Talk:Ace McWicked

From RationalWikiWiki

I have never really been a fan of RWW and I am less and less inclined to want to have an association with. After some thought I have decided I'd like my article here deleted. As opposed to just deleting it outright I thought I'd make my intentions clear first. Ace McWicked 20:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's not going to happen. Have a wonderful day! Julius Marx 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion in 5...4...3....Ace McWicked 02:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The site exists to document RW. You are a part of RW, therefore you are documented. It's not like you're slandered here (or is the proper term libel?)--Brxbrx 02:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we are at an impass because I want it deleted. Ace McWicked 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmon, it's no big deal. You were very influential at RW, RWW wouldn't be complete without this article.--Brxbrx 02:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ace, why do want this article killed? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 02:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This site is becoming divorced from RW and I want to be divorced from RWW. Ace McWicked 02:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I empathize, and I won't do anything to stop you or revert you. But deleting it will probably only succeed in dragging more of the RWHCM across wider swathes of the internet, with reversions, block wars and lots of other recriminations. Is it really worth it? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 02:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

People can flame and HCM all they want, its just something I am probably going to do so, you know, just lettng everyone know. Ace McWicked 02:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out that Andy Schlafly would probably like RW to delete their article about him... but it's not unreasonable to tell him "not going to happen". While I understand your disappointment in RWW, there simply isn't any way to justify removal of your page. --Eira 02:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll just delete it when I'm damned well ready and we can war over it. Ace McWicked 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

what's so bad about RWW, anyways? supposedly, it used to be run much by Hans Johnson, and he made it bad, but that's changed now.--Brxbrx 02:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh... because some people decide to recklessly abuse the site to make hateful personal attacks? And he would want to reduce the attack vectors available. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. (It would be nice though if people didn't abuse the site.) --Eira 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Contents 1 phone edit button 2 Attention Whore? 3 Rob's edit 4 That would make you the guy who likes to shoot his mouth off, then get offended when he's called on his bullshit. You're the antithesis of RW.

[edit] phone edit button

What is the difference between personal attacks and fair criticism? The line is vague, ill-defined, in the eye of the beholder. That'll always be this site's conundrum.--Maratrean 06:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is reasoned, and makes reasoned points, like "Arguing with Eira is frustrating because eventually you will make a mistake, and she will make you feel bad for making it." A personal attack is "Eira is a fucking abusive bitch, and is on a power trip." Producing the previous as fair criticism: "Eira has used her wiki rights to block people for ___ reason, which is entirely unjustifiable, and is obviously on a power trip." --Eira 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

so your argument is, it's not what you say, it's how you say it???--Maratrean 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How you say it is important. It's really best not to indulge in bitter personal jibes written in the heat of anger. Our punky lord and master tells me that the board of trustees have received five complaints about libel on RWW, so it's best to leave commentary to someone less caught up in the sturm und drang. Rrose Selavy 07:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Libel is what you say, not how you say it. --Maratrean 07:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And no one here is using libel in the strict legal term (except you and I). I specifically did not call my personal attacks "libel" to goonie, I called them personal attacks. --Eira 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just passing on the message. I have no idea of the content or authors of the complaints, or the law of libel regarding people known only by pseudonyms. Rrose Selavy 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks are things added that meant solely to, well, attack a user. For example, if I add to PersonY's page here that "PersonY is a nasty cunt of a human being" and it is well known that I am at odds with PersonY, then it is a personal attack. Similarly, if UserABC comes here and adds something to someone's page that is obviously in faith and is completely insulting, that is also unaaceptable. Criticism, as I would define it, is to add to UserABC's page here that "they always seems crabby because a noob showed up and UserABC immediately told them to fuck off." I suppose the case could be made that common sense applies most in this case. Especially if the person adding the information is currently at odds with the person for whom they are inserting the information. It should also be noted that common sense appllies to the addition of snark to articles (which is encouraged here). Punky McPunkersen 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Attention Whore?

Since when have I ever been an attention whore? Ace McWicked 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you always try to make everybody look at you in a conversation by making an obscene joke. Or because everyone is in that category.--Brxbrx 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't deliberately seek out attention though - making obscene joke =/= attention whore. Ace McWicked 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I'm sure there's been at least one instance in which you did something that somebody interpreted as attention whoring. Policy around here is to generalize from specifics, didn't you know? Liveware Problem 20:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ace is a master attention whore. See what he's doing? He's attention whoring about being called an attention whore. That's hard to beat. Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 00:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My perfect plan foiled. Ace McWicked 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ace isn't an attention whore. Ace is a plain old whore of the dirty knees variety. Glad I could help. Nutty Roux 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Nutty said. Let's invent a category for just plain old whores. Punky McPunkersen 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Rob's edit

While Rob's edit was hilarious I take "manufacturing and service" to mean either laboring/building/factory work and service industries like cooking/waiting respectively. I am a professional who wears a suit to work and don't consider it "manufacturing and/or service". Ace McWicked 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So... anything you want done?Tyrannis^{An iron, yet caring fist} 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, all is well. Ace McWicked 03:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] That would make you the guy who likes to shoot his mouth off, then get offended when he's called on his bullshit. You're the antithesis of RW.

I don't recall ever getting offended. Ace McWicked 04:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to recall when Neveruse513/Neveruse/Occasionaluse ever meant anything he said. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ace McWicked 04:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it'd been established that Occasionaluse was a different user from Neveruse? Hans Johnson _{I'll get my hans on it} 05:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the matter, boy? Can't take it when someone describes you in terms you don't choose? Kinda like your sensibilities were offended, on this very page, when you were called an attention whore. Acey: big spoiled baby--178.217.184.147 05:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am certainly kicking up a huge fuss. Whhaa. Ace McWicked 06:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP's a coward jerk, ignore it. Haamer 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)