User talk:VargasMilan
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, VargasMilan.
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. |
See you in a few days - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, VM:
I see you have performed the ultimate act of "outing" yourself as a parodist—coming to RW to vandalize this site. And stalking me at TWIGOCP to be sure you get noticed. And going to the "saloon bar" and demanding that you be given blocking rights was a nice touch. The saloon bar is the sleaziest place in the whole site (I've never edited there), so you really know your way around sleazy dives.
Very few of the CP sysops that come to RW to "out" themselves actually issue demands to be made a sysop; it's really the ultimate act of childishness, and shows the non-seriousness with which you take your internet persona.
The two most serious CP sysops that have ever come out to me were JamesWilson and Markman, and you seem to be behaving similarly. I had extensive email conversations[1] with each of them, and they showed themselves to be incredibly malicious in their internet behavior. I believe JamesWilson also issued a demand to be made a sysop, on another wiki (Ameriwiki), and was of course turned down. Being a sysop (or "assistant"[2]) generally carries a certain amount of respect around the internet, but not from CP. Because of the likes of you. And AK, and PeterKA, and Dataclarifier. And, of course, everyone's favorite internet troll, Cons.
In fact, almost everyone at RW is a sysop. Including me.[3] One has to be recognized as an especially serious loser not to be granted sysop status. Which includes you, of course.
While I have your attention, I don't think I have ever seen so much ineffable nonsense packed into such a tight space as the sentence "Secularists need evolution to have existed in order to give natural sanction to their proposed sinful 'evolutions' beyond divine law." Can you explain this? I know you like flowery language, but you've got to put words together in a sensible manner.
I'm hoping to hear from you, in a context in which neither you nor anyone else can be abusive. But beware—you have been "vandal binned", and I do not intend to rescind that at this time. So apparently you can't make more than one edit per 30 minutes.
SamHB (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- ↑ If you want to contact me by email, I'm at sam4557@gmail.com
- ↑ Did you actually not read that section that I quoted because it was under the "administrators" heading, and you weren't an administrator? Were you actually unaware of it? If you think that page is organized in a way that is seriously misleading to new assistants, why don't you use your power/influence to fix it?
- ↑ Don't believe it? Look at your block log.