User talk:Rational Skull
Refusing to explain revert[edit]
@Spud: Oxyaena reverted my edits and refuses to explain why. My edits fit within the context of the article and section. As a moderator, please settle this dispute. Rational Skull (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't even provide a source? — Dysk (contribs) 19:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- My bad, here's what I'm talking about. Rational Skull (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- It was pro-lifer bullshit, why should it be in the article? — Oxyaena Harass 19:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your response is pathetically weak. That article was specifically designed to compare pro-life and pro-choice arguments side-by-side. Rational Skull (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rational Skull, you added a short paragraph of unreferenced Pro-Life bollocks into what is supposed to be a Pro-Choice refutation.section. Therefore, your edit does not fit within the section. You did not write an edit summary when you made that change. I don't think you're in any position to complain about no edit summary being given when your change was undone. Besides, you've got your explanation now. You may not like it, but you've got it. And I didn't get to be the kind of wiki editor I am today by making a big fuss out of it every time somebody rolled back one of my edits or undid one without comment. Please, just let it go. Spud (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your response is pathetically weak. That article was specifically designed to compare pro-life and pro-choice arguments side-by-side. Rational Skull (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Spud: Your response is trash, and you must be blind. I inserted my response into the LEFT column, which is meant for pro-life arguments. Rational Skull (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- To be more specific, it was uncited pro-lifer bullshit in a section meant for the pro-choice refutation. Get a grip. This is a troubling precedent, inserting pro-lifer spam into sections meant for pro-choice refutations, one more strike and I will not hesitate to ban you. — Oxyaena Harass 06:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena: Awww, poor baby. :( I see daddy's triggered you. I inserted my response into the LEFT column, which is meant for pro-life arguments. Speaking of banning, I see you've banned any logic from your replies. PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN ARTICLES! Rational Skull (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean, that argument you try putting in doesn't really add to the point. You just move the debate to "sanctity of life" argument, which is also super common and already addressed by the pro-abortion side. --It's-a me, 
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena: Replying to comments isn't spam, you worthless cunt. You are so stupid that talking to you has made me pro-choice. If your momma had aborted you, you wouldn't be here today to spread your filth everywhere. Rational Skull (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)