User talk:Web

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

Welcome to the spine-chilling Volkswagen of the interweb! I'm WesleyS from A Storehouse of Knowledge. Nice to see you here! Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

THE WesleyS?? I'm honored! Web 06:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

cleaner

Your sysopship has been delivered sir. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this RationalWiki:Sysop guide, thank you. - π 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the process of reading it now. Web (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I lolled at your user page. Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħuman 04:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Still lolling... ħuman 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add words, I've ran out of ideas. Web (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: TheAmazingAtheist

Firstly, LOL @ your insinuation that I'm "censoring the truth". That's quite an exaggeration on your own part. By "truth" you must mean calling another person and their ideas "retarded" which, as you may or may not know, to some reflects the beliefs of the entire editing community here when you post that crap on a page. I also regret to inform you that this isn't the place for libel, nor is it a place for vanity pieces about non-notable YouTube users that nobody cares about. Given that this person isn't really noteworthy enough to have a page on RationalWiki, there's no point in providing him another medium by which to get moar YouTube hits especially if you disagree with him. Thank you, have a good day. --e|m|c ^[TALK] 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You can start by being civil when you address me rather than shit slinging. --e|m|c ^[TALK] 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to yell... Web (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

The only IPs that should be blocked--aside from joke blocks--are those that are self-inflicted to force log-in. in other words: please don't block IPs. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot to unselect the little box. Web (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So then....

Why is it you dislike Ace? Ace^{of Spades} 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its nothing personal, you're just not my type. To be honest, a lot of the things you do around here make you come off as having a totalitarian personality. Your insistence on banning MC forever goes against what I think this website is about. Instead of just banning the people we disagree with or are annoyed by, we should ignore them or learn to get along with them. Web (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"totalitarian personality"? What utter shit. I don't mind that you don't like me and I put banning MC to a vote first off then just made my feelings clear but I took no unilateral action (though I did take some actions to get the issue noticed) and am happy with a vandal binning. He had no intention of getting along with people and admitted wanting to bring RW down, so there we go. Ace^{of Spades} 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"admitted wanting to bring RW down" And? Its not like hes launching DDoS attacks on the site. Communists and fascists might want to bring down the U.S. government, but I'm not in favor of deporting them. So what if he wants to bring the site down? I'm sure a large portion of this site want to bring down CP, and they still bitch and moan about being banned for being members of RW. Web (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue about MC anymore. I was just curious why i was disliked and now I know. Ace^{of Spades} 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kthxbai. Web (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem is trolls don't want to be ignored and they only "get along" with people who will help enable their trolling. - π 22:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rapping and tappin'

Aceⁱ⁹ 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My second favorite scene from that movie. First is the scene where he gets blocked by the cops. Best movie of the 70s IMO. Star Wars is the only thing that can compete.

Dolemite is my second favourite blaxploitation flick. My favourite is called "Black Hooker". Curiously there is very little information to be found about it. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried googling for it, but nothing of relevant interest came up. Would you know where to find Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song?

Sorry son, aint seen that one before. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ED

The info on Encyclopaedia Dramatica has been nixed by several bureaucrats. See the talk page. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 02:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the talk page of User:Smellingkate. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The oligarchical rule of the bureaucrats is reminding me of why I've been mostly inactive since January last year. All I see on that talk page is three people ganging up on a user who can't reply about using a word they don't like. Pathetic. Web (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? We should have an article that calls out a website for not being, and I quote, "critical of niggers"? Really? P-Foster (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How bout a website, once a bastion of free speech, that is now deciding to censor dissenting opinions based on political correctness? Depends on how you look at it. Web (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism is not free speech. Majintahu (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By who's definition? Last time I checked the KKK had a right to march, and David Duke had a right to make his videos. Web (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How very American-centric of you. Where I come from, hate speech like that is against the law. Tell you what, drop a line to Trent, ask him if he wants that kind of thing on his wiki. He says it's cool, I'll put the edit back in myself. P-Foster (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

<pedant>You mean the RWF...</pedant> Blue (pester) 03:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it known, my edit to your talk page, removing you comment, was an accident. I do apologize for that. Majintahu (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster, That would be because I'm American. If I'm not mistaken, RW is hosted in the US. Don't get angry because we have greater freedom of speech than you. As for checking with the RWF about it, I'm perfectly fine with it if the RWF wants it removed from the site. They owns it, it's their castle. But don't pretend this website is a place with free speech if a word is censored and a user blocked for an hour without a warning for using it. Majintahu, As long as it was a mistake I have no problem with it. I put the five minute block on because it occurred more than once, leading me to believe it was intentional. Web (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that when a random troll takes a dump on one of our articles we have to keep it otherwise it would be OMGZ CENSORING FREE SPEECH!!!1!. You are mistaken. -- Nx / talk 06:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Web as far as the talk-page posts are concerned, but not the disruptions of mainspace. (Is RationalWiki hosted in the U.S. now?) ListenerX^TalkerX 06:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, the thing you put back into the article was this.

“”On January 24, 2011, ED committed suicide. The shit-fuck fascist mods on the site began to censor every article critical of niggers. The word "nigger" was removed from every article. Also, many of lulzy pages were deleted while many shitty ones were kept because they went along with the politically correct fascist scumbag mods. Criticism of Jews was also deleted. A brave warrior called "Smellingkate" tried to fight this and restore the lulz, and was promply blocked. Since then, this heroic user has been banned permanently from Wikipedia for the horrible fact that he dared to state an opinion. Even Uncyclopedia is better than this steaming pile of shit.

1. "ED committed suicide" - some might say they decided to grow out of the fourth grade.
2. "shit-fuck fascist mods" - unacceptable phrasing. if you wished to restore the edit, you should have changed it to just "mods"
3. "every article critical of niggers" - we do not use derogatory terms for people of other race on this website. At the least, you should have changed it to something like "blacks."
4. "also many of lulzy pages" - you deliberately reinserted an edit with poor grammer
5. "lulzy pages were deleted while many shitty ones were kept" - you reinserted a statement that was entirely a matter of opinion
6. "because they went along with the politically correct fascist scumbag mods" - ^{[citation NOT needed]}
7. "Criticism of Jews was also deleted" - most would consider it admirable to remove blanket statements about entire groups of people, your reinserted edit implied it was not
8. "A brave^{[citation NOT needed]} warrior called "Smellingkate" tried to fight" - were their efforts notable in any way? if you or the original author wish to comment on an individual vandal, perhaps you should consider talking to someone here about a "WIGO:ED"
9. "this heroic^{[citation NOT needed]} user has been banned" - you reinserted a statement that was irrelevant to the general point of the edit.
10. "for the horrible^{[citation NOT needed]} fact that he dared to state an opinion." WP is a place for facts, not opinions. That a user was blocked for bringing up opinions is unsurprising and not worth mentioning, yet you deliberately reinserted this fact
11. "Even Uncyclopedia is better than this steaming pile of shit." - I'll give you this one, with the qualification that UP has always been better than ED

In conclusion, if deliberately reinserted an edit full of mistakes, opinions, and un-sourced statements. If you wished to make this event known, you should have edited the above text to fit our standards. Thank you. Thunderkatz^Ho! 06:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nx- My issue with it was the removal of it with no discussion whatsoever, and the 1 hour block of the user with no discussion, warning, or anything. If someone had posted a quick notice explaining why it was removed, why it doesn't conform with the quality standards, I would have had no issue. But the fact is that the original stated reason for the posts removal was the word nigger. Nothing was made of the grammar or quality of it until Thunderkatz post above. Web (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"why it doesn't conform with the quality standards" I think that's quite obvious, and removing it doesn't need any discussion. Smellingkate received a 3 minute warning block, and continued to edit war after that, so it's not true that they didn't receive a warning. As for censoring "nigger", I assume you mean when PFoster censored out nigger from Smellingkate's comment, but that was reverted, and that has nothing to do with the block. -- Nx / talk 08:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Unfortunately, I find myself torn on this one. On one hand, I've always hated Gaddafi and couldn't wait to see Libya rise up against him. On the other hand, I've always strongly opposed military intervention into other countries affairs. Thus, I have no idea where to stand on the current situation in Libya. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 00:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I hold no love for autocrats, but meddling in the affairs of a nation undergoing a civil war or armed insurrection is bad. Remember Afghanistan in the 80s? Or Iran-Contra? We're hoping the rebels will be more sympathetic to the west, and they might be, but imposing sanctions and no-fly zones, and shooting missiles at them is no way to achieve a world where everyone is friendly. If Gaddafi keeps power after all of this, the most likely situation is that he'll start funding terrorism again. Either way, our meddling is a lose-lose situation, and the majority of the US rightfully opposes it. Web (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what the UN should do - protect civilians from atrocities. They've got quite a shitty record (Darfur, anyone?), but this is perfectly within the prerogative of the Security Council. Blue (pester) 00:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They aren't protecting civilians though, they're protecting the rebels, armed insurgents. Gaddafi, as the sovereign leader of Libya, has the right to fight back against those trying to overthrow him. Whether we like him or not, Gaddafi is in the right on this one, even if he is being heavy handed. Web (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My feelings are the same as Gooniepunk's. I'm starting to become skeptical of the no-fly zone's effectiveness and how much of an intervention it will represent. Interesting post from Andrew Sullivan. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) "Gaddafi is being heavy-handed?" Euphemism of the century.

Gaddafi is no more the sovereign of Libya as King George was the sovereign of the United States in 1776. Revolutions are tricky things, because they call into question our assumptions about fundamental law and rights. It is obvious that Gaddafi ought not to be in power, but the question is how he should be deposed - the rebels are executing their owned, Lockean right to revolution, and to me, that more than justifies international support, via the UN. Blue (pester) 00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember your history, Iran-contra, The Afghanistan-Soviet conflict, Chile, Iran, etc. Meddling in the internal affairs of other countries nearly universally ends badly. Whether or not Gaddafi is a dictator or not is irrelevant. He runs the government of the country and is internationally recognized. The UN intervention IS an intervention on behalf of the rebels under the guise of protecting civilians, but tell me, how does firing 112 cruise missiles into the country help civilians? International support for the rebels is meddling with the internal affairs of a sovereign country, and is illegal. Web (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned that this is "illegal?" International laws are important, but like all laws, there are cases where they should be violated. Even so, a number of countries have already recognized the National Council of Libya as the "sovereign", legitimate government of Libya instead of Colonel Gaddafi, including France, Portugal and the Arab League. Blue (pester) 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why am I concerned that we're on the brink of another illegal war? Did you really just ask that? This is the dawning of a violent mess, and we are once again at the head of it. The National Trasitional Council is not the legitimate government yet, and the recognition of it was done as a slap to Gaddafi. No good will come of this no fly zone. Web (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)