text: User talk:FAMAS/Archive1
  Contents
  - 1 Welcome
  - 2 What's all this?
  - 3 Sign your posts
  - 4 Unbinned
  - 5 Listen
  - 6 Welcome again
  - 7 Food woo
  - 8 This User
  - 9 You have been removed from the vandal bin.
  - 10 Please sign your posts
  - 11 Why?
  - 12 Creating several unfinished templates
  - 13 To do list
  - 14 Nowhere else relevant to put this, but
  - 15 This user
  - 16 Sysop
  - 17 Stubs
  - 18 Enough
  - 19 Quid Pro Quo
  - 20 External links
  - 21 You have a sandbox
  - 22 Welcoming users
  Welcome[edit]
  Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button:
  , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Pippa (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  What's all this?[edit]
  Why are you posting links to your newly created forum on everyone's talk pages? --JorisEnter (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Please stop. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  - Canvassing recently active users on their talk pages looks like spam, and is a good way to be ignored. The forum you started is attracting eyeballs. Why not give it a chance to develop at a natural pace, without trying to force it? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  @CamelCasePragmatist and Pippathis user is performing the manual advertising for purposes of augmentation of the cause. this user was not aware of the lack of autosignbot.FAMAS (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  - This fucking user is a twat! Pippa (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  - This user has been vandal binned to avoid such useless cans of cooked pork meat.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  Sign your posts[edit]
  On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
  on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  Unbinned[edit]
  No more cans of cooked pork meat anymore, please.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  Listen[edit]
  Stop the fucking "this user" and "user:[USERNAME]" stuff now. You're doing a splendid job of making pretty much everybody around here hate you.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  Welcome again[edit]
  Hope to see more edits like your one on Bangladesh! Most users don't seem to appreciate your style of suggesting changes, but that may change if you keep up the good work! :) FuzzyCatPotato of the Green Hadrons (talk/stalk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  - This user is requesting to User:FuzzyCatPotato to remove this user from vandal binFAMAS (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  - And you've already used "this user" twice in a single line of text. Do it again ans I'll ban you, following a Fibonacci sequence (1 day, 1 day, 2, 3, 5 etc).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  - No bans, but please: use "I" rather than "this user". The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  - He's been told to stop using "this user" at least five times by now. Have a look at my talk page and the corresponding archive, or scroll through FAMAS's contributions. He also appears to have a hard time understanding proper English capitalisation and sentence structure, despite having been asked repeatedly to make his posts a bit more readable.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  Food woo[edit]
  I reverted your edits because 1) some were sloppy, 2) some made specific claims without referencing any sources (though the article could use quite a few more already), and 3) some made no sense ("in both medical and aesthetical meaning of the word"... huh?). If you re-edit, add some references and make sure your syntax and grammar is correct. That way everyone wins. B) talk 06:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  - You tried to undo the revert without even fixing grammar and capitalization. You'll keep getting reverted if your edits are of poor quality. B) talk 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  - What he said. Stop the silly edits, please.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  - You know, it doesn't actually seem like s?he's being malicious or deliberately vandalizing. Maybe not a native English speaker. The edits in the second paragraph seem kind of silly, but noting that woomeisters can both promote and criticize food unreasonably is, er, reasonable. In hopes of ending this I've put that bit in myself. B) talk 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  You did it again. Your edits contained mistakes and added very little of value to the sentences you changed. Can we talk about this? Please? B) talk 22:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  - Re: "this user asserts the fact that it is not woo if it is scientific, thus the sentence scheme was entirely erroneous and thus has been corrected." Nowhere does the existing sentence assert that woo is scientific. The statement, "food woo takes those confirmed, testable, correlative studies and turns them into..." does not imply that scientific studies on the topic of food are woo, nor that woo is scientific. It implies that woo purports to use science to make unfounded claims. Sure, there are probably clearer ways to state this, but the point stands regardless. Also, woo and science are not necessarily entirely disjoint. Woo often involves things like quote mining from real scientific studies in order to support a fraudulent claim. B) talk 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  This User[edit]
  ...should stop using the phrase "this user". Nobody likes it, you sound like a goddamn Freeman on the Land with that nonsense. CorruptUser (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  - This user was thinking the same thing. Legalese, HOOO! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  - Fammy-baby, the main issue for me (having read your recent essay) is that your 'this user' shtick makes what you are trying to say very difficult to read. The effort I'll spend on interpreting obtuse text is directly proportional to how much I expect to gain from bothering: based on your contributions so far I'd suggest an effort to make your posts as easy to read as possible. Unless of course you're just a bit of a weird troll, in which case keep up the good work. MyHatIsBread (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  - No, seriously, cut that shit out. Wretching up bile isn't good for me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  You have been removed from the vandal bin.[edit]
  Please try not to spam the wiki. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  - Good job so far! :) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  Please sign your posts[edit]
  The signbot is currently out of service. It's just four tildes -- not much work. Thank you. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  Why?[edit]
  Could you just explain why you choose third person, every time, all the time? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  - He'll reply to you in the third person, you know.
  Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  Creating several unfinished templates[edit]
  Would it be possible for you to experiment with making them in a sandbox instead? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  To do list[edit]
  When adding an item to the to do list it's best to include a summary of what the thing you want an article about is. Just adding "selfhacked.com" with no explanation of what selfhacked.com is isn't very helpful. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  - Seriously, add an explanation of what the site is about or it'll be deleted. Christopher (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  - And don't create redirects to articles that don't exist, write the article then create the redirect. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  Nowhere else relevant to put this, but[edit]
  This user[edit]
  Stop with the "this user" stuff. Christopher (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  - As the User page consists of a link to their contributions, what do you expect? 31.51.114.124 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  - Many people can't think of anything to put on their userpage. You don't have to say "this user" all the time though, it gets really annoying after a while. Christopher (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  - You can say 'Hi, there, I am (your name) and I am a Rationalwikian. (and my interests are)'
  And at least very the term used, so the most you can be accused of is pretension/hipsterism. 31.51.114.124 (talk) 22:43, 19 March. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 11:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  Stubs[edit]
  Please could you stop creating lots of tiny stubs? It looks as that user is hoping other people will finish the articles for that user. Why should they bother if that user doesn't? Bicyclewheel
  18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that this user is utilizing article creation in the attempt to bring about the existence of the article topics in mainspace in the attempt to have the collaborative effort towards the articles via pressure over the community to improve stubs and increasing focus on the articles by having them in mainspace in contrary to their places in to do list. this user asserts the additional fact that that user is nonindicative as to not referring to the user being referred by that and thus the correct format of said form of referral is user followed by the usernameFAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 18:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - That user isn't making much sense. Christopher (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  FAMAS, nobody wants to "collaboratively" work on tiny stubs. Try getting at least one reference into any article you create. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  -
  - in reply to user FuzzyCatPotato, this user noticed that the articles on various woos and woomasters started as tiny stubs and collaboratively expanded upon. this user asserts the fact that this user is presently in a state of not possessing the resources to gather indepth data on the currently required articles and is in a state where this user has to rely upon the users of the remainders of the internet for data moreso than the past, thus necessitating collaborative effort and to summon bigger fishes.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Is that user saying that that user is unable to google stuff? Bicyclewheel
  18:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - [EC]In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that that user's stubs are substantially smaller than how most other articles start. Christopher also asserts that summoning fish is counterproductive to the creation of articles on RationalWiki. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user is currently less able to search the correct terms followed by memorization of the data and associated links and to form them within wiki language code of which, this user possesses almost zero knowledge of, thus always the choice to remain as a metawikian and to summon the community and the big fishes such as FuzzyCatPotato, which is innovative to the matter as to the summoning via bringing the articles into mainspace and in a bigger "ring target" where the stubs are less likely to go ignored and spawn the obsessive compulsion in others to improve them.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[5]] [[6]] 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that the associated wiki philosophies are [[Inclusionism]], [[Immediatism]] and [[Structurism]], thus necessitating immediate creation and insertion of articles with data to the maximum capability of users.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[7]] [[8]] 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that RationalWiki doesn't need copies of Wikipedia project pages. Christopher (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to users @Christopher and Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the opinion that this user is copying only the wikiphilosophies as is required for understanding of the concept of what goes in the mind of various wikians across all of existence and is not attempting a total copy of every project page of wikipedia and in the event of retributionary action, this user will resort to the previously undertaken measure of reporting matters to the supreme commander of the wiki as in the person who possesses the highest authority over all matters and await verdicts as this user lacks any privileges outside of such reporting.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[9]] [[10]] 18:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - It's still just copying stuff. If these users want to know that, a link would suffice. Bicyclewheel
  18:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - [EC]In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that we don't need any pages copied from anywhere. Christopher also asserts that there isn't a supreme commander of the wiki. Christopher (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that the supreme commander of the wiki is the one responsible for having the final word in all matters of policy as in the person bypassing all other authorities, which this user noticed that user @FuzzyCatPotato possesses.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[11]] [[12]] 19:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Fuzzy has no more authority than any other mod. Christopher (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  Enough[edit]
  I have blocked you for nine hours, and desysoped you. We have tried explaining to you where you're going wrong but you just won't listen. Use the following nine hours to read the rationalwiki pages and get a feel for how the place runs. Bicyclewheel
  19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user awaits the verdict from user @FuzzyCatPotato regarding the matter of whether the articles on wikiphilosophies edited to fit all wikis be kept within rationalwiki or be deleted.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[13]] [[14]] 19:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - 1) I can pretty much guarantee that Fuzzy will agree with me and Bicycle Wheel, 2) So what if he didn't? Fuzzy doesn't make the decisions around here, we all do. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Also, please remember to sign your posts. You forgot to sign one of your posts in the Policy poll page.-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  Quid Pro Quo[edit]
  Listen to me, FAMAS. If I can get a promise from you that you're not going to create project pages that could just fit into other pages instead, then I can unblock and re-sop you again. We don't need to go to the mods, we don't have to keep you blocked/binned, and we can all just carry on with our time. I mean, the stuff you write isn't bad in itself, it's just that it should be added as sections to preexisting pages. So what do you say? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - It's only a nine hour block, and some of that has passed already. Leave it for a few hours and see how things go after that. The person's a wikimartian who won't listen. Bicyclewheel
  21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - And if he doesn't, then we just respond in kind. Like, permaban-type response. If he won't abide by the rules and won't listen, then I see no reason why his presence is necessary any longer. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that adding all the wikiphilosophies in a single page as multiple sections will result in a page size exceeding the 50 kilobytes limit that is recommended to be followed for dialup users and users above dialup but on metered connection and users on dialup and metered connection which are common and the majority on most of earth's noneuropean and non-north american nations and one of those nation is where this user is from and at present time, thus necessitating article splitting into pages to reduce page sizes. this user is requesting @FuzzyCatPotato for the final word on this policy as to whether the pages should be kept seperate or merged. this user asserts the fact that the final word belongs to the supreme commander.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[15]] [[16]] 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - See? This is what I mean! We can just talk things out like mature humans. OK, so why don't you use drafts for your wikiphilosophies. That way, you can make as many pages as you want or need, and they're out of mainspace, so everyone's happy! RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  - In reply to @that user, Christopher asserts that WE DON'T HAVE A SUPREME COMMANDER! Are you capable of understanding that? Christopher (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that while user christopher asserts what the user is asserting, there is possibility of things being the opposite, with that possibility in mind, this user is checking all possible avenues. this user has no specific preference on whether rationalwiki is run on mobocracy or on a semi-mobocracy where the says of the supreme commander, be it user @FuzzyCatPotato or any other user who is that, has any bearing over the mob. this user is running a diagnostic on the matter and is requesting the says of user fuzzycatpotato regarding the issue of wikiphilosophy project pages being allowed or not.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[17]] [[18]] 12:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  Thank you @FAMAS for addressing by my rightful title, Supreme Commander:
  Now please try to get community consensus instead of
  {{ping}}ing me all the time. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 12:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - FAMAS would it be possible to, for once, address everyone by their name and yourself with pronouns? 'This user' is beyond annoying. Chris, I'm with you. I don't like the stubs. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Look, FAMAS, just use the draft template for any wikiphilosophies you want to create. Just keep that stuff out of mainspace, and everything will be fine. I'm fairly certain that FCP agrees with us, so you just agree to use drafts, and I'll give you back your mop. Deal? RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that this user created the wikiphilosophy pages in rationalwikispace and away from mainspace. there is the possibility that this user mistyped the article titles thus placing them in mainspace, in the matter being such, this user is requesting others to correct the typographical and coding mistakes of this user and this user was in agreement regarding keeping wikiphilosophies away from mainspace.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[19]] [[20]] 14:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - What Roninmacbeth is trying to say is "put them in a subpage of your userpage" (like this). We don't want your pages you make if they're copied off somewhere else or really short. Christopher (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Exactly! Just do that. Keep those articles as your subpages, and we should be good. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @RoninMacbeth and Christopher, this user is requesting a temporary return of the sysop privilege for restoration of the deleted pages followed by page move to draftspace.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[21]] [[22]] 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Why do you want thm at all? Just link to them, you don't have to copy everything over. We're not a mirror site. You still haven't exlained why they need to be here. I will delete anything you copy over unless you can come up with a really good reason it needs to be here (such as the other site being under threat of extinction). Bicyclewheel
  20:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that the articles copied over possess modifications to indicate that they cover all wikis and are not limited to wikipedia only.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[23]] [[24]] 20:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Bicycle Wheel, this user asserts the fact that modifying the texts to fit the context of all wikis would change much of the texts as most of the "wikipedia" words are changed into wiki and pedian changed into wikian and more.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[25]] [[26]] 20:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - In reply to that user, Christopher asserts that systemically changing a few words that occur frequently throughout a text isn't radical change and is still copying. Christopher (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - (EC)But as I said, the sort of person who reads that would easily adapt it to their own circumstances, without having to have it written down. That's not a radical rewrite, that's a minor tweak. Still no. Bicyclewheel
  20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user can create the external redirects to the meta site pages and is requesting a return of the sysop privilege.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[27]] [[28]] 20:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - You're asking for sysop rights in order to create an external link? You can do that anyway. Bicyclewheel
  20:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - No. You don't get resopped until you agree to the terms I laid out above. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  - @FAMAS It's so simple! Just say you agree to put your pages in your namespace and I'll give you back your mop! I'll even try and help you with your project(s)! It's. Simple. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  - I got this from DiamondDisc1's page:Input box type "create width=42 default=??? prefix=User:Insertusernamehere/ preload= buttonlabel=Create new draft break=no" not recognized. Please specify "create", "comment", "search", "search2" or "fulltext".
  - Just insert your username where it says to and you can create your own drafts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @RoninMacbeth, this user asserts the fact that this user agreed to the treaty provided by user roninmacbeth.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[29]] [[30]] 09:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Thank you. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  External links[edit]
  External links are quite simple, here's how to do them:
  Just typing out the full url resulting in this:
  Putting brackets around the url results in this [31]
  And putting this: [ FAMAS' official website] (remember to put a space after the url) produces this: FAMAS' official website
  See Help:Links for more info on other sorts of links. Christopher (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  - this user is requesting help from users @Christopher and Roninmacbeth in healingwell.com page for fixing the cite web link display.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[32]] [[33]] 05:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - You require my assistance? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - I should note that I need to go to bed in 11 minutes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  You have a sandbox[edit]
  Stop creating stubby mainspace articles, please. You've been asked this many times before. If you tune up the article in the sandbox, then you can create it int he mainspace. Cheers!--Spoony (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Spoony, this user asserts the fact that sysops @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, and Christopher observed the tiny stubs created by this user in the past and chose to keep them due to agreement on the matter that the userbase will help to expand them regardless of size.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[34]] [[35]] 06:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - I doubt that to be the case, reading the conversation regarding the stub. Do not restore the page again. And please keep in mind that Rationalwiki is not run by three people alone--Spoony (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to user @Spoony, this user asserts the fact that due to the inherent nature of power relations and control, there are hierarchies amongst the users even in the stated mobocracy in that there are sysops who are active and sysops who are inactive on-site. this user pinged the sysops who were most active at the time of this discussion and were active in the engagement of issues brought up by this user. this user also asserts the fact that as a lesser-active user, this user did not possess any prior knowledge of the said "doug...." account being a sock of any other user and took the assumption that following the wikian philosophy of always warning a new account first with a template and then blocking is the sound matter with additional emphasis on the matter that user @Spoony took no effort in notifying this user of the matter before blocking.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[36]] [[37]] 06:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Spoony is correct. Stub creation is generally not helpful. You were given a chance on some stubs that you created by User:Christopher, but don't take this a license to keep going at it. If you don't know anything about a topic, don't make a stub for it. Do some research on it first or don't make the stub. Bongolian (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - And stop addressing yourself as "this user". That and your faux-polite way of replying to others is extremely obnoxious, and your behavior is making it slowly more difficult to assume good faith. I only had one time to tell you this, but I'm sure the others agree with me, and are getting sick of it.--Spoony (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  @FAMAS: Please use your sandbox to draft articles. Small stubs aren't useful to someone who has encountered some bullshit they haven't heard of, turn to Google for answers, and stumble upon the RationalWiki page -- which comprise the majority of viewers of RationalWiki. It's better to have 1 thorough debunking than 10 sources-needed stubs. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - @FAMASAgreed. @DiamondDisc1 is good at creating drafts, so I'd recommend asking him for help there. If you need help editing anything, you know where to find me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - in reply to users @FuzzyCatPotato, RoninMacbeth, DiamondDisc1, and Spoony, this user asserts the fact that this user resorted to summoning the remainders of rationalwiki community in R&D efforts for the articles thus necessitating the stub articles with templates displaying the need for expansion, which will act as massive notices for the community and persuade the community to expand them.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[38]] [[39]] 14:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Creating stubs isn't helpful, if a link is blue people will think "this article already exists, it doesn't need my attention." If a link is red people are more likely to want to make a decent article on the subject. Christopher (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - This user wishes to tell that user that this works:-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 19:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  Welcoming users[edit]
  Hey FAMAS, just so you know, we generally only welcome users after they've made some contributions. Just for future reference. Thanks. Also, do sign your welcome post, mmk? Decidedly not a sock of User:Fareeha_A 18:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  - "This user asserts the fact that that user is welcomed to the rational wiki, and anticipates that that user will create pages the the community of the rational wiki will develop along the lines of its purpose in relation to its mission, which will act as a notice for the members to contribute to the articles of the rational wiki." They'd run a mile. Bicyclewheel
  19:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)