User talk:Stephan Schulz: Difference between revisions

Hi all!

I'll answer all messages left on this page here, so that a possible discussion is kept in context. Watch this if you are waiting for an answer.

--Stephan Schulz

Archives

2004-12-13 to 2008-04-15

2008-04-15 to 2009-01-22

2009-01-22 to 2009-09-01

2009-09-02 to 2010-04-14

2010-04-14 to 2011-06-16

2011-06-17 to 2012-08-02

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• help pages
• village pump
• my (Angela's) talk page.

Hehe, I enjoyed the Big Ankle Biter you put with AGK's impala. Yes, I do seem to have been growing lately. Have you seen my recent appearance on this sea monster scale? :-) Pretty alarming for the little blue user in the image! Now perhaps I'll get more respect! Thank you for helping! "Jaws" Darwinbish (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, a bit of blood and flailing stumps in the water does wonders for respect! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post about living documents, you take Jefferson out of context (I know that quote btw). He never intended that one should take a given constitution in a given form and reinterpret it NOT according to those that framed it. Jefferson knew quite well the acceptable methods prescribed to change constitutions. If you don't use those, then your constitution is what it is. Bending or corrupting a standing constitution by other means is not at all what Jefferson was talking about. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree (somewhat) - indeed, if you read a bit further in the letter, Jefferson makes an explicit case that no, it's not good enough that future generations can explicitly change the law via a democratic process. He requires an automatic expiration: It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. (ibid). Of course, Jefferson won the soul of the US, but Hamilton won the body... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An expiration date is whole other thing indeed. Our constitution doesn't have one. Although he had issue with the original draft, he accepted the final ratified version (incl BoR). It may not be perfect, but you cannot just step out of the bounds at will. Has it been done? IMO it has, but that is exactly what it is....stepping out of bounds. All the founders were aware of possible corruption of individuals and special interest groups. The founders were not a naive bunch, as some presume. I don't believe in moving the goal posts around willy-nilly as some do. You cannot govern under an "equal protection" premise that way. If I can do that, then I can change any contract governed by it (the Constitution) that way too. Nothing in our country would be sacred or firm. No, changes for convenience cannot be allowed. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan,

I appreciate it if you show me the grammatical errors in the following edit. Essentially how would you write it if you were to do so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=510660832&oldid=510659023 --216.31.219.19 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to stick my nose in, the quotation is not great grammatically eg "Religion, like all social institutions ..." should read "like every other social institution" since the verbs in the rest of the sentence are singular. It is also poor in use of language (implying religion is a single social institution rather than a number of them is a bit crappy). But I think the notability of the comment is the main issue. There are plenty of people who think Dawkins cannot see the wood for the trees and point out that Hitler's and Stalin's achievements in terms of death and evil rather outweigh the Crusades but those kind of judgements can be left to the reader. --BozMo talk 06:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was already struck by "Skeptic atheist Michael Shermer describes this portrayal of religion by Dawkins unjust." Quite apart from the unusual characterization of Shermer, it seems to miss a word or so. I also think that the suggested change suffers from two other serious problems. First, it's of questionable notability. Secondly, Dawkins is described as making two (or even three) claims: that religion is a meme that operates like a virus, and that faith is an evil. Shermer seems to respond to the "evil" claim only, not to the "meme" and "virus" claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting about the "meme virus evil" claim is that it is a form of parable. Clearly not literally true, and functionally it does not take long to show no exact correspondence or mapping. But one would have to agree there is a deal of truth in an analogous sense. At this point my curiosity is raised because Dawkins in some quarters dismissed as a literal reductionist (eg as someone with Aspergers who has a complete mental block on things like music or morality) but yet in communication (where he is strong) he works abstract analogies. Hmm. --BozMo talk 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first book by Dawkins that I read was The Ancestor's Tale, a beautifully crafted description of the evolution of man, modeled after The Canterbury Tales. I got it probably in 2007 or so, at an airport bookshop when I had run out of stuff to read (I'm like a meth addict with regards to books), and without any conscious idea of who he was. So no, I don't think Aspergers is a reasonable assumption. I also read The God Delusion, and I was a bit disappointed by the superficial treatment of religion. However, I don't think this is due to an inability to see deeper, but rather a deliberate choice. Dawkins thinks (and I tend to agree to a certain degree) that most of the claims of religion can be rejected as either irrelevant or obviously false without going into deep metaphysics. I can still appreciate the history and beliefs of a religion, without accepting it as a useful source of truth about the universe. But, given the depressingly low level of eduction of many believers about their own (putative ;-) religion, I would make a similar choice that Dawkins. It makes no sense to try to tell your average Southern Baptists about the fusion of apocalyptic Judaism and Helenistic neo-platonism, the difference between the different Christologies in Mark and John, the subtleties of the Trinity and why Filioque split the early Church, about the Sumerian sources of the Flood stories, and so on, just to then get them to reject the result as irrational nonsense. They will probably burn you at the stake anyways, as soon as you mention that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, not King James English... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep well certainly you have to decide on your audience but whether there is any point in dealing with Southern Baptists is another matter. Don't get me on to how depressing the world view of believers or unbelievers is. --BozMo talk 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally "useful" is a tough test for religions. I might need to think about that. Is music "useful"? --BozMo talk 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the birds! In evolutionary terms music could be useful in multiple ways, in aesthetic terms my recollection is that Dawkins expresses appreciation of music, whether religious or agnostic music. Didn't think "TGD" was as good as his other books, but the TV series "Root" was fun. There's a certain fascination in the knots religious adherents can get into when trying to square realities with their preconceptions. Just don't call their flock animals ;-) . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Martin Luther said that making fun of "the knots religious adherents can get into when trying to square realities with their preconceptions" was a game which could easily be played by a cow or a sheep and was beneath a human but Stephan probably knows the exact quote (it was about people who asked of what material the banners of Christ were made that they burn not in the fires of hell or something like that). Anyway James Barr did a far better job in his book Fundamentalism of entertainment from such people ("much good fun can be had from reading Bernard Ramm"). --BozMo talk 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I don't know the quote. But, on the way home on my bicycle, I came up with another, and less bombastic, reason for keeping the discussion of religion simple in a book like TGD. If I write a book, I want to get it right. My expertise is automated deduction, and Dawkins is evolutionary biology. To feel competent to write about religion in depth, I would need to study for a few more years, and while it is a topic I enjoy as a kind of superficial hobby (see the last userbox on my user page ;-), it's not a topic that really excites me in the same way as making computers reason. And even if I walked that walk, I would still feel the need to qualify every other statement with "probably", "as far as we know", "in my opinion", and so on. That again, would probably not be a book that helped me spread my view very wide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) P.S.: If I get to write my own epitaph, it will be "Here lies Stephan Schulz. But it's not that simple!" [reply]

For what it's worth, I wrote fascination rather than fun. Barr sounds interesting when time permits: my current bedside reading, The Bible, Rocks and Time, combines [accurate, as far as I can judge] history of geology with evangelical belief in biblical inerrancy.[1][2] An uncommon perspective, but also a reference with potential for improving some articles such as flood geology, if I ever get round to it. Back to Dawkins, my feeling is that he wants to stir up thought about dogma rather than present himself as a theologian. Or should that be an atheologian? . . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed reading your comments. Many thanks for the grammatical note and the rest of the notes. Just out of quriousity, you folks ever read books such as this and this? I mean, the "antiphonal voices" does not always have to come from McGrath or other religious enthusiasts. Moreover, do you guys think there is room in Dawkins' article at all for non-trivial criticism? I am saying this, because I feel there is this urge in the article to portray RD as a hero, though this is not the dominant point of view of even all atheists. I might of course be wrong.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read either of those. I was going to offer my own reading suggestions here [3] but notice that I have not included any Dawkins books in it. Our rules on biographies of living persons are always on the kind side. Besides some people genuinely believe Dawkins is a hero, just as people regard Russell a hero for writing "why I am not a Christian" in the 1920s or John Robinson for "Honest to God" in the sixties. If someone is troubled by a particular perspective and offer a way out they are likely to love you forever. And certainly religion is a bit unpleasant as an experience for people who think slightly more than their immediate companions. However, I don't think Dawkins claims to be any kind of original thinker on religion, he claims to be a communicator and deserves credit for being a fair communicator. There are plenty of clever agnostics or atheist who think him unprofound and even a bit simplistic and irritating. --BozMo talk 05:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the rule of "being kind" in biographies, but then doesn't it violate WP:AUTO? For example, is it not fair to include the criticisms of those agnostic/atheist thinkers who find Dawkins unprofound?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This matter is available for discussion on talk. If you reopen it without consensus I will file a complaint at ANI. We do not advise readers that small amounts of deadly poisons are safe for the to drink. Please discuss this at the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and replied on the talk page, as did several others. To put it bluntly, I am right, and you are wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

See above and there. And please sign your posts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we agree on a fair number of things -- when he's not being totally unreasonable....

He might say the same about me? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time." -- Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

1826. Things have changed a bit since then, including use of language (like "proofs"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma has been reported to ANI for the edit war on Muslim Mafia (book). It seems you were sort-of involved in that, so perhaps you wish to comment. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think Roscolese made most necessary points. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this brief report on a speech by a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology somehow made me think of you. Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the same half an hour ago on Slashdot. It would be funny, if only it weren't so sad... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a template about not templating, that emphasizes others' potential for bad faith assumptions...

First, you should indicate the situation that is causing you concern...

I am quite familiar with WP:DTTR. I find it ironic in it's emphasis on helping those who make bad faith assumptions. Still, I realize the need to help deescalate disputes with other editors, especially those clearly cannot follow our behavioral policies and guidelines.

If you're are concerned about this, I suggest you look at his block log and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change.

If you'd like to suggest better approaches beyond templating me, I'd like to hear them. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not template you, but wrote an individualised and, at least to the limits of my ability, polite message in response to a particular situation. It contained my advice for such situations: either write a specific, polite message, or ignore the situation. By the way, sorry for the dupe - I had some trouble with the Wikipedia database. I only had one successful submission, but it appeared twice on your page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how Ronz sneakily deletes your non-templated warning under a deceptive edit summary [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I'm not always wise enough to follow my own advice, but this time it's an easy choice to ignore his action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, glasshopper, you have wisdom; I must strive to emulate you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a template to me. The additional irony is that yes, you may have done your best, but it did not improve the situation anymore than using a template. The fact that it was personal is not a solution. Further, you've fixated on that one fact, ignoring the real issues and your opportunity to help.

Yes, the Wikipedia database was having problems at the time. Thanks for pointing it out. The duplicating had nothing to do with my response to the message and to you.

Of course, we now have further information that behavioral problems are at play with the comment above (19:46, 7 October 2012). My next step will be ArbCom enforcement should the edit-warring and other problems continue. I hope yours will be more in line with improving this encyclopedia as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are conveniently unaware (fat chance) of the new consensus being reached at [5] in your joining the revert warring as usual at [6]. But that excuse only works once. --Africangenesis (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy talking to the SPA :-). He'll go on and on and on with the least encouragement, as WilyD is finding out William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And like you, I don't always need encouragement.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see at your link is a consensus of one, opposed by, apparently, everybody else. The long-standing consensus on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, on the other hand, is "no red links". Take it to DRV, reinstall it, then we can discuss it on the merits. Until then, you just waste our time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you help in the discussion? The whole AfD was intended to waste time. You may be thinking of the old cabal consensus, the relevant "consensus" is "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.".--Africangenesis (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A friend recently pointed out that if I read two books a week, and live to age 90, I can read less than 10000 books in my life. That's why I've decided to concentrate on things that I find interesting, important, or fun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is a depressing fact :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn??--Africangenesis (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be fewer than 10000 books in your life? Seems rather many to me, but then my house is tending to overflow with books I've read or intend to read. Plus some library books, sorry, gotta go and do some reading now..... dave souza, talk 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really speak saxon. But I can feel your pain. My flat has the sleeping library, the living library, the bath library (mostly journals, though), and the kitchen (too greasy to store books permanently). I had to sell or give away some books. It's all Amazon's fault, really! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephan Schulz. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with my C problems! 169.231.8.73 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI - Youreallycan 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking someone for insulting you is... not ever anything that ends well! Especially a fairly mild riposte. I suggest (in a friendly way, I'm not being patronising or anything) unblocking and let other admins decide what to do. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not blocked for insulting me. He's blocked for personally attacking Mongo, and reacting to a warning with a further attack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was levelled at you. That's not an unimportant distinction. Surely you were aware that warning Malleus was pouring oil on a fire? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't followed the drama fest. I was aware that MF has a long block log and recurring civility issues, and that there is a WP:TLDR AE case, but I don't think that should excuse him from using at least a very basic level of civility when interacting with other editors. I'm neither block-happy nor particularly fond of overly strict interpretations of WP:CIV. But there is a line, and he crossed it, for no good reason at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact you call it a "drama fest" should have warned you about pulling the trigger. The (unfortunate) outcome of such an action is merely to put you in the firing line: various factions have been lined up all day waiting for someone to make a misstep enough to hang them out to dry. I tried to deflect that at AN/I but sadly it did not stick. I'd say your best bet here is to go to AN/I and say it was a misjudgement. But I am sure enough people will be badgering you about it from now on so I will leave you be from now :) cheers! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I'm not sure your logic holds together here. If an editor insults another editor, then replies to an admin warning them about it, by levelling an insult at the admin, the admin is then unable to take any further action regarding the original insult to the first editor? Sounds a bit like the old Mbz1 essay on how to make sure no admin can ever block you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, certainly a difficult call. My own view: sure, if someone levels the insult at a warning admin they should take especial care over the block. And when it is an editor with the notoriety of Malleus then they should take yet more care! I know I would be unlikely to block an editor in the middle of a dispute simply for being uncivil to me when I warned them. To a certain extent I'd expect it. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but, as Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked in this instance.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think there should be special rules, or special approaches, to whether and how an editor can be dealt with just because they're notorious. Wise to be cautious, perhaps, but that's a slightly different thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked"? Surely you're enjoying the drama-fest and aren't actually that thick. That is absolutely why he blocked. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan. I haven't read your page, I'm on my phone and it takes a whole to load, instead I thought I'd offer you a little advice on how best to handle incivility in my opinion, you are welcome to ignore it. If you are going to warn someone for being uncivil, you must expect them to respond with more incivility, especially at you for making that warning. It's likely that under stress or strain people will make less pleasant comments and as an administrator you should be able to spot this and take it into account.

For example, I found a user who had been chronically uncivil to a number of user recently, I left him a note. He responded poorly, much worse than Malleus did to your comment. Please do take the time to read my response to him, it did the job, yet without me forcing a block down his throat. It's very important to drop the ego when dealing with civility, it doesn't matter what they call you. The block button... It doesn't help, and really should be an absolute last resort.

Anyway, I assume your going to get slated during the night (if you haven't already) and I'll be sorry to see it, I hope my comments might help you in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 22:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Don't worry, I'm a reasonably robust person. As I wrote above, I don't often support blocks for incivility. And indeed, I very rarely issue blocks at all. But nobody has a license for gross personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle, but MONGO and Malleus have quite the history. I'm about to shut off my phone but I will say that blocking a user for incivility when incivility is a massive part of the case at Arbcom is unwise. Arbcom can put through emergency powers, the time for shooting first and cleaning up the mess later... Really not now. Worm^TT(talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Worm. Civility blocks, in general, do not work anyway and just lead to more incivility, but when dealing with two users like Mongo and Malleus with a history, you just have to move the crowd back so there isn't any collateral damage. I think the block was a mistake, but I'm not going to question any motives here. What Malleus said was pointed, but in the context of the greater discussion, it was actually pretty mild. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another reason for me to hang up the tool. There's a quote on my user page from MONGO, in case you really thought that this was a fair exchange, and not the baiting by one editor of another--the one apparently ArbCom and admin-approved, and the other blockable on sight. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I thought you handled the situation appropriately. There's a clear disparity in the way admins are treated who block a newbie editor and those who block an established editor. It's one of the reasons why established editors get away with behavior that newbies aren't able to. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why everyone keeps saying Malleus and I have a history....we had one heated but protracted disagreement over a year ago. I didn't even participate in the civility arbcom case. I left a message at Casliber's talkpage about a best solution for situation (but I've retracted it)...I even asked Jclemens to adjust his now infamous comment and he did. When Malleus showed up at AN/I, the complaint wasn't even about him in essence...it was regarding User:John. John was however attacking me about comments I made about Malleus, much as Drmies did after I made 1 (one) not so kind edit summary about his buddy. Now the only thing I would like to see is a permanent ban on Malleus for I fear there is no way he will comply with our policies...that is how I see it and I cannot see any reason to AGF on this one.--MONGO 04:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should take the guilt off arbcom and reinforce my comment...whatcha think about dimm apples Drmies? I don't want to disappoint anyone...please allow me to be the horrible satan that gets the blame for what Malleus types! Arbcom can blame me...I can take it! It's MONGO's fault Malleus calls people cunts, twats and assholes and tells them to fuck off! MONGO did it to him! I can live with it!--MONGO 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written something on the Clarification request the calls you out by name, so I wanted to let you know. --Tznkai (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic, but who is this Shultz guy? I also think your comment suffers from a wrong perspective. Very much most Wikipedians (including, up to tonight, me) are only very tangentially aware of the MF dramafest - and they should not need to be aware of it to do their normal editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does your "normal editing" consist of Stephan? Doesn't seem to have much to do with creating content from what I've seen. I have a hazy memory of an RfA in which the candidate promised that he would stick to a very narrowly defined task. Was that yours? Malleus Fatuorum 06:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Corrected the spelling of your name, and my apologies for it. As to the rest, normal editing involves some amount of due diligence.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus...I bet Stephan isn't going around the website calling other editors twats,cunts and assholes or telling to editors to fuck off...is that your very narrowly defined task? Malleus you have any plans on discussing with MatthewTownsend why he is leaving the website...he claims its because of you.MONGO 06:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. In fact he's not doing very much at all as far as I can see. As for Matthew, he's a liar, just as you are. Malleus Fatuorum 06:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ... and I'm fucking off from here in part because of you and your ilk, Mongo. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he? So you can see into his soul and know how he feels...he's far from the only editor that avoids you. As far as lying, you're the biggest liar this website has ever seen. In fact, you might be completely delusional in thinking that you're going to continue to get away with calling people disgusting names. Looks like your like sick minded compadres seem to think that if you're banned then their will be no justification for their garbage either.MONGO 07:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]