User talk:Sorte Slyngel/Archive1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Sorte Slyngel! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hiya, avast, and welcome aboard. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

If you happen to wander to this desolate place of the web, do say hi! Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Public service announcement

For those wondering about the name, our new RW-resident's name is referring to the Disney villain known in English The Phantom Blot or simply The Blot. Just in case you're curious. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it

First, thanks for the welcome, ScepticWombat, although I do think you spoiled a riddle. :-) As for me, I'm middle aged, a civil engineer by training but I decided to turn half a circle and am now studying Icelandic as a major and General Linguistics as a minor. That way I can avoid most of the literature courses and most of Chomsky and focus on ancient languages, etymology, Indo-European Linguistics and so forth. This is perhaps too much personal information but you at least know, where I stand. And, I don't know whether I have to mention it, I'm an atheist and Iceland happens to be a good place for those as well as other minorities, gays etc. and even for foreigners, once they've got used to society. Regrettably we are not without our own lunatics, gay-haters, racists and so forth, but the general attitude is fairly relaxed. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Aw, sorry to have spoiled the puzzle for any intrepid researchers out there.

Can't say I've bothered too much with languages or Chomsky (let alone linguistics) myself, although my inability to read French turned out to be a real handicap when I had to research some EEC/EC/EU political and social history stuff, while my ability to read German turned out to be an unexpected bonus. I mostly try to stick to history/politics stuff around here ('cause I actually know something about those areas), although I do branch out into whatever happen to catch my eye (and that's how much "self-doxxing" you'll get for now).

As for lunatics etc.; every place got 'em - it's just a question of quantity and quality (i.e. how many and how crazy).

So, have yourself a spot of brennivín or whatever is the beverage of your choice and I'll raise a glass with some appropriate contents in the direction of the North Atlantic. Cheers! ScepticWombat (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just another Finnish joke - true this time

Once upon a time your correspondent attended a Baltic conference about ... well, I won't give that away, there has to be some mystery, but the city of the conference was in one of the Baltic countries. On the street beside the conference building people were repairing footpaths and a pile of earth had accumulated in the process. The Finnish delegate - dear me, this might be one of the you had to be there stories - was as laconic as the stereotypical Finn, but at the sight of this pile of dirt he stopped, gave it a scornful look and said absolutely deadpan: "If this were Helsinki this would be a work of art." He didn't intend to be funny but everybody else suffered various kinds of internal injuries. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I chuckled. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I do have a tendency to show a bit of insanity, which makes me all the more proud. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you'll fit right in with the current status of recent changes. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no edit wars. Only disagreements of principle.... about every. fucking. word. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be getting tired, if I were in your shoes. My sympathy. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I had a really bad sig for a few days, but I changed it several months ago. KOMF 07:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like we're not talking about the same thing. I've only been here for just over a week. Still, OK, and peace be with you - for me too for that matter. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

When you change your sig, it doesn't update all of the ones that you have already typed. KOMF 19:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sortie

Your username reminds me of martial sorties. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm as immartial as anyone could wish. But nicknaming is free, so id I'm Sortie, then so be it. The explanation of the name is here on the page and on my user page. Sorte is Danish for (The) Black. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A Break

Other concerns cause me to disappoint the multitude of my fans out there, and take a break for a few weeks. :-) I'll look in every now and then, but if anyone wants my opinion of Gothic, Proto-Norse, Proto-Indoeuropean and a few related things, just leave a note. I'm fairly familiar with some branches of maths too, and I am probably the resident expert on my native language, although I can't be sure. In any case if anyone wants to know what, say, the declension of u-stems looks like and how it came to be, feel free, and that goes for Old Icelandic (habitually the catch term for Old Norse) too. I think I can safely assume that I won't be swamped. :-) Over and out Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall miss you. But I hope you'll return ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me see, I think there's a quote somewhere ... ah, yes, hardly usable anymore but: „I'll be back!“ Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To think that that guy actually was the governor of the largest state of the US by population once... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing, please do not interfere

*Vandalizes talk page*. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What egregious, heinous vandalism!---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We all have our standards, dearest. Some more than others. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur, dearest Black Bandit. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I am here, someone could perhaps answer a question, if he or she wanders by and knows something about the issue. We have this, which seems to demand the immigration of about 5.000.000 people to a country which already has a population of over 8.000.000 (about 1.700.000 of them Arab citizens) with an area of around 21.000 square kilometers. I'd be interested to see, how this is supposed to be implemented without butchering or expelling a couple of million people. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no way. This was and is just another tool to "drive the Jews in the sea".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I know there is no way. I have done the math. But to quote a Palestinian I once asked the same question: „That's not my problem. They have to go.“ This was a long time ago, but I still remember it because this and other remarks suggested that he amd others would gladly gas, drown or shoot the entire Jewish population of Israel and I'm not kidding. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This particular Palestinian was, by the way, having a free university education at the expense of the then West-German government. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) There was a joke on the net, that Chanin Zoabi claimed, that she and some other punks on the Turkish ships trying to break through the blockade were treated like terrorists. The IDF, as the comedy skit continued, said, that this is a lie, since they didn't buy them cellphones or TV sets and didn't pay for their college education.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, Sorte, you don't have to add your signature and make a separate line for every new statement you make. Just add it to your previous writings. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think these exercises in speculation, anecdotes and feverish, nightmare musings are a great use of Zionist energy. Please, carry on and leave the sober, documented writing to me, Chris and a number of others.---Mona- (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks Fedora, that's less of a nuisance, but I somehow got the impression that history should be preserved in the text. It should be preseverved and it is in the Fossil Record. You live and learn. :-) @Mona: Why should we? Fever has nothing to do with it and the anecdote is true, something specifically allowed unless I've forgotten something. Do we have a distasteful fact here, by any chance, eh? You do know how to use a calculator, I presume. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny how Mona has not answered the question. By now we can safely assume that she is aware of the existence of said question... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post this when we had an ec.

Just to make it clear, I am really interested in seeing how Mona et al. want to handle this very simple problem. The problem really has nothing to do with any historical right - there are few people alive from 1948 - and their descendants could easily have been integrated into their country of residence. That's how all European refugee problems were solved after WWII. This could have been done. The Arab governments, however, were against that and are just as culpable for creating the problem in the first place. By attacking Israel in 1948 they in a sense guaranteed that Israel would survive and they created the refugees, which they then kept in camps. No, this is not a result of Zionist propaganda. But Mona has admitted hatred for Israel with a very detailed account on her own page. Hatred such as hers serves nobody and in the end, it is counter-productive. In any case, for a long, long time the Middle East has been blown out of all proportions. What about the 3.000.000 or so victims of the Congolese wars? Who cares? They're just some black people far away, aren't they? The main problem in the Middle East now is Syria, Iraq and IS. And people are still going on about Israel. Just do ask a question: Don't you ever feel sick of your own hypocrisy? I guess not. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course she has done the math. That makes her either blind or willing to contemplate the extermination of a good deal of the population. I don't know which one it is. She's a blindingly devoted fanatic, and there are no more dangerous people. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, for the greater part, and as with Avenger, I won't be substantively answering your tendentious inquiries. I shall only do so when another, reasonable use indicates they wish to know my reply. Because Fedora is a reasonable user and seeks to know my answer, I gave it to him on Avenger's page. But most often -- NOTE - I do not say always -- I will not substantively answer you.---Mona- (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you can't get the numbers to fit. As for your definition of reason - well, you haven't exactly been a model yourself, have you?Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona is the Pippi Longstockings of debates. She makes her world just the way she likes it. And of course the same applies as to whom she deems worthy of being graced by one of her responses... But back to the issue at hand. I wholeheartedly agree that there are myriads of conflicts that are more important more urgent more bloody and more heinous thaen any thing done by Israel or even Hamas and Hezbollah (hey at least Hezbollah is not currently burning people alive for protecting ancient ruins), but for some reason Israel is portrayed as the ultimate evil and the root of all problems by some people. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you like alternate history

You might be interested in this (as of yet unfinished) timeline. The why will become obvious with reading, though I don't want to spoil the fun by telling all twists ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL. As it appears the timeline can hardly be more unfinished, since there's not a word to say what it is or where it is. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Leads nowhere, Arisboch. :-) This seems to be the caption where nothing happens. That's sort of an alternate history too - actually, it's probably the real end of the Universe. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Walking around in a room full of medicine (don't ask) apparently does stuff to your brain. here is the link in question... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

you

will be Eligible to vote on policy on November 29th, after having made 75 edits and signed up for the voting roll. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger will be eligible to vote for Policy on October 28th. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The people's hangman shows himself. There's nothing you can say that will convince a rational person that you don't enjoy this. You can figure out yourself what that makes you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying Paravant and the rest of us should ignore the eligibility rules? --Castaigne (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't, as it goes against my desire to do as least moderating as possible as a moderator, which, if memory serves, was part of what I campaigned on when I was elected to stand-by mod and then full mod in the last elections. However, actual rules are actual rules, and one of them is you have to be eligible to vote on our rules. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Castaigne: No I can't do that, but he clearly enjoys himself. Or perhaps not. But he does have a tendency to rule by Diktat. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. "Diktat" would be by his whim alone. Paravant performs useful clean-up, moderation, and adherence to the rule base (such as we have.) --Castaigne (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

These sly insinuations about Paravant's character are most unpleasant and unfortunate. I don't want to be a moderator (I've been one several times and it comes with tons of stress and headaches) but someone needs to do what he does. He hasn't always been "nice" to me, either, but he is fulfilling a duty and not doing a half bad job of it. I've seen him seek to know whether others support his actions, so he isn't -- contrary to the insinuation -- some egomaniac on a power trip.---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hell, i've been restraining my actions this entire time because I don't want to go to far in my attempt to solve these issues. And I'll again state my answer to your claimed abuse of power by me - I you feel I am acting in a way undeserving of being a mod, take a case to the coop or the AtiM page. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What has been sly? I thought I'd made myself clear. And, yes, Castaigne is right, Diktat does not apply. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Israel article protection level/length

Why did you make the protection a month long? I had only had it for another week!---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to leave a comment, but I thought that protecting the article was a good idea. I estimated that it would take longer than a week for tempers to cool. Just my personal opinion. You can change it back if you disagree, and I won't do anything about it. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, AgingHippie has also been fiddling with the protection levels and the last thing we need is a sysop war! So I'm just trying to see what everybody's reasons are and keep it all calm. I'll leave it but I'm not sure what he will do.---Mona- (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't state my assumption, but I do it now, that sysops would show restraint and preferably leave the article alone voluntarily, except for fixing minor issues like spelling errors. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's now it has worked. The idea is that sysops have already shown restraint by virtue of the fact that they are sysops. They can all edit as we have done at the Zionism article after Paravant make it sysop-only. The whole point is that those whose behavior doesn't merit sysop status are removed from the process. Which is also why too long a time is not appropriate---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but a bit of extra care seems to be a good idea nevertheless. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

Hi. :-) Maybe I am misreading the thread but it looks like you just deleted a talk page comment.Could you explain why you did that? If I misunderstood them my apologies. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a knee-jerk reaction. I rolled myself back as you will see in the Fossil Record. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Then be careful - you don't want those knees to make it look like you react like a jerk. (Actually, that reads harsher than I had intended, I was just trying to play on "knee-jerk reaction".) : - ( Cheers.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I try to. Anyway, I'm more or less considered to be a jerk. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is how it is

There is no consensus for your position on the Mufti picture. And if you keep reverting it, I'll just wait a few hours and delete it again. I'll wait until the majority of reasonable people who always outvote the hardcore Zionists are around to make the majority utterly clear.

Moreover, if you block me again I'll coop you.

Your faction can no longer prevail on these issues of fact and relevancy vis-a-vis anything touching on Zionism. It is time you accepted that.---Mona- (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion stands against virtually every other person who has edited that article today. Go ahead. Coop away. If people notice you are fighting over not calling a Nazi a Nazi, I wouldn't like my chances if I were you... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You continue to be an idiot. Many people have opined on that matter and you do not have a majority. And you will be grossly outnumbered if the usual reasonable people enter this particular Zionism-related fray.---Mona- (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Avenger, I just had this good reply written. :-( Well, I'll use it another day. @Mona - Take me to coop, do what you want. You have been at war for a long time. So you've admitted that. Good. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mona: Those people probably don't want to get involved in whitewashing a war criminal, apart from a very few who are your what the Germans used to call „Hilfswilliger“ if I remember the word correctly or if they aren't your puppets. The idiotic BoN is suspect. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general, war is what anti-Zionists want. That's what their actions tell tales of even in the rare cases when their words are silent. And as for your text, I hope you have it saved somewhere, Sorte Slyngel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't. Don't worry, if Mona is a master of the pen, I can try to be - at least I can write it again. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't you dare insult Monas wordcraft! She is a master of the pen and the feather in two languages! So much so in one of them that nobody besides her knows which language it is! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec again - allow me a minute's respite here, please. :-) And, by the way, dear disturbed Mona, you are not the one who says „This is how it is“. I think that was a part of my sadly lost reply. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do say "this is how it is" all the time, in sum and substance. That's because I traffic in facts, sourcing, and avoid logical fallacies. At least on this topic you do none of those things. Moreover, you do not have the numbers to prevail in your irrational and/or unreasonable positions. Parvant has entered the fray on this particular article to make the observation that Avenger's edits make articles worse. If that translates into his opposition to the picture with the caption you want (and he's a reason-based person so it's probable), you are not merely in the minority, you are extremely so.---Mona- (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What you say and what the world is like are two different stories. Paravant is rational - you are not. I'd like to hear his opinion about whitewashing the Mufti per se. And now should be the time you go out and get your head kicked in yoyr chosen sport. Do a better job of protecting it this time. Take the example of Muhammed Ali as a warning. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Or Junior Seau, or a mind-numbingly long list of people who have suffered greatly for our entertainment by getting hit on the head repeatedly and hard Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

True. But I think she got it. :-) Or I might be mistaken - you never know. Anyway, it seems a bit superfluous. About Ali, I can´t understand how his daughter could possibly have entered boxing, having seen what it does, and Ali condonig it, if he did. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an aerobic kickboxing class. I'm going very shortly. People who spend a lot of time online are wise to tend to their physical health -- for their heart, their weight and many other health reasons.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Your physical health is OK then, I assume. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mens non sana in corpore sano? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, corpus sanum at least. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

En eso si tenes (sic!) razon, maé ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough

with the comments on peoples intelligence. I will lay a strong hand on you if you don't stop, because we are not going back to that era of commentary. I'm not at nebkon today so I have no other ways to shirk paper writing besides playing fallout shelter. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, apparently all animals are not created equal. Lay an equally strong hand on the others. And the BoN is simply wrong in this case. His revenge-block doesn't help him either. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shut up. Say yes, that is the only proper response. We are people, we are civilized. No more of this insulting intelligence, calling people who disagree with you sheep. That is not what this wiki is and it is only going to set a bad precedent if we allow it. This goes to all of you. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 17:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, yes. But I didn't invent name calling here. That was already well established when I registered. But OK, since I have a bit of respect for you, I'll tone it down. I hope the others do too, although I'm not optimistic. You find a similar distribution of good and bad here as in RL. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicken Coop outcome

Following the discussion and vote at RationalWiki:Chicken coop, and to avoid further conflict, please:

• Don't make substantial changes to articles about Israel, Palestine, Zionism, Noam Chomsky or Glenn Greenwald without discussing them on the talk pages.
• Don't revert other people's edits to those pages (with the exception of obvious vandalism).
• Don't edit war over anything. Use the talk page to seek consensus if you're being reverted.
• Leave Mona alone. Don't post comments on her talk page or gossip about her elsewhere. Keep any discussions about article content civil.

If you can't keep to these guidelines, you may be vandal binned and/or temporarily blocked from RW. If you have any questions or concerns, please post them here. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct me If I'm wrong, but hasn't Sorte already given a promise to basically that effect? Pizzameister (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And 250 edits of shitflinging later, we're at the same place. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

sigh Pizzameister (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did promise. Now that the jury is in, how long is that sentence? An eternal topic ban is unacceptable for disagreeing with Mona, who isn't quite blameless. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A question. How much is ‘substantial’? I've had perfectly good snark reverted blindly. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: The only relevant topic here is Chomsky. As I have said that more than once, I don't see why the rest was dragged in. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not term-specific and is not the 3-week promise you gave to FCP. We didn't go thru the coop case for THAT, which you immediately violated anyway. You entirely violated FCP's mod authority saying "come what may" and reverting me AGAIN at the Chomsky article. Anything that isn't leaving me the fuck alone, you can't do. And the burden has been placed on you to be conservative in deciding what that means.---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lookie, lookie. This is not your personal decision. I promised to leave Chomsky alone. I didn't say a word about the others, because they are not interesting. But since you have invited yourself, here, I am presumably allowed to answer: You are not the entirety of RW. You do not own articles. And you're lucky not to have been on the receiving end many a time and oft. I will not take anything back I've said. And now you may complain about me again, but as this is my talk page and you have no business here, I doubt the complaint will be taken seriously. I'll keep my word and my word precisely. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Substantial" means adding or removing information or commentary. If you want to correct a typo or something on one of those pages, you don't need to discuss it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So one line of snark is substantial? If I am to follow that one, I'd suggest that it would be enforced on everyone. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to say it, but I can not regard the following as substantial: Snark in the RW-spirit, reading suggestions, adding sourced facts. If anything of this is voluminous, then discussion is prudent. I will keep my word, which I gave what seems like an eternity ago. But I will be a regular member when my promise expires. I would love never having to post anything on Mona's page, and as it is, there is no need. But a legitimate reason might appear — things have a way of appearing out of the blue in real life — and then I will comment or ask. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See this Weaseloid? He's already telling you what the terms are and what he will accept.---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Weaseloid see this! I consider this reasonable. As for Mona, she has sinned massively in that respect. Again, this is my page and I suppose I can answer here. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it. & You've seen what I've said. You're not off to good start. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a bad start. If Mona keeps intruding, I will answer her on this page. As for topic banning, I'll cross that bridge, when it comes. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As an example of what I would not call substantial can be seen here. And Mona, as long as you keep intruding here, you make yourself a legitimate target, at least for disagreement, although you hate that. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid made himself clear: Substantial" means adding or removing information or commentary. If you want to correct a typo or something on one of those pages, you don't need to discuss it. That edit of the Kissinger is substantial according to the mod's parameters. You can't negotiate with a community decision enforced by a *mod.*---Mona- (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And with Weaseloid having spoken again, I will leave this talk page.---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That will cause a debate later on. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way: Why was the snark about Kissinger not removed? If that was appropriate, then similar things about Chomsky will appear. You can't eat your cake and have it too, or however the saying goes. And just as a last comment: I give my pledge, that I'll never go down on my knees begging for assistance or crying to a moderator as seems to be the custom. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To sum it up

Adhering to RW's guidelines is absolutely commendable and recommendable. But being subjected to what amounts to effectively Mona's censorship is not acceptable and I will not bow to that. This will not be a problem for a while. But when the time is up, I have the right to do what I mentioned above. If not, then RW is useless. If you want to kick me out right away. I did say „Come what may“ in my comment on my last Chomsky-edit. But that was not the full comment. If anyone is interested, it's there to see. In the meanwhile, biding my time. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What can be expected when time allows, just first things first

• Some points about Chomsky's linguistics and why these points are wrong
• Chomsky's reaction to linguistic dissidents — Daniel Everett will be featured
• Chomsky's myth-building about himself in linguistics

What will not be featured for the time being

• Chomsky's politics, although some of that will probably come in since it is difficult to separate politics and linguistics. It shouldn't be, but the man himself makes it difficult, as they are both the main strands in his story, and historically they have influenced one another. Not exactly how he thinks, but how he is perceived. As it is, the article is ridiculous. What is the point in listing a number of things he doesn't believe in? Greenwald is also overrepresented, but Greenwald himself is a nobody. I never had any real interest in that article, but as Chomsky's article is now, it is a soapbox for Mona.
• Anything about IP. I haven't messed with that for a long time.

Everything will be sourced, and Mona does not have the power of veto. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so we're clear... Is he, or will he be allowed to do that at any point of time in the future? Pizzameister (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that Greenwald is a nobody and Chomsky is a nutbar, the mods have pretty much said you need to take a break. That was the coop decision anyhow. I would recommend that you not touch those articles mentioned by Weasaloid for at least two months, just to be sure. Work on something different and avoid Mona. And do this to show good faith. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know myself, but I will abide by the RW-rules. I will not consent to Mona's having the power of censorship over me. The Kissinger example I provided a link to is an example of what she will not have a say in. That is not substantial by any consideration. And if she is supposed to wield that power, then what good is RW? I will not ask her permission to cite Daniel Everett or refer to his book about life among the Pirahã. As a matter of fact, everybody should read that — it's a riveting story. But to take a historical analogy, I will not accept Mona as my George III. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict before the last one by me. I'm in no hurry. But if I am to have Mona judging every single thing I do, I'm gone. A couple of months, that's OK. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Castaigne II. So I'm to be prolific about my other interests? Be careful what you wish for. :-) When in the mood I can type very fast about quite a number of topics. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well more input on countries that aren't the US can certainly do no harm, given the userbase of this website... Pizzameister (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I once heard Honecker speak. That is probably worth a story. As for the minutiae of Icelandic politics, the fact is, that the politics of small countries are every bit as complicated as those of the larger ones. Trust me — there are shelf-meters of literature on every conceivable thing. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

At the very least we could explain concepts like (European) liberalism, (European) conservatism, Christian Democracy, Social Democracy, Socialism and the likes. It sometimes appears to me that explaining European politics to another European from another country is much easier than explaining them to an American... Pizzameister (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic Ocean seems to be more than a geographical barrier. I've lost count of the times I've tried and failed to get the Icelandic concept of left-right across to Americans. I'm not blaming the Americans. There is just a huge difference. For instance, the Creation-Evolution controversy isn't a controversy to most Europeans. But read American news and it is all over the place. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To take an example: The party I usually vote for is a mix of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. I'm not Christian, but this party has had the most to say in establishing the existing welfare system, and are considered to the right in my country. Go figure. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, many American political debates are hard to grasp for Europeans. With the possible exception of those few who make knowing about them their job or hobby. Unfortunately Britain takes after the US in some, though by no means all aspects... Pizzameister (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The best informed people in America are probably the various lobbyists. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comes with the job, I guess... Pizzameister (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not a problem unique to America. They're just organized differently. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)