User talk:Sandflapjack
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Sandflapjack!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Sandflapjack.
This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be. |
Be careful about removing {{cn}} tags брэндэн (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sysop[edit]
For many and good reasons, you're a sysop. Read RW:SYSOP. Don't fuck shit up. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Planning on a massive rewrite"[edit]
That would not be a good idea. The current Hillary Clinton page reflects the views of many, many editors here, and all their contributions. You are, of course, free to offer edits, but a "massive rewrite" is likely to be rejected and do nothing but initiate flame wars. Last nite at the Bernie Sanders page you were very vulgar, angry and grossly unreasonable, refusing to give reasons for edits, claiming talk page discussion was a useless "tea party" you expcted to lose. That attitude does not portend well for your edits, so I would suggest reining in the in-your-face hostility and behave more reasonably and calmly.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Massive rewrite as in i'm going to rewrite most of the page. Not change things significantly, but mess with the wording and clean up a lot of the unnecessary bits, and move them to thier proper sections. Dont act like the calm one, you were power hungry and thought you owned the fucking place. What was with the page lock mona? Why did YOU edit the page after unlocking then relocking it mona? Civil my blue, hypermassive 150 megaton ass. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, you insisted on reversions without stating reasons, and declared doing so was like a useless "tea party." That's extremely bad faith editing. You were ranting like drunken sailor and would do nothing on the talk page, when you finally went there, but angrily repeat assertions. That sort of "reasoning" does not work here. In any event, this site is dominated by Sanders supporters (there was a poll of editors in the Saloon some months back, and Hillary has long come in for much criticism here from the left, since before my time), so you can likely expect significant pushback and should be prepared to rationally and calmly defend your edits. Also, keep in mind this site is allowed to have a point of view, and that snark is allowed.---Mona- (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're really acting like you own the article, Mona. Despite this site being dominated by Sanders supporters, none of them are as revert-happy and allergic to criticism of Sanders like you are. Typhoon (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh please. I just conceded you are right about Goodman. I'm not allergic to any well-reasoned and documented claims. If you can't see how outrageous sandflapjack was last nite, then I don't know what to say to you. I will add, however, that YOU have a history of gratuitously opposing my edits, and so I was not predisposed to take your word for it. Unlike, say, Owlman, who when he questions my removal of something at the Sanders page, immediately made me look at it again and restore it.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dont be such a baby because baby cant get what baby wants. Sandflapjack (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh please. I just conceded you are right about Goodman. I'm not allergic to any well-reasoned and documented claims. If you can't see how outrageous sandflapjack was last nite, then I don't know what to say to you. I will add, however, that YOU have a history of gratuitously opposing my edits, and so I was not predisposed to take your word for it. Unlike, say, Owlman, who when he questions my removal of something at the Sanders page, immediately made me look at it again and restore it.---Mona- (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're really acting like you own the article, Mona. Despite this site being dominated by Sanders supporters, none of them are as revert-happy and allergic to criticism of Sanders like you are. Typhoon (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, you insisted on reversions without stating reasons, and declared doing so was like a useless "tea party." That's extremely bad faith editing. You were ranting like drunken sailor and would do nothing on the talk page, when you finally went there, but angrily repeat assertions. That sort of "reasoning" does not work here. In any event, this site is dominated by Sanders supporters (there was a poll of editors in the Saloon some months back, and Hillary has long come in for much criticism here from the left, since before my time), so you can likely expect significant pushback and should be prepared to rationally and calmly defend your edits. Also, keep in mind this site is allowed to have a point of view, and that snark is allowed.---Mona- (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Gamergate[edit]
All three of those pages are related to each other. There's nothing wrong with the hat note. Don't revert. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- What Castaigne said. You've been doing this ever since you created an account.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- the hatnotes are useless because they duplicate the see also section and there's no point in directing readers to 2 related pages before they ever read the page itself Sandflapjack (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- "See also" is for "you may also be interested in". Hatnotes are for "You may have been looking for". The Gamergate articles are the latter case.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why would people be looking for "Timeline of Gamergate" if they went to "List of Gamergate claims" and vice versa? And also, the way the hatnotes are set up are treating it as if it was "You may also be interested in" rather than "You may have been looking for". They were hamfistedly added to the pages so I'm removing or fixing them.--Sandflapjack (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to be the only one that is interested in removing them. At least three editors want them to stay. 3>1, so they will stay. You have already been demopped for edit warring.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why would people be looking for "Timeline of Gamergate" if they went to "List of Gamergate claims" and vice versa? And also, the way the hatnotes are set up are treating it as if it was "You may also be interested in" rather than "You may have been looking for". They were hamfistedly added to the pages so I'm removing or fixing them.--Sandflapjack (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- "See also" is for "you may also be interested in". Hatnotes are for "You may have been looking for". The Gamergate articles are the latter case.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- the hatnotes are useless because they duplicate the see also section and there's no point in directing readers to 2 related pages before they ever read the page itself Sandflapjack (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have taken away your autopatrolled status for now. Pretty much all of your edits are edit wars over Hillary, Bernie and the GG articles, largely against community consensus. I will be happy to give it back if you show yourself to be capable of making some actual constructive edits again - you made a few good additions to GG pages a while ago, for example.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because they're useless. You gave me no good reason why they need to be on the page. I pointed out that they're being used as a "See also" section at the top of the page rather than a "Did you mean:" like you typed the wrong thing in a Google search. No one going to the "Gamergate" page is going to have accidentally wanted "Timeline of Gamergate" or "List of Gamergate claims" first. I'll admit that having a link to the main page at the top of the two sub pages is actually useful, but it makes no sense to have something on all 3 pages directing people to the other pages in the group the way that it was put together. It's just shitty.
- And the only reason I was de-opped is because Mona hates me for calling her out on her Bernie Sanders dick riding. I didn't even use let alone abuse the sysop tools to have them taken away from me, unlike how Mona protected her precious Bernie's page after I tried to make a change to it.--Sandflapjack (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also how the fuck is, like, two or so people "community consensus. I didnt see a damn french revolution out my window. Sandflapjack (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, what?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Desysopped, deautopatrolled[edit]
I've desysopped and deautopatrolled you. In general, please try to discuss on talkpages rather than edit war. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Italics[edit]
You can use {{title-italics}} to italicise the title of a page (as I did at Yi qi).--JorisEnter (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Autopatrol[edit]
If you don't edit war for a week or two, I can repatrol you. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I havent "edit warred" sense the mona bullshit Sandflapjack (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Pretty rough sentence, feel free to clean it up as you see fit. Also fuck off mona", say this again about any editor and I will deautopatrol you. She wasn't even editing so don't provoke an edit war. You have clearly not learned why you were desysyopped in the first place.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- "pretty rough sentence" means that It is far from perfect, and if [citation needed] needs to be added, then ill be happy to find sources, and I added "fuck off mona" because Im well aware its going to get reverted immediately, like the edit history shows. Also, don't threaten me, im not intimidated by you. You're not the only person allowed to edit this wiki. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was reciting your whole statement for context and I italicized the comment I had a problem with. Even if Mona is going to revert your edit don't provoke her to do so.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just warning her straight-up that im not taking her bullshit. If she wants to have a discussion about the edit, then im game, but Im not dealing with her contextless reverts. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- And edit warring with her wasn't the only reason for your deautopatrolling. Even if it was you don't need to tell her that she should "fuck off" when she isn't even editing.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- You recently made the statement, "its only bad if clinton does it. Praise sanders. Praise the prophet mona", (emphasize added by me) on Clinton's talk page and it flamed Kugel and Pb to fill up that talk page with trivial comments. If you can't understand why you were desysopped, fine but stop bitching about it and harassing a user who isn't currently editing. If I spot you doing this again I will deautopatrol you. This will be your last warning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I cant control what other people do, its not my fault a flamewar started. Why dont you deautopatrol them instead of keeping your nose up my arse. Sandflapjack (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- You recently made the statement, "its only bad if clinton does it. Praise sanders. Praise the prophet mona", (emphasize added by me) on Clinton's talk page and it flamed Kugel and Pb to fill up that talk page with trivial comments. If you can't understand why you were desysopped, fine but stop bitching about it and harassing a user who isn't currently editing. If I spot you doing this again I will deautopatrol you. This will be your last warning.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 17:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- And edit warring with her wasn't the only reason for your deautopatrolling. Even if it was you don't need to tell her that she should "fuck off" when she isn't even editing.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just warning her straight-up that im not taking her bullshit. If she wants to have a discussion about the edit, then im game, but Im not dealing with her contextless reverts. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was reciting your whole statement for context and I italicized the comment I had a problem with. Even if Mona is going to revert your edit don't provoke her to do so.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- "pretty rough sentence" means that It is far from perfect, and if [citation needed] needs to be added, then ill be happy to find sources, and I added "fuck off mona" because Im well aware its going to get reverted immediately, like the edit history shows. Also, don't threaten me, im not intimidated by you. You're not the only person allowed to edit this wiki. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Pretty rough sentence, feel free to clean it up as you see fit. Also fuck off mona", say this again about any editor and I will deautopatrol you. She wasn't even editing so don't provoke an edit war. You have clearly not learned why you were desysyopped in the first place.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate[edit]
Did you remove the The Devil's Advocate section on purpose or by accident? Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- On purpose, he is irrelevant Sandflapjack (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, works for me, just checking. Hipocrite (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, he's quite relevant. Really, stop that. If you want to discuss it, as TDA has been discussed on there before. You can check the previous conversations on it too. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot see any reason why this one asshole is relevant to the whole of Gamergate when his only relevance on the page is the fact that he got banned a year after everyone else did. Also, you keep restoring the full Breitbart.com links on the timeline that I replaced with archive.is versions. Every single instance of Breitbart.com on that page is an archive link other than the two that weren't for whatever reason. So I made them archive links as well. Breitbart.com is trash and doesn't need direct clicks. And you also keep reverting the grammar changes I made to the new entry I added. What the fuck? Sandflapjack (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, brah[edit]
Yeah, I really need that. I've got about five editors who rule against me on a daily basis, and now total strangers are joining the chorus. You've never even edited Hillary Clinton or the talk page, why are you even protesting Ah, you did edit it once. Nice contribution. Are you serious? Get rid of it before it provokes more negative edits. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Who is you again Sandflapjack (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)