User talk:WatcherIntheDark/Archive1

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, WatcherIntheDark! 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!

Greetings, WatcherInTheDark, and thank you for joining the slutty mongoose of wikis! I hope you enjoy your time here. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the traditional "mostly harmless" criteria and that your watching in the dark, you have been demoted, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for deatils. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--WatcherIntheDark (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't help wondering about your name

A reference to Warhammer 40k?: [1] Nullahnung (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. I didn't expect anyone to it up so quickly, I'm pleasantly suprised. --WatcherIntheDark (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the image of a Watcher in the Dark roaming about the place! Nullahnung (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi there! I was just wondering why you reverted my edits on Genetic modification. Cheers!--Lixxx235 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Much the same reason your other fact tags were removed, this isn't Wikipedia and they clutter up the place. They are also not needed on the opening sentence that gives a short definition. --WatcherIntheDark (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK then, could you point me in the direction of the policy on usage of such tags? I couldn't find any, so I used old habits. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To be completely honest I'm not sure where to you'd find it. The best I can offer is advice to limit them to statements you think are false or controversial which is my approach but I expect someone else knows better than me. --WatcherIntheDark (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for the bother. I don't mean to sound rude, but I just found this from the help desk, and although that might be a rule rarely followed, reverting the edit seems wrong, especially if the rules explicitly state that "any fact should be referenced", so if it's fine with you I'll be reverting back to my version. Not that I know anything about exactly how seriously policy is taken at RationalWiki. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Now it's fine. Provided you don't stick them on the first sentence you should be ok. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Hope you don't mind, but I dropped the hammer on that shitbird of an IP who was arsing about with Holocaust denial. 24 hours in the shitter. --MtD^{Notorious Sodomite} 04:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind. The statement was just so blatantly false I couldn't be bothered to engage. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yudkowsky page

Hey there, any particular reason you undid all my edits on this page? All I did was clean up a number of mis-characterizations and outright false statements that really detracted from the wiki's credibility. Don't really have a dog in this fight, just seems like if you want to criticize someone or point out their shortcomings, you should be able to do it without exaggeration or lying, no? There's still plenty of other things to criticize without adding irrational attacks. ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.115.62.186 / talk / contribs} 17 April 2014, 19:08 (UTC)

At least keep G.W. Bushie.

Hello, WatcherIntheDark. I noticed that you reverted my edits on the page John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. I spent much time and effort on them, especially the one about G.W. Bushie. Would you mind elaborating on your reasoning for this action, and even, if you may be so kind, provide advice as to how said edits or a version of them would be able to be posted again without immediately being reverted.

Also, taking out Bushie's part was just cruel. Surely people have done enough to steal all his well-deserved credit without online wiki editors like you ruthlessly selling him short.

Thank you very much, WItD, and I hope you have a wonderful day. HelloIDislikeYou (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I can't tell

If it'd be better to just leave heartland unlocked just to see if the BoN doesn't spill out into every other article --Mikal | lakiM 02:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Worth a shot but I'm not optimistic. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why the edit reversion

in Argument from incredulity? Thanks. Bgates747 (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WatcherIntheDark

But... the wiki has a white skin, there's no darkness to be watching from! (Would love if this site had a dark skin, so much better on the eyes)--Miekal 05:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes but WatcherIntheWhite would sound ridiculous.WatcherIntheDark (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen far worse.--Miekal 05:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko

Good job nuking that article. Do you have any interest in collaborating on writing up an actual article on Lukashenko? He is a quite the nutjob Lager (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would but I know nothing about him. I just saw the contents of the article created talking about "the Zionist-American Empire", "ZOG" and "the Jewish agenda of capitalist privatization" (my favourite stupid comment for a while) and assumed it probably wasn't a constructive wiki contribution. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why were edits undone?

I found a very slanted page that makes my political affiliation look ridiculous in a very dishonest way. Understanding that this website is "snarky" by nature, I added language that provided political symmetry, giving examples and other subtle changes to more evenly balance the topic, and you removed them. Why do you consider the liberal slander of conservatives ok, but cannot tolerate a snarky bit of the opposite, that adds balance overall in the article's content? For example, the article mentions Fox News reporters as refusing to be wrong, and refers to them as "ilk". Since this behavior is certainly not confined to Fox News, I replaced it with "MSNBC" whom conservatives revere with identical feelings, yet it was undone. Why? Is my point less valid or are you simply intolerant of a different opinion? Please elaborate on your reasoning so we as a community can gain a better understanding of your motivations, since you are evidently permitted to censor speech that I believe is in the spirit of this website. Your reasoning is quite opaque, and cannot be well understood by newcomers like me. As a newcomer, I am assuming that liberals do not have a monopoly on snarkiness within this website, or do they -- certainly your edits have enforced just such a monopoly within this article. And I am maintaining anonymity for good reason as will eventually become quite evident. I suggest you choose your words carefully regarding this valid content that you trashed. You never know who is watching.

just curious (not disputing)

Why did you delete Drotsky's page? Aside from the recent brouhaha, I think I'm missing some history/culture. Was it his "go all the way" comment or just disruptiveness? Again, I'm not disputing this! MarmotHead (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It was one of the talk pages of the current troll and he kept linking back to it as he cannot get his magnum opus through the edit filters. And since he is so sure he is being censored I decided to do it properly. I don't mind if anyone restores it though, currently its just one less thing for him to spam the bar with. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly won't, but I also won't raise a ruckus if someone does. He was starting to trigger me (in a small way), so I appreciate the wiping you and others have done. MarmotHead (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The SM article

I think it would be better to let them write for a while, then wipe it.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But then it wouldn't be a distraction from the tax essay I'm supposed to writing. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ghost

Your proved you have no interest in ever revealing any form of that information on rationalwiki, regardless of how it's worded, or else you would have done it your self. Prove me wrong by posting a version you find acceptable or admit you can't create anything useful. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not copy straight from Wikipedia is not a difficult concept to understand; it's even small words. If anyone wants to read straight copies of Wikipedia articles can they do so at Wikipedia. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Exiled Encyclopedist. You don't want to antagonize other users, especially if you're new. I'll help you write the article once I've finished my dishes and laundry, okay? From what I've seen, WatcherIntheDark just doesn't want there to be any copying and pasting from Wikipedia. And I support that. If the wiki just copies other people, it'll just harm its reputation and credibility. Also, content from Wikipedia isn't necessarily right for RationalWiki. Just be patient, and I'll come by and help you out, I promise.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, WatcherIntheDark, if Exiled Encyclopedist is indeed the author of the original Wikipedia passage, accusing him of plagiarism is quite unfair.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

He did not originally write anything I removed, I checked beforehand. You are also right that my objection is the copying and pasting not the information itself WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You removed what I said about Umm Nyuluk you ass. Also this is now an issue in the chicken coop. I can understand not wanting to tell people how to fake ghosts, but that's also the way you debunk. I can just cite the parts from Lives of the Necromancers if you prefer, but a more complete picture would be more useful. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

As already requested, please take your objection to my edit to talk. Do not undo my changes again. SuperInfinity (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you not like the edit? SuperInfinity (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How the hell is that "Crack pot" spam?

Did you even read what I typed? It's not spam! This is a wiki for debunking claims by cracks, so why did you remove it?

You do realize Chip Tatum has never been debunked by someone, so you could be the first!

Just want to let you know: Just because someone genuily asks a question about a whistleblower does NOT mean they're a "crackpot"! It gives the impression you're censoring.--71.222.47.95 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

talk:WatcherIntheDark seems to be what can be called a #mockingBird.

Do you deny the truth?

Is this why you seek to hide it? --Elvis is King (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to learn from you by working on an article, will you educate me through assistance and example?

I would think that were those references reworded by an expert on avoding repetition like your self, than it would make for an excellent way of proving your superiority over me. Educating me this way helps you as much as it does me. I'd love to work on an article you choose though, name one. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios from EE?

I see this edit - is EE actually posting slabs of copyright violation? - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call it copyright violation but it is heading in that direction. The text I removed can be found here and here with almost no changes (there are some few word swaps in the first paragraph while the second is verbatim). When the copying was from Wikipedia it less of an issue but EE's branching out to other sources is more problematic and makes it slightly more difficult to track down original sources WatcherIntheDark (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Shuffling a few words counts as plagiarism and, if from a non-PD source, copyright violation. This is extremely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Food Babe

Stop reverting my accurate updates you cunt. Who made you God, asshole?

Dean Irrebod(d) doesn't exist, but appears to be another pseudonym of Denierbud

You deleted the section on Holocaust denial pertaining to "Dean Irrebod" because he doesn't exist. However, "Dean Irrebodd" (note double d) is apparently yet another pseudonym, along with "Mike Smith" of "Denierbud". The latter's YouTube account is currently empty of videos, but "Dean Irrebodd" does have an entry at the website of the Holocaust revisionist Barnes Review. A section (rather dubiously) entitled "Holocaust Handbooks & Movies" contains all the videos mentioned, though the original poster here on RW made yet another spelling mistake in the title of one of them (should've been "Dumb Dumb" not "Dumb Bumb"). I'm not sure if Irrebodd/Denierbud/Smith is interesting enough to make this particular RW (dis)honour list, though. That's why I didn't simply revert your deletion. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi could you explain the revert? Thanks.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Statism revert

You simply reverted. Why did you revert?

Who are you?

So who are you? Seriously, can I speak to you on the phone? Your edits are ridiculous. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.224.83.57 / talk} 21:22, 4 February 2015‎

I agree with the guy who said this to you. Sunkistt (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

kill this pls

A few other people FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't pro-crackpot spam

It was someone complaining about a crackpot. Hard to tell, I know they used a crackpot style to write their post. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd have left it but it was written by the same individual who has been spamming talk pages with a variety of crackpot links and I'm not prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. --WatcherIntheDark (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why I didn't outright delete LM's Statedidit crankery

Hi WItD, I was sorely tempted to simply trash LM's latest piece of crankery unilaterally, but that would have seemed a wee bit hypocritical coming on the heels of me appealing to AgingHippie and Nutty Roux to call in the mob, rather than ego-wielding their mops (however justified the cases may be). Also, given my experience and run ins with LM, I'm hardly an impartial judge, so if I also grabbed the jury and executioner's caps, that'd be tad bit problematic. Anyway, I doubted that I'd have much of a problem getting this particular turd flushed off mainspace. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sorely tempted to trash most things LM writes but I limit deletion to those in main space WatcherIntheDark (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Same here. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverts without reason

This guy seems to have a habit of reverting edits without providing any reason.--72.223.111.221 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's not the only one reverting your persistent and silly little edits and I fully understand if WItD, FuzzyCatPotato, CIA, myself and whoever else have reverted your tedious edits doesn't feel the need to write a summary of every revert. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't provided a single valid reason for a revert (even after asked in an edit) nor has he participated in any talk page rants to discuss his reasoning. If he wants to undo my edit and then protect a page he should be able to defend his reasoning. Right now, I'm speaking for the MKULTRA article in particular, because I don't think he has anything logical to say about it --72.223.111.221 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The reverts of your edits to MKULTRA are logical, because while you argue that not all conspiracy theorists think X, the paragraph in question concerns (only) those conspiracy theorists who do think X; hence your hedging makes little to no sense in the context. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How does the paragraph in question concern only those conspiracy theorists who think X(all events that could conceivably have been contrived by the CIA is a false flag MKULTRA operation)?

It does not specify, as it clearly states that MKULTRA "continues to be cited as evidence for further unspecified CIA nefariousness by conspiracy fans" and this statement follows the one involving X which is speaking about conspiracy fans--72.223.111.221 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Because "conspiracy fans" is quite obviously the vague place holder used to indicate "conspiracy theorists who suspects that CIA is behind everything", not all conspiracy theorists. Jesus, you seem to bring your wikilawyering attitude to every single edit. This is not a prosecution manifesto naming the accused in a trial. It is clearly meant to point to the inflated claims by conspiracy theorists about MKULTRA.(See? I did it again, I omitted "some" because the context and common sense makes it rather obviously that I'm not referring to all conspiracy theorists) Hedging is simply unnecessary if the reader bothers to read (and understand) the entire paragraph, rather than jumping straight into quote mining. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we now block people for being whining asshats?

Hi WItD,

I suggest that you unblock LM (otherwise, I will). Sure (s)he's a moron and a whiner, but neither is something that is usually punished by a block on RW - especially not a multiple-day one. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't block LM for being a "whining asshat", I blocked him for the deluded breach of contract threats. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed that one - but then I suggest starting a coop case. LM has a record, after all, and I do like to see the mob pitch in. If LM is up to more of his pseudolegal posturing and (more or less) veiled threats that got him blocked last time I'd like to hear what the rest of the mob think is a fitting punishment - LM might actually merit a longer block than you've dished out. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifically it's this edit, the others flow from it. Starting a coop case seemed counter productive given LM's love of pontificating there and the whole point of being to keep LM's drivel confined to as few places as possible. (I'd also have to actually participate in it and I've tried to avoid ever going near the coop, even when I've been named in a case.) I was hoping 3.6 days would give LM something to think about (though I'm not optimistic) but if you think the coop is worthwhile it is probably worth considering. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hell?

What's wrong with a little bit of organization? Why did you undo that edit? I didn't remove any text from it. It doesn't make any sense for the description of the bills to be oddly placed in the middle of all that information about them (and I wrote that paragraph for the most part).--FedTruther (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You sick twisted Communist bastard. You should be put up against a wall and shot. After the revolution I will see to it. 124.111.246.78 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you sound suspiciously like Mikemikev. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Have fun with that, the us has the most powerful military in the world (statistically) im pretty sure a revolution wouldn't work very well. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 23:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What is snowball clause?

Just wanted to know... XY007 ℺ talk 22:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here--Miekal 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're being pretty heavy-handed with the ban-hammer

Lighten up a bit. Vandal-bin. Lock down targetted articles for a few hours. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fish and chips!

Fish and chips! Fish and chips! 120.144.0.216 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hi, I have seen that you have undone my revision here. I have requested that people post a comment here if they think it should not be removed. I would appreciate it if you could do this with your reason for including the information.--68.2.64.15 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yo

Thanks for hitting rollback. I'm range blocking these idiots and hoping it doesn't cause too much of a stink. If you don't mind, pop in at this conveniently existing thread to weigh in if you think I'm being too forward.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Why are you making the presentation so biased sounding? there is no reason for you to try and take the credit away from the people who believe in flat earth. saying things like, MOST people believe this or that is just you believing that most people believe those things, or you are just personally trying to discredit anything about flat earth. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sunkisst / talk / contribs} 08:53, 19 June 2015

Help

Is it HCM territory yet?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Parogar has the mop btw seeing as he blocked me for 3 seconds.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that WatcherIntheDark (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about you stop being an irate child and actually defend your arguments. If you can't, then give it up. You MUST realize you're arguing something indefensible. Parogar (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC) You're going to cry about a 3 second block that was more meant to send you a message? And still you refuse to defend your argument. Just say "I can't defend it, and it's based on my personal feelings." I can't find one legitimate outside source to corroborate what you've written. Not even one! Parogar (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm saying you can't be trusted with the mop. I explicitly told you over and over that the whole of the page supports what's written in the intro and the whole of the page was not written by me. I said "I don't have to defend what's in the intro" and you ignored everything after "defend". And this page existed before I signed up. I just expanded. And then all those expansions were cut out because "OH NO THE PAGE IS TOO FUCKING BIG IT'S SHIT IT'S RYULONG'S ESSAY" repeated over and over and over again for months until it's like one or two paragraphs longer than it was than when I signed up on RW. You're the one who can't back up any of your arguments without resorting to the tired and hackneyed talking points that have persisted throughout Gamergate since it began.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If I couldn't be trusted, I'd block you for a year, vandalize every page, and leave anime penises everywhere. Really, I'm not acted unethically. Boldly, aggressively, but not unethically. It seems to me like Ryu-cuck can't handle dissenting opinions. Parogar (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're doing a wonderful job of showing you're a wingnut who can't be trusted though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Never voted con in my life, numbnuts. Nice to see you people can't handle opposing viewpoints without demoting people who challenge the narrative. Have fun in your echo chamber. lol. I can't believe you had my sysop revoked for "daring" to challenge your bullshit. Parogar (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You do like to keep putting words in my mouth. That's for sure.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

... Ryu-cuck? Really? Go back to 4chan. Typhoon (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Behold! Diplomacy!

Hello WatcherIntheDark! Check this out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:198.16.164.205

Hopefully this will mean the end of the debacle with that anonymous user. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully but the BoN has long history of idiocy and obsession at Wikipedia so I'm not optimistic. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is my watchlist so full lately

Is it the same guy from last night?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite probably. Username was a user's real name, hence all the post-cleanup cleanup. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot of cleanup cleanup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, check your email if you would PacWalker. I'd just like a bit of clarification.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

My recent attempted changes to the Vlogroll page

I just want to address the points you raised when you undid my last undo of your rollback. First of all, the first time I edited the page I didn't have an account. When you rolled back the changes I decided if I were to reinstate them I would need an account so we could more easily communicate and I could be held accountable. Rest assured, all subsequent changes will be under this name :) Secondly, you used the word 'whitewashing'. Although this is technically the right word, most of the rest of the vloggers have more accurate synopses of their work. I was just trying to do the same for Armoured Skeptic and Bible Reloaded. AS's work has nothing to do with Gamergate or much of anything like that. He debunks creationist videos and reviews movies. I don't even know if TBR post anti-feminist stuff, but I think that should be second to what they actually do. I'll wait for a response before I make anymore changes of that nature, but there is one change that definitely should be there regardless: adding a U to Armoured Skeptic's name. He's Canadian and he calls himself ArmoUred Skeptic. Slightly knit-picky I know, but this is a wiki after all. Seriously, I don't mean to vandalise and I don't think that's what I did. Stillslightlyanon (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (sorry for not signing properly before, I'm new to wiki editing and didn't know how)

Care to engage a climate change denier?

User:Greg House, whom we both had the pleasure of reverting either genuinely believes his BS (which indicates a total lack of scientific literacy) or is a troll. Would you like to discuss it with said user on that person's talk page? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

-gets a flashlight-

-Shines it at you- no more dark!--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How will I hide now??? WatcherIntheDark (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't run and you can't hide... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I’m using a profanity filter.

I'm sorry if the filtered text is getting into the articles. 68.148.171.6 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear god. Are you fucking 7? Piss off. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

your insolence

please stop it posthaste, you are being unproductive, like most liberals. VargasMilan (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, if trolling or "just" plain fucking stupid.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not liberals. Most of us are socialists. Okay, there are some Zionists here and there, but mostly we are all progressive atheist train nerds... (except for the ZOoRW, of course) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not all socialists, but we're most certainly not conservatives. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

May god have mercy on you. ^{— Unsigned, by: Wm user / talk / contribs}

If god was merciful, the internet would not be filled with crazy people. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of the non-existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, in fact. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

...or that god exists and is an asshole. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that God just has a very developed sense of humor, and when we all meet up we'll look back and laugh...and probably cry quite a bit too.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How have you not been bounced from RW

You soft-sodied, fatuous Zionist airbag. 108.6.165.87 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The claims in the Chomsky article were, at best, tendentious. It is not my responsibility to search for references for assertions and characterizations I do not support. That burden falls on those making the claims. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No-one's gonna be fooled by that kinda attempt to white-wash Chomsky.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You have not....

been the one to have to deal with Avenger last Wednesday and Friday in both the Saloon and on the Israel page. Paravant and I were. There is broad support for de-mopping him as you will learn if you read both my and Arisboch's talk page.---Mona- (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have. Supporters of the move describe your summary as "admittedly a rather inaccurate description". You are not the sole arbitrator of avenger's rights WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Depends if Avenger's been abusing his rights in disputes with others, e.g. as much as Arisboch has - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about?? Whenever did I abuse my sysop-rights?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Locking the page when you were in a dispute with -Mona-, knowing she couldn't edit it when you'd done so - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you on drugs?? According to the Protection log, the only pages I locked, were Dschiff (due to an user creating a really, really badly written article) and Communism (due to an IP trolling at fuöö throttle at the 9th of August and Mona created an account on the 13th of August!). You're a complete liar!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)