go, FWIW. I just don't like the way the deletion policy is being implemented. ONE / TALK 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay then. P-Foster (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

oui[edit]

Je suis toulousain. Desole si je manque de syntaxes, mon clavier est QWERTY. J'ai demenager avec mes parents en arizona quand j'avais quatre ans. Avant, je retournais chaque ete visiter mes grandparents en france, mais depuis que je n evis plus chez mais parents, je ne fais plus ca. Excusez mon orthographe et ma grammaire.--Brxbrx (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So no dialogue about deleting other pages?[edit]

Hey,

So there's no talking ro discussing with other users here collectively over what youtuber pages should be deleted? Very nice. So you're just allowed to delete pages without discussing with a large amount of users here. Don't you think that's a little irrational? — Unsigned, by: Babaoriley90210 / talk / contribs 23:51, March 29, 2011 (EST)

Common sense prevails. HCM occasionally ensues. Even more rarely, someone LANCBs. That's how RW generally functions. Blue Talk 04:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion, if anybody who matters objects, they can restore the pages in question and launch HCM/further discussion. Seeing as you're being quite the concern troll about this, I'm really not too worried about your take on things. P-Foster (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Three effing delete votes(w/out dissent), page is not bronze or higher, 48 hours to establish notability in the the case of a person, then fwackoom. That's my policy.ТyTalk. 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So fast[edit]

That your 31 sec block got me. That's the second time this week. I need to see if I can try getting a life again. Seriously. Mei III (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

History[edit]

I am also somewhat concerned that a wholesale gutting of RW's Fun space will mean we lose some history. RWW is not fit for the purpose particularly when things here are being deleted without any corresponding RWW article being created. Ace of Spades 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But, shit, we don't need another HCM this week. SOME of the stuff that's been deleted is chaff, sure, I get that. But "Mowse," even though it's a weak meme, was related to particular users and a particular time. What's next, deleting Felidae? P-Foster (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Both mowse and Felidae have articles(admittedly short ones) on RWW. ТyTalk. 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
RWW is not fit for the purpose particularly when things here are being deleted without any corresponding RWW article being created. I might also add that interest in RWW is very low. Ace of Spades 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 :P ТyTalk. 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No one should fuck with Felidae. Ace of Spades 23:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
RWW IS NOTHING TO DO WITH RW. --Scream!! (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
RWW IS NOTHING TO DO WITH RW Had me fooled. Ace of Spades 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
RWW IS NOTHING TO DO WITH RW Really? Chthonios (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that what happens there should have no effect on what happens here. It's not anything to do with us any more than anyone else on the net who might comment about RW. --Scream!! (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite true. Ace of Spades 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Links that make me want to destroy the world[edit]

Since we're sharing - [2] Mei III (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, kid. I'm not quite sure how she can resolve the tension between her justified attack on the commodification of rape in the context of TV/movies and her own admitted use of rape in her own writing (and her need to "get it right"), but she says alot of smart and important things. P-Foster (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about some of the commentary either, but everything to do with the NY Times articles just leaves me speechless. That whole 'These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives' thing... Mei III (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)