Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

User talk:ZooGuard/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 July 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

What in the god damn

Why the hell are you undoing all the work I've been doing? Those pages are listed under those templates, and the templates link to them. Also, next time, TELL me you are going to undo my work rather then doing it when I'm not fucking looking. --Revolverman (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Answer on you talk page. Also, there's no God. There's only the head zoologist, the head veterinarian, and then - me.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

'Sup, man?

Good to see you haven't completely abandoned ship. Since your joining, you've been one of my favorite BS detectors around this place. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I'm not being paid to be a BS detector on the Internet. :( Bad mood in "real life" => bad mood in my online life => bad mood in RL => bad mood online... and so on in a feedback cycle, until my RL problems hit me and I get screwed again due to my own stupidity. (BTW, is there an appropriate synonym for "be screwed" that doesn't have sexual connotations?) And I really need to get a hand on that "time management" thing.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I hear ya buddy. I went through the same crisis back in late 2008 (when I was absent here while I worked on graduating college). What I decided back then was that I considered RW a hobby; an escape from all the bullshit real life had to offer and, as such, something I only worked on and cared about when I needed an escape, sort of like my own personal man-cave project. I don't know the circumstances of your real life issues, of course, but I think that looking at RW as a hobby, and not as something you need to work on 24/7, may go a long way in helping you manage what time you spend here. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do see it as a hobby. The problem is that I tend to spend too much time on my hobbies when things are going bad. :) RW is not an exception.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
^ I hear ya. So glad to see you back :) ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Sorry. I didn't know the rules, regulations, laws, guidelines, suggestions, and dictatorial edicts around here. :) So, I can legally promote myself, but just mention it? Thanks. Don't block me. Don't have me executed at the front lawn of RW. SkepticalRaptor® 03:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You really enjoy the sound of your voice, don't you?--ZooGuard (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm deaf, I wouldn't know what my voice is like. I tend to write a lot because it's my way of communicating. Sorry to offend. SkepticalRaptor® 01:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I was speaking figuratively, and my troll sense is tingling. but I'll take that at face value. I apologize for being rude, I should have ignored my annoyance.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Engineers and woo article

Original section title: re: engineers and woo I was under impression that this site was somewhat humorous in nature; majority of articles are.

The engineers and woo makes utterly idiotic mistake of not distinguishing between percentile of cranks whom are engineers and percentile of engineers whom are cranks. Everything cited for evidence (cranks being primarily engineers) would still be true if the engineers were the least cranky of the trained occupations, due to large number of engineers. This sort of mistake is precisely what cranks tend to make. And conjuncterization of hypothesis w/o regard of data and then dragging in the data that doesn't actually support the hypothesis is what engineering cranks are supposed to do due to lack of proper scientific training. Dmytry (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the article shouldn't be corrected. I suggested that the way you did it was wrong.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the WP deleted parallel article outright. Okay I'll edit it in more serious style. I'll write 'null hypothesis' section (engineers are as prone to woo as anyone else), cite some stats on number of engineers vs scientists, and state that the observed phenomenon (most of cranks with credentials are engineers) is adequately explained by null hypothesis. Which leaves what? What we are even debunking here besides the original article itself? Dmytry (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not the "style" what was wrong, it was the content. Inserting a random note how much an article sucks without trying to change the rest of it is something usually done by BoNs unhappy with RW's coverage of their favourite for of woo. If something is wrong with an article, the article should be either rewritten or deleted. A discussion on the talk page is nice to have in the first case and required for the latter.
By the way, are you some kind of engineer? :)--ZooGuard (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Some kind of scientist turned engineer, I'd say. Also, IMO, in the hierarchy of woo propositioning a hypothesis with no data and a statement that it may be woo, is strictly less woo than without that statement... the WP has the policy that the article can never criticize itself other than via "neutrality is disputed" etc markers; that lends air of credibility to the woo that gets in. Dmytry (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that we have a communication problem here. I'm done with this. Any further discussion - on Talk:Engineers and woo, please.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


It could be anything in a skeptic, antitheist context, since the FidoNet era (and probably until I decompile). Not much of a help, I know. Thanks to you and to the RationalWiki's team, it rocks. -- Par1138

(cur | prev) 16:50, 18 June 2012 ZooGuard (Talk | contribs) (579 bytes) (your username is familiar, but I can't remember the context...)

Guard the Goat

GoatsforSterile.svg sterileGoatsforSterile.svgno new information 05:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

one should at least bother to register an account

Autoconfirmed is not the same as registering an account, and the rest of the wiki doesn't require you to register an account, why should the suggestions page? -- Nx / talk 11:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's called a "To Do list", not "anyone can request an article here". The page implies that it is internal (and therefore, representative) of the community. For a given item, it's not obvious that it has been added by a fresh BoN or a long-standing "pillar of the community". This opens us to a few problems, such as "cuckoo" scenarios and being misrepresented in the eyes of random visitors and potential new editors. The same applies to the WIGOs. They've also experienced an increase in BoN activity recently. Anyway, now I have a Sorcha Faal to fix.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not a todo list, it's a page for people to suggest articles, for other people to vote on those suggestions (if they think it's a good idea for RW to have that article, vote up, etc.), and for people who have lots of time on their hands and are bored but can't think of an article to write to get ideas. -- Nx / talk 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorch Faal

Thanks. Good work. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for moving the Lawsonomy link to a better home. --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

is NxBot still up?

Nope, turned off the computer for the night, and CP isn't loading for me. -- Nx / talk 06:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


Are awesome. That is all. ТyBother me 12:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is about Capturebot, half of the credit should go to Nx. I had stuck at the webkit2png bug.
Oh, and I still can't get my instance of Capturebot to work correctly. Now I can't upload due to some character encoding error. :(--ZooGuard (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
No, your general usefulness and the fact that you do more work than about 1/2 the wiki. :) ТyBother me 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit to FtB

You undid my edits to the FtB page and left me a note in talk. I've been lurking on RationalWiki for a while now and until I happened across the FtB page I would have said that this site picks its fights well. FtB represents a tiny subset of the atheist/skeptic community that has set themselves against the broader collective. For their POV to be represented here in such an aggressively partisan manner spurred me to create an account and make my first edit here. Now you tell me it was unwelcome.

I admit that my change was deliberately provocative, although no more so than what I edited. But I did so for a reason. I checked the talk page and there was nothing. I checked the edit history and I found a group of people who were aggressively reverting any changes to this page that were not keeping with the existing theme. So I decided to make the acquaintance of one of them. Hello.

I am aware of the irreverence with which RationalWiki typically treats its subject matter, but I think that the page as written serves no one. Will you work with me to make it better? Paul r (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest taking your complaints about the article to the relevant talk page. I also suggest making them specific if you want any chance of not being dismissed.
As for my warning, it was based on an old observation of mine: people who start their edits with "correcting" a contnroversial topic usually turn out to be what is euphemistically called "single-issue editors", and we've had enough of them recently.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In other words, welcome to RW. It's really awesome here. Good luck. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Steele trying to troll me

Excised from above:--ZooGuard (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the best examples of arse licking I have ever read. Well done mate. I would give you a smacker (kiss) but please.. you will need to brush your teeth with vigour before any such behaviour will be permitted. Catch you later loverboy. --Dirk Steele (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You're not very good at reading timestamps are you? Evil fascistoh noez 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


You alright? Humorless fascistsociopath 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasonal crud, nothing serious.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You take care of yourself. Or the Hippos will get loose. Humorless fascistsociopath 14:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


What about a simplified version of one of these? everyone knows space men made them. or we made them to guide space ships to us. or something. Nasca lines.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded my take on the "pyramids and flying saucer" idea from the Saloon Bar. This is pretty much the limit of my talents in Inkscape.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the (declassified) UK UFO files...

...and they are extremely boring, save for the occasional LOL-worthy detail or inquiry. Such as notes like "witness appears sober", the psychology student doing a thesis on psychosis and alien abductions and asking for an official document that the MoD is not tracking them, so it could be added to the thesis, or the kids doing school projects on UFOs and asking for help (one 11-years-old had a huge clip-art of a flying saucer in the letter). Responses to the inquiries follow a predictable template, though it has evolved over time. Some space is usually spent explaining why Secretariat(Air Staff)2a is responding to your important letter to the Prime Minister. :) Oh, and by the way, "Evidence of criminal action in respect of human abductions is a matter for the civil police and not the Ministry of Defence". :D

Just felt the need to share.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your rejection of subjectivity

You are just another loon who refuses to reach a conclusion about agency based on emotion.--Syamsu (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rejecting your text, not "subjectivity". Also, new sections go to the bottom.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been in this debate for more than 10 years, so I know what I am talking about. You are pathologically inclined to require evidence to reach a conclusion, you are against letting your heart speak to identify the agency of any choice.So don't talk bullshit to me liar. Either you make a substantive criticism about the main content of the entry, or you desist from deleting it. --Syamsu (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My "heart" right now says you sound like a loon.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You talk bullshit, and you put the word heart between quotationmarks because you reject subjectivity.--Syamsu (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"letting your heart speak" sounds like Applause Lights to me. How does what you're saying differ from "making shit up"? Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 15:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the reality vs fantasy distinction, with spiritual (what chooses) vs material (what is chosen) distinction. You can see that the fantasy vs reality distinction falls short, because when I fantasize about an apple, I am in fact and really fantasizing about an apple. So fantasy this way is a matter of fact, but the spiritual can only be identified by choosing what it is, and is therefore always a matter of opinion, and never a matter of fact.--Syamsu (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with, well, anything, but more specifically the idea of rejecting subjectivity? Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You reject choosing in identifying the agency of a choice = you reject subjectivity. --Syamsu (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you skip right to the part where you damn RationalWiki. We promise we'll add "Damned by Syamsu" on the list of random subtitles on the front page.
Armondikov: further evidence that my heart is right.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

All bullshit Zooguard, and no substance. Note that there is no other pragmatic explanation of how free will works on the page now. So it is a matter of surpressing all knowledge about freedom, and not just surpressing my knowledge--Syamsu (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd. I was about to suggest the same thing about you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The practical explanation how free will works can be found in the fossil record of the free will page. --Syamsu (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely just seeing applause lights here. I'm not sure what "you reject choosing in identifying the agency of a choice" is supposed to mean, but my guess doesn't match up with rejecting subjectivity. Rejecting subjectivity would be doing something silly like saying "you hit your thumb with a hammer, but that's (objectively) not as painful as having your leg amputated therefore hitting your thumb with a hammer doesn't hurt". That would be rejecting a subjective experience on the basis of objective facts. But I don't think many people do that. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 15:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously you are trying to achieve being a moron, in which you succeeded. Subjectivity is a function of free will, and with free will there are alternative possible results in the moment, like in the moment the decision can turn out A or B. It means information is created in a choice, so it is meaningless to be objective toward agency, because objectivity only works with information already present. There is no information at the choice therefore objectivity does not apply to agency.--Syamsu (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that "information" in the sense that most people understand it in terms of information theory, or not? Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 15:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's the same as information theory. A bit is either 0 or 1 alternatively. A choice results in a chosen alternative. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

No, you don't understand. Information is a specific measure of the entropy within combinations of those 1s and 0s. A random string doesn't necessarily communicate "information" in a strict thermodynamic sense, and to talk about this sort of thing in any less sense than this strict definition is meaningless. Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a clue who you are Syamsum.... but "you reject choosing in identifying the agency of choice" is literally "nothing". I love people who play at grown up philo. To give something agency, means to give it identity, an ability to act. "the agency of choice" means that choice at some point would have it's own action, it's own self interest, it's own existence out side of and beyond the "chooser". "you reject choosing" can only be done if you say "I'll let fate do the choosing", i suppose. to *idenity* the agency of choice, when choice has no fucking agency, is to sit here an pretend that you went to big boy school. What the fuck are people like you even doing writing in english? Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit, you don't love anybody or anything. You want to force as fact that your love is real, which results in leaving no choice whether or not it is real, which means you act in an automated way, and therefore you have no love.--Syamsu (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Randomness actually carries the most information. And you are not addressing the main content of the entry, you are engaging in a bullshit side-issue. You are part of a massive conspiracy engineered by satan to enslave mankind through surpressing and destroying the knowledge about freedom. It is a massive attack on people's emotions, precisely because they are emotions. Only Satan could be so bold as to try and surpress a whole class of knowledge. What if our knowledge about forces were treated similarly as knowledge about freedom? That instead of the law of gravity you would get no practical knowledge about how forces work, but instead philosophical meandering if forces are real or not. --Syamsu (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are finally going to argue the substance of your addition, I suggest taking it to Talk:Free will. This is my user talk page and I'm getting annoying orange notifications every time someone decides to poke you with a stick.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. You made a choice in deleting the entry, much as you wish to pretend that you acted automatically following rules.--Syamsu (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I reverted you due to my subjective impression that it was gibberish. You are either not a native English speaker, or you are using it idiosyncratically (or both). Now shoo.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

But you rejected choosing with subjectivity, so you are using a definition of subjectivity which is like "what things look like from your unique position". No freedom, all what you say is meaningless. And I looked at other pages on rationalwiki, they are all consistently denying the logic of freedom, that in the moment a choice can turn out A or B. That is why love is explained on rationalwiki as being an electrochemical brainprocess, using a logic of force, instead of that love is only subjectively identified and decides over electrochemical brain processes.--Syamsu (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

POKE.Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Seems you are the immature one, learn to accept and learn from criticism. That is all. Naca (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

All bullshit, arguing like "it seems". There is nothing specifically wrong with the entry I provided.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Then why u besysop me ?— Unsigned, by: Naca / talk / contribs

The BoN above is not me, but probably User:Syamsu, who has been arguing with other people in the section above and probably thought that your remark was directed at him/her.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have no idea what "criticism" you are talking about. I desysopped you because you have a history of blocking people at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and for the wrong times. The last straw was blocking Dirk Steele for no discernible reason other than "the other guys seem to block him a lot". (He was being discussed at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation at the time.) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagreed with some of the stuff he was putting into articles and what he was writing, although I will admit that I overstepped the line a bit, sorry Naca (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Naca (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add that you also seem to not understand that people like Brasov and Dirk Steele don't deserve sysop rights or autopatrolled rights. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"I strongly disagreed with some of the stuff he was putting into articles" is not "unfunny vandalism". "Unfunny vandalism" is stuff like "replacing article text with Goatse pictures". Also, what RNS said.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Some people don't like the red exclamations in RC but when monomaniacs keep trying to insert their own PoV regardless of discussions then not being auto-patrolled serves a valuable purpose. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Prescott

Michael Prescott has turned up on his article and started adding things (some of which are not true), should we revert his edits? Forests (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuel Woo

Cheers for deleting it, was about to ask for it to be deleted for that reason (since I can't delete pages). However I do think that a separate article on fuel/energy woo listing the various claims and linking to the various sub article could possibly be useful. Would you agree with this or would this be overkill ? CheersNaca (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


It's Asperger's by diagnosis, not OCD. And yes; I am bothered more by the lack of a navbar than "terrible layout". Could you please specify what you mean by that? (Hence why it's in quotes.) I also apologise in advance if this sounds sarcastic or rude or like I'm JAQing off; I'm being frank and asking for clarification. Thank you. Planaria Icon.png Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster Talk to me or view my art 18:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you had issues, but I couldn't remember what exactly. My remark was moderately rude sarcasm, for which I apologize.
I dislike the tendency among some users to put those right-side navboxes in every possible article. The cases when there are pictures in the beginning of the article are especially annoying, because the template either displaces them further down the page, away from the relevant text, or the leading text becomes sandwiched between the images and the template if the images are moved to the left. Depending on the size of the screen/browser window, there may be also unpleasant interference with the TOC box. It's a question of readability.
I also view that tendency as an instance of irrational obsessive-compulsive behavior, similar to the "collector's itch" that geeks are prone to suffer from, although this time it's "ALL articles must have templates!" instead of "I must have them ALL!!!". At some point navboxing loses its original purpose and becomes "navboxing for the sake of navboxing".--ZooGuard (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of obsessive compulsive people and sidebars, many of the articles with the psychic powers template are about psychics/physic research, so I should probably get to fixing that in a bit. Nobodydon't bother 16:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


What title should the Infinite Universe article have?:

  • Alternatives to the Big Bang
  • Alternative cosmological theories
  • Alternative models to the Big Bang
  • Non-Standard cosmological theories

Forests (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Any British UFO nerds here?"

How may I help you? SophieWilder 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as the comment was for the creation of Nick Pope, I thought it was obvious. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, all is clear. I thought you wanted help with something specific. SophieWilder 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wannabe Wikipedian

I thank you for your patronising and smug remark, but I am not a "wannabe Wikipedian". I am well aware of the differences.--Albannach (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It was "Wannabe Wikipedian Syndrome" - a strange affliction seen on non-general-interest wikis, where a user decides that they've always wanted to write a Wikipedia-style article about something, but that article already exists in Wikipedia, so they turn to the local wiki. Examples include all those "Useful notes" on TVTropes (especially those about national armaments) and a lot of geekcruft on RationalWiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. It's rude and patronising. No more thank you. Be civil or I won't be. I've no interest in phony Wiki jargon like "xcruft" either, I try to speak English. Which is hard when you come from this part of the world. Wikipedia's riddled with it, and I object to it, which is precisely why I am not a wannabe wikipedian. --Albannach (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that English is my first language? :D
Oh, and like other communities, wikis tend to start accumulating a jargon the moment they start. Including this very one. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure this one has its own jargon, but I don't really care much about it. Wikis accumulate many other figures such as trolls, self-appointed bureaucrata, company & business "shills", territorial pissers, political agenda pushers, self-publishers etc. Not to mention people who make up rules with a couple of other people and then enforce them on everyone else... people who think subjective views are objective... but then again, I suspect everyone is partly guilty of the latter.-Albannach (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You missed the passive-aggressive God's-gift-to-wiki-s. Anyway, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to all of them. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You called? ;) TyJFBAA 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If someone starts being rude to me, I generally start to be aggressive. And not passive aggressive either. I think most folk are the same.
"the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to all of them." - I wish I had. I don't think I'm better than any of you, I just can't stand time wasting. And there's plenty of that in a discussion about Yuri Gagarin. I've got better things to do with my time, on here and elsewhere. And the complaints against the article contradict rules and examples elsewhere on the site. -Albannach (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. That cartoon was truly shite.
And what rules would that be?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for replying to that, I was going to say the same things but felt the need for a couple of drinks first. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 20:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't use that particular line. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
No, but I could feel it coming on, and I did need to go for a couple of drinks . Redchuck.gif ГенгисevolvingModerator 20:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not shit silly!

This is what humor looks like when you stop talking yourself so damned serious. 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Looking for fake sexism

"RW also has an article on the English (borrowed) word for "denigrating people by comparing them to female genitalia". "

I think you'll find people round here are just as likely to compare you to the male organ as the female if they don't like you, so no, there's no discrimination. Except in your head. Some will also name you after the anus.--Albannach (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you are a mind-reader now. Have you considered applying for James Randi's One Million Dollar Challenge?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a comment to Talk:Reddit

Please comment on my comment and suggest ways to balance the article.—Chbarts (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Watching with interest, or worried about friends? Hope you're safe. SophieWilderModerator 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mostly following it on Twitter - I'm not in Sofia at the moment, so yeah, I'm pretty safe.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)