User talk:MarcusBritish/Archive 8

__NOINDEX__

A beer for you!

 * I'm teetotal but thanks kindly. Heh. — Marcus(talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Marcus, good to see you back. I you're anything like me you'll have a long list of articles you want to work on! If you're looking for something to do, we could use an extra pair of hands at WP:MHACR. All the best, HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  01:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Howdy, Harry. I haven't decided what I'm going to go yet, but I don't think I'll be as "full-time" as I used to be for some time. A lot of the articles that I have on my watchlist and to-do list from 3 years ago have barely advanced in all that time which tells me there's little or no interest in them, so I won't pursue articles with low interest for the sake of self-indulgence. I would consider ACR but it was through trying to get involved in reviewing that led to conflicts and being blocked 3 years ago. Until I've found the ropes again and settled into what interests me I think I'll stay away from areas that I know can cause contention. A lot can change in 3 years. Or not, as some topics have proved... — Marcus(talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you're back. Good to see. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. — Marcus(talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox, etc.
I did not want to place this among the interchange on "Stolen Drafts", because I felt that it might distract readers from dealing with your concerns; however, I have much sympathy for you, and share your concern over what happens. Sorry for being so brief in my comments (and remember, these suggestions are being made in relation to your future activity, not in relation to addressing the past problem of the taking of your work from your "sandbox"):
 * (1) If there IS a problem with the "sandbox system", and I think that there is, the problem only arises when you "SAVE CHANGES".
 * (2) In the absence of the "SAVE CHANGES", none of the text in your sandbox is "searchable".
 * (3) In the absence of the "SAVE CHANGES", none of the inter-Wiki cross-linkages that appear in the body of your sandbox text are "operative" -- in the sense that, until you have hit "SAVE CHANGES", none of the linkages work in a backwards, external way from-the-referred target-Wiki-article-to-your-draft.
 * (4) When working on a draft, and when you use "SHOW PREVIEW", all of the "forwards", from-your-draft-to-the-referred-target-Wiki-article linkages "operate", but none of the "backwards", from-the-referred-target-Wiki-article-to-your-draft linkages can be activated (simply because, at this stage of the process, the referred-target-Wiki-article's "what links here" does not register).
 * (5) So what I am in the habit of doing is (using a particularly mechanical sort of approach):
 * (a) when working in the sandbox, I completely code all of the inter-Wiki links and all of the external-to-Wiki URLS corresponding to references, cited works, etc.
 * (b) when working in the sandbox I only use "SHOW PREVIEW".
 * (c) when I am satisfied with a section (or, of course, when I have had to finish for the day), rather than using "SAVE CHANGES", I cut and paste the entire text to a new WORD page and save that WORD page (and, therefore, with all of the embedded coding and Wiki-markup within the text in that WORD document).
 * (d) then I delete all of the text on the sandbox page (thus, leaving it blank), and then hit "SAVE CHANGES".
 * (e) then if I want to work on a new section, I simply create the text (with appropriate mark-up) in the sandbox -- and go through (a) -(d); and, finally,
 * (f) If I want to adapt, amend, or embellish something that I have already been working on, I simply cut and paste the stored text from the relevant WORD document, and then proceed as above.

Hope that helps. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think I understood most of that. I like to save the article periodically in order to make sure that it meets MOS standards, something I'm fussy about, and that any images and tables fit and flow properly, which you can't do as well with preview because it's either in a frame or doesn't have all the elements a saved article needs to display properly.
 * I also do 5c and retain an offline text document of my work, although I use Notepad++ rather than Word, which I find interferes with Wiki markup too much. I only like to paste into to Word to help spot spelling/grammatical mistakes.
 * Because my article is going to be huge -- I mean, we're talking Napoleon's entire military career here -- I like to see how it will eventually look in Wiki and if any elements are causing loading issues. I prefer to include the markup as I go along, rather than later, so I don't miss anything later, given its potential size.
 * I had the draft blanked to hide the contents, the sock editor that stole it actually had the nerve to revert to a previous version and steal the content for live publishing. I don't know who he is or why he felt he had the right to do that, but I have asked the admin who blocked him who the sock master is -- more out of curiosity than to confront him over it -- I don't expect it to be someone I know, but it could be. It could be that his only motive was to steal my work and claim the glory for himself, in which case he deserves a slap for his cheek.
 * Thanks — Marcus(talk) 05:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo
My mistake. Sorry! I read the ordering of the previous two edits. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed, it's okay, easy mistake to make. — Marcus(talk) 11:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "If" very Spartan of you (both for brevity of the posting and the word) { -- PBS (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... you picked up on that quick. Kudos! — Marcus(talk) 21:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

nitpicky
At Talk:Audie Murphy, would you please strike "pain in the butt"? The rest of the post describes actions, but this is directly addressing the person. In normal circumstances this would be no big deal, but I believe it would be better to remove ammunition from the drama. Many thanks! 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It's said in the past tense and "pain in the butt" is hardly an offensive term, since I could have equally linked to our very own WP:DICK page. Let's not get liberal with a potential nuisance. Don't make a storm in a teacup. That's all I have to say on the matter of his past edits, and believe me, I was biting my tounge when I typed that, so let this sleeping dog lie... before I run out of colloquialisms. He's on a 2-week block, he won't come back and start a fuss over nothing. If he does, meh... I don't do crying over spilled milk. To be honest, I think my suggestion that he has a high self-opinion of himself is likely to bruise his over-inflated ego more than anything. Also, calling him a "former pain in the butt" gives him a chance to consider his behaviour now and pull his socks up... so I prefer to leave it for effect. The more editors he sees opposing him based on his previous edits, the less likely he is to repeat himself because he knows how they'll respond. It's just a shame that someone can be so stubborn as to attempt to reinstate their edits after 3 years of trying and failing with a 4-year gap. That's got to be in the DSM-V. As I said on the talk page, it feels like someone's playing a game with us... like an advanced form of trolling, because I don't believe someone can really be that ignorant or adamant. He knows how we'll react so why does he bother except to gain a reaction? Seriously, the only drama is in his head, it doesn't matter what any of us post, nice or not, he'll find a way to keep on whining about something or someone, though he doesn't intimidate me in the slightest and I have no intention of playing coy with him, he was an extreme pain in the butt and if he needs to be reminded of it for the sake of preserving the integrity of the article, so be it. We wasted 3 years of our lives on him, he doesn't deserve a minute more. — Marcus(talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

== Response to...

I'm not gonna reply to your latest disgusting rant on the talk page in question, because to do so would serve only to move that discussion further into a direction it does not need to go, and because this is quite a separate matter. I will say only that your post borders on hate speech (but I guess I'm a sensitive little pansy for pointing this out – not in a homophobic way, of course), and if you imagine that you can trivialise the use of homophobic slurs, or use such slurs in a "jokingly" ambiguous way, and claim to be an LGBT ally, you are mistaken. If you imagine that anti-LGBT attitudes are the exclusive preserve of "people with certain religious attitudes", I suggest that you are wilfully deceiving yourself. Some of the most homophobic people I have had the displeasure of interacting with pretend "not to care" whether someone is gay – meaning, in practice, that they do not care about gay people or their perspectives. "I'm not homophobic, but". The EDL and similar troglodytes pretend to "oppose" anti-LGBT attitudes from Islamic extremists (I am amused by the ambiguity of your phrase "defensive of anti-LGBT attitudes", which is in effect what your comment is), but they are not LGBT allies.

Quite apart from our disagreement on measurement issues, I pointed out that you had used a term that could be construed as abusive towards gay men. You could simply have done the honourable thing and admit you were wrong to do that, but you chose not to, and instead felt it was more important to belittle me for being concerned about this issue, and imply that it was my fault for finding potentially homophobic language objectionable. If you are actually interested in being a friend of LGBT people, you will listen to them and try to understand them. If not, please continue to say stuff like you posted on that talk page, so everyone can tell what kind of human being you are. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we go again, you're one of those think-skinned (à la Trump) people who projects everything onto themselves, even when it's not about you. "Hate speech" – yeah, that's actually funny... but you'll find that "hate speech" is a legal determination, and since I'm not calling for gays to be outed, tortured and hanged, or trangenders to stay out of bathrooms, I'll just pin it down to your over-sensitive imagination again, and deduce that the only thing up your butt is your own head, along with your self-centered ideals. I don't need to told how to be an "LBGT ally" – funny that you use the term "ally" when it suits you to do so, but oppose the use of what you consider "bellicose terms". You are overly hot-headed, biased, inventive in your arguments (bearing in mind that I was not the first to see right through your Strawman arguments), and highly pretentious remarks, since you never miss an opportunity to state your profession, having a degree, and now you think your sexuality is a factor... then wonder why you're considered a Diva? Dude, you are so fucking self-absorbed and lacking in dignity and modesty, it shames me... a candid bisexual man... to have to share the "LGBT" banner with you. Ohh, looky... cat's out of the bag! Take a moment to get over your disbelief or to mutter "closeted homo" under your breath, since gays are known to discriminate too. And, on we go....
 * Now you know why I don't need your guidance on LGBT matters... though what you wrote reads more as a form of indoctrination, again... "becoming a friend of LGBT people". Oh yes, right... because all straight people get along, right? And all gay people get along, right? But "never the twain shall meet"? Once again, it's about you, when I read between the lines... it's about my not being a friend of YOU... not of LGBT people. You know, there are so many anti-gay terms now... pansy, queer, fag/got, puff – plus, like 100 others I've never even heard of (List of LGBT slang terms) and you think my comment equates to "hate speech"? Do you know how ridiculous, vain and delusional you sound? You need to grow some balls, mate... or at the very least develop a thicker skin and stop being so domineering. Bullying to avoid being bullied still makes you a bully. Go on, take a moment to deny that you act like a bully. Flush with rage. Relax. And on we go...
 * British LGBT people have fullest extent of legal rights, regarding same-sex relations, and discrimination in employment and military service. There is no conversion therapy here, no segregation in bathrooms or pubs, no institutionalied victimisation. So why are you such a downer, acting like we were living in Putin's Russia, or with Westboro Baptist Church here? I'm not an "ally" of LGBT people, I'm an "enemy" of LGBT haters. Same concept, diffent practices. I don't hang with gays, or mingle with the gay community like it's some special brotherhood... I don't see the need, the entire concept of "being with my own kind" which some LGBT people follow is stupid to me. I do, however, strongly oppose anti-LGBT preachers, politicians, groups, religious ideals, laws, and behaviours... because, though I'm not "liberal" I do believe in civil rights for all natural human traits, regardless of sexuality, gender, age, colour, disability. Note that I say "natural", because I'm also strongly anti-organised religion and oppose secularism, religious rights over natural rights, etc. I also oppose people comparing homosexuality to mental disorders, paedophilia or criminal traits. As for you mention of EDL... the EDL, BNP, Britain First and such groups are, to be frank... all cunts with ASBOs. I don't like white supremacy... and just as I am unashamed to call a gay man a "bruised fruit" for acting like a wuss over a few comments on a forum, I have similarly challenged these white extremist fascists and accused them of having penis envy when they attack blacks. Tell me, does that mean I'm not a very good "ally of white people" or are you finally ready to accept that my means of getting under people's skins, because they're out of order themselves, is most effective? You want an apology for my using the term "diva" – okay. :I apologise for not being psychic, for not invading your privacy and doing a background check, for not reviewing your bedroom habits, for not accepting your lack of a sense of humour, and for not considering that you posess a persecution complex, before using a term generally associated with temperamental people rather than those of a homosexual persuation. It seems to me that you not only want to rewrite history in a scientific manner, but also change the meaning of several words in the dictionary. So yes, the fault was yours. The English language didn't make the term diva "potentially homophobic language", you did, and now you want to impress your opinion on others. You're not only losing the RfC because it's a stupid bloody suggestion, but because you present yourself in a bad light. I don't need a lesson in what's "honourable" from someone who can't even accept that he's losing the debate, and losing so badly that the outcome has inevitably turned against him... but then, you've tried shifting the goal posts so many times, I doubt you even know where the ball is coming from anymore. As many a good comedian would say: being offended is not a right, it is a choice. You choose to take "diva" that way, even though it was written that way. Your objection has no desired effect on my use of the term, though that's mostly because I think you're making it up for attention. Which you've now received, in detail.
 * What kind of human am I? Life's too short to give a shit what other's think. In 100 years we'll all be dead, and neither you, nor I, not anyone else will give a shit. That's my philosophy. Why not adopt it and go the extra mile (sorry, I mean 1.6 kilometers) and try being yourself instead of a know-it-all prude? Maybe it's just your Scottish blood making you a grumpy cynical git. Oh damn, am I "racist" too! ;)
 * Adios! — Marcus</b>(talk) 15:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are an LGBT person who wrote a comment about LGBT slurs that more than one gay person thought came across as homophobic in the context (FWIW I asked another gay guy and he agreed with me that the comment went too far, for reasons unrelated to whether I personally found it offensive, which I did not, just trivial and unintelligent), then that to my mind is actually kinda creepy. "Hate speech" is a broader term than a formal legal definition can encompass. In my experience, a lot of it comprises "plausibly deniable" comments that leave a gay person wondering "was it meant that way or not?". This is why the concept of microaggression exists. Even if you have decided that you hate my guts over some trivial spat that you probably won't remember next year, this is worth bearing in mind.


 * >mutter "closeted homo" under your breath
 * I have never endorsed biphobia and never will; I call out these attitudes from gay men when they express them (or am I a "know-it-all prude" for doing that? maybe I should just "not give a shit" and let bigotry slide). That is yet another unwarranted personal attack. You seem to have a a loose trigger finger for these. Funnily enough, this is the only thing you have said that has come close to causing actual personal offence to me.


 * >don't need your guidance on LGBT matters
 * Being LGBT and being infallible on LGBT-related matters are not the same thing.


 * >it shames me... to have to share the "LGBT" banner with you
 * Dude, this particular fight belongs to all of us. You also know approximately nothing about who I actually am.
 * Maybe the best explanation of this is that we're just fundamentally psychologically different people and cannot interact productively with each other. You seem to have determined solely from a handful of talkpage comments, and knowing nothing else about me, that I have almost no value as a human being. If we're talking "diva" traits, you've over-reacted so absurdly to comments on a Wikipedia talkpage that you didn't agree with that you've compared me to Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. How is anyone meant to take such comparisons seriously?


 * >why are you such a downer
 * Homophobia still exists. Saying that we don't live in a more homophobic place doesn't make it go away. There is no acceptable level of homophobia. If you find that "dogmatic" or "indoctrination", we fundamentally disagree.


 * the entire concept of "being with my own kind" which some LGBT people follow is stupid to me
 * It's not stupid to want a community of likeminded people; it is close to a human universal (unless your name is Diogenes, perhaps). Other queer folk, broadly speaking, understand stuff that straight people usually don't. In certain contexts it is easier for LGBT people to relate to one another than to straight/cis people. IMO it's cynical and almost spiteful to portray yourself as superior to those people (among whom I count myself) for wanting that.


 * >comparing homosexuality to mental disorders, paedophilia
 * I understand this, but both of these things are involuntary (people do not choose to have mental illnesses, including pedophilia, and the stigma associated with them is IMHO one of the greatest failings of our society). Of course, people who experience sexual attraction to children cannot act on it ethically, which is the difference. But they're still entitled to an enjoyable existence, in as much as that can be provided for them without compromising other peoples' rights.


 * >I'm also strongly anti-organised religion and oppose secularism
 * Agree with the first part, the second part I find alarming. The freedom of conscience, which includes the freedom to be a religious Luddite, or to live naked in a barrel eating nothing but onions and keeping the company only of dogs, or to ingest whatever consciousness-altering substances you desire, is for me the foundation of all liberty. If you're suggesting that the state somehow needs to suppress religion (which is what I take "oppose secularism" to mean) then that is a terrible idea – it has never worked, and it is a one-way road to tyranny.


 * >The English language didn't make the term diva "potentially homophobic language", you did
 * I go with Wittgenstein; meaning is use. People use such language with homophobic overtones (even if you are not aware of this), which makes it so. This isn't something I have made up out of malice.


 * >losing the debate
 * I grant you this; I'm a scientist, not a lawyer, and I simply do not perceive the world that way. Debates about matters of fact, rather than about e.g. policy, usually accomplish nothing important in the real world. If you could have got people to vote on the text of the Principia, would the history of science have been different? Probably not.


 * >you present yourself in a bad light
 * Which is precisely why debates are such a fucking stupid idea. The criterion is not whether my arguments were correct or even whether I am competent, but whether I am well liked as a person. Like letters of recommendation, another fucking recipe for systemic nepotism that serves no function other than to prioritise people who are well-connected. But that is quite a separate rant.


 * >Ally of white people
 * This doesn't make sense. The term "ally" in this context means someone who does not belong to a marginalised group but supports it.


 * >my means of getting under people's skins, because they're out of order themselves, is most effective?
 * I have seen no evidence of its effectiveness, since all it has done here is derail things and start a very different argument. But funnily enough, we are perhaps closer on this than it might seem. I can also be a subversive asshole, and many other things, when I want to be; I am not, in other contexts, the person I appear to be on Wikipedia. Knowing as little about you as I do, I can say it is not impossible that we could encounter one another anonymously in a fetish club one day (perhaps we have?). But in your comments, you need to take context into consideration, as well as the perspective of third parties. Others reading such comments, who are not party to your internal thought processes or sense of humour, will likely see them as gratuitous and unprofessional. It is not likely that others will be receptive to a tongue-in-cheek diatribe on anti-LGBT rhetoric in the context of a discussion such as we were having, especially when it was such an in-joke that one of us didn't get it at all because he didn't realise the other one was also an LGBT person. That is why I said such comments risk bringing your project into disrepute.


 * >Your objection has no desired effect on my use of the term
 * Your lack of consideration for other people's feelings is charming. But, I cannot be a "Kim Jong Un" and force you to take them seriously.


 * >In 100 years we'll all be dead, and neither you, nor I, not anyone else will give a shit. That's my philosophy.
 * Why do anything? Why edit Wikipedia? IMHO this philosophy of life is unlivable to anyone but a psychopath.


 * Archon 2488 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I addressed everything I want to in my first lengthy post, I don't have anything to add. Only a correction or two:
 * "oppose secularism" means keeping religion out of politics, not out of society altogether. I'm not a religious Luddite, but laws and government policy should never be based on religious ideals... that's how the majority of bad laws came about in the first place, especially those against gay men, which led to a lot of injustice (e.g. Alan Turing). There should not be prayers at council meetings, no Bibles in hospital bedsides, scrap the 26 reserved seats for Bishops in the House of Lords, no teaching Creationism and avoiding sex-ed/contraception in schools, those kind of things. If I was opposed to secularism in the manner you suggest I'd be demanding an end to Easter, Christmas and all the Bank Holidays named after Saints. I'm not that deeply opposed... but religion isn't natural, it's a choice.
 * I don't have a "philosophy of life", that would be too broad, I have a "philosophy on society" based on the saying: "actions speak louder than words". My philosophy is that if you worry about every little opinion everyone has about you, or your life choices or your interests then you're going to end up spending more time worrying about them instead of getting on with your own life. When someone has an opinion and you decide to take it personally, it's you problem, not theirs. Which is why it's easier not to give a flying-fuck about negative criticism. Because in 100 years, if you've wrote a book or made an album, that's a continuation of your existence, but if you get called a "faggot" by some anon kid online and go mad about it, in 100 years no one will care what transpired... it's easier to move on and not give it a second thought. Why waste the calories? It's not about bringing the fight to the arena, it's about picking your battles... and the reason you wasted your breath calling me out for "hate speech" is because no one reads through wikipedia looking for life changing stories – the threads get read, processed, archived and forgotten pretty quickly. Except when someone becomes a drama queen and tries to make it something big. But we both know those who try that usually fail.
 * Oh, and no, I don't do fetish clubs or gay bays – not my thing, I don't like flamboyent men, drag queens, etc. There is no gay scene in my town, no gay bars (was once but it's closed down), but even if there was I wouldn't be interested. I don't even like pubs in general, because I don't really drink so I don't find them interesting places to socialise. Regardless, what is a "likeminded" gay? It's almost like saying straight people can't understand the mental processes of gay people.
 * As I said in the RfC "how do you that I'm not gay?". It wasn't a hint, but you clearly dismissed it. Lesson there, don't jump to conclusions.
 * I don't believe in biphobia, as such. IMO it's just an extension of homophobia... people not wanting to accept that someone can like the same sex, or gays not wanting bisexual people to have it both ways on the fence, and that they should choose. But I've never experienced any form of biphobic abuse, and wouldn't give a rat's arse either way. I have no problem with using what are perceived as anti-gay slurs, but like Eminem, a "faggot" to me is a complete and utterly contemptible person... like the current POTUS. He's the biggest faggot on the planet, IMO, but he's not gay. And if someone calls me a faggot, I don't take offence as though it were an anti-LGBT term either, I just assume they think I'm a contemptible prick too. And they're probably right, so why argue?
 * On a final note, I don't think paedophiles have a mental disorder or some form of nono-standard sexuality that involves kids. If that were true then it would mean that people who wanted to get sexual with animals or corpses have some form of non-standard sexuality too. No, paedos, necrophiliacs and those into beastiality are all just sick freaks... I don't care what the DSM-V says either... that book is so broad now it cannot be taken seriously, it markets disorders without strong scientific backing or lists them like some form of sponsorship... these people are freaks of nature, we shouldn't get liberal with them or offer them sympathy. Paedophilia should be stigmatised and eradicated... they pose a danger to the most vulnerable and naive group in our society. Didn't you see the news today about the FBI saving 80 kids from sex trafickers and arresting 120 people involved? All of them need the death penalty. And if this nation had capital punishment I would gladly become a hangman and help eradicate such criminal elements in Britain... no sympathy, no leaway... going after kids for sex isn't about being ethical... what's ethical about being a grown man wanting to shag babies but holding back? A normal person shouldn't ever have those desires in the first place, and I don't believe any genuine mental disorder exists that would make a grown man prefer a baby, or 5 year old kid, over a person of their own age group and sexual maturity. These people either need to turn themselves in for treatment... physical castration of the bollocks, preferably, or risk commiting an offence, being caught and then dropped from a rope. All padeos want is to control, abuse and gratify themselves with minors. It's a perversity not a disorder. They know it's wrong, that's why they hide themselves away, manipulate their ictims with high levels of intelligence, and often kill their victims to discard the evidence. Better off dead, IMO. That's all I have to say on that.
 * — <b style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray; color:#531BFF;">Marcus</b>(talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your views so forthrightly. Sincerely, I appreciate it, even where I disagree. This is gonna go off-piste for a WP talk page (it perhaps already has). I'm trying to communicate that, far from needing to be advised to "try being [myself]", I already am :). To give a motivational quote from a video game (which is not as motivational as it first appears), "there is only you."


 * >"oppose secularism"
 * Secularism is exactly what you describe in this paragraph, with which I totally agree. I don't know why you think (for example) that secularism would mean opposing the scrapping of bishops in the Lords, which is something that the National Secular Society has campaigned for for many years. Of course religion is a choice (so is having sex with other men, by the way) but it's a choice that people are entitled to make in a free society. But I agree completely that people who make such a choice do not thereby deserve any more of a say in how the country should be run, or earn the right to a higher social status. That's what secularism means – no more, no less.


 * >spending more time worrying about them instead of getting on with your own life
 * Sure, completely agree. I'd recommend Stephen Cave's "Immortality" as a good read on how narratives of immortality (including cultural legacy) have shaped human civilisation. Shelley's poem "Ozymandias" is a good counterpoint to the idea of cultural legacy: future generations might well not share your priorities and just not care. The religious lunatics who have spent the past few years demolishing Mesopotamian ruins didn't care that they were robbing posterity of them, or robbing their creators of a sort of illusory immortality. My own worldview is perhaps closer to John Wilmot's "Satyr Against Reason and Mankind", or Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals".


 * >forgotten pretty quickly
 * The beautiful paradox: the same is true of human life, or almost all of it. The reason Roy Batty's death scene is one of the greatest in film history is that in an instant, you see the humanity in this dehumanised, mass-murdering, supposed automaton, as he realises and owns the fact of his own mortality – and so does Deckard, who also implicitly realises that the dividing line that his society has taught him between "human" and "replicant" is bullshit. People have fought absurd ideological wars over what "the Truth" is; the truth is that all human experience is like tears in rain, and you can't step twice into the same stream (Heraclitus).


 * >I don't like flamboyent men, drag queens, etc
 * So these are acceptable forms of bigotry, in your mind? My gender presentation is such that everyone I meet without exception assumes that I am heterosexual. I'm quite a stereotypical "science nerd" guy and I have about the deepest voice of any of my friends; society places undue weight on these superficial things. Many people actually do not believe me when I tell them that I am attracted exclusively to men, because our society irrationally associates "I am a [masculine] man" with "I want to sleep with women". I am what society would consider to be masculine, and I have never seriously questioned my gender identity or how I want to express my gender in my life. However, the attitude that many people, sadly including many people in the LGBT world, express towards camp guys (sissy-shaming, or whatever you want to call it) is fucking disgusting. I've known plenty of "masc" gay guys who were disloyal, selfish, insufferable arseholes, and plenty of feminine guys who were wonderful, genuine people who taught me more about humanity, including the shite they go through even after coming out and being shat on by a gay world that doesn't like "poofy" men. The fact that they express themselves as they do is a problem to nobody; it arises because society sees "feminine" as "lesser" (q.v. misogyny).


 * >what is a "likeminded" gay? It's almost like saying straight people can't understand the mental processes of gay people.
 * There are life experiences that every gay person has had that no straight person has had, just because of how our society is structured. So, in this particular sense, all LGBT people are "likeminded" (of course we can disagree and hate each others' guts for innumerable other reasons). Sure, we and straights can empathise with each other, but building a community is a different matter. There's a reason that the ascendancy of LGBT rights coincided with the creation of a meaningful LGBT community.


 * >"how do you that I'm not gay?". It wasn't a hint, but you clearly dismissed it. Lesson there, don't jump to conclusions
 * Dude, I had no way of knowing how rhetorical that question was. Such a question could easily have been used as a rhetorical device by someone with malicious intent.


 * >I don't believe in biphobia, as such. IMO it's just an extension of homophobia... people not wanting to accept that someone can like the same sex, or gays not wanting bisexual people to have it both ways on the fence, and that they should choose.
 * You've literally just stated one difference between them. Bisexual people can face abuse and discrimination from gay people for not being gay; obviously, other gay people cannot. The fact that bisexual people don't perfectly "fit in" with either group makes them susceptible to abuse from both (and I call it out wherever I see it). I'm glad that you have not personally been subjected to it, but others are not so lucky. Even overlooking the existence of bi people is a form of arseholery (bisexual erasure) that I would try to challenge (I've been called out for doing it myself in the past, so no high horse here). When gay men express these attitudes ("I'd never sleep with a bi guy", "bi now, gay later"), as well as the anti-sissy attitudes you don't seem to care about (one of my gay friends seemed to think it was socially acceptable to refer to a mutual friend who was more effeminate than him as "a poofter"), I duly get creeped out by them.


 * >I have no problem with using what are perceived as anti-gay slurs
 * OK, but other people do, which is the issue (I'm actually not one of them, and IMHO the etiquette around the use of these terms is hugely dependent on context). You can use them liberally, which implicitly communicates to those people that you don't care what they think or feel, or whether they've been beaten up by thugs shouting those terms at them in the past. The human scum that hammered Matthew Shepard's skull in with a pistol butt probably shouted words like that at him as he lost consciousness. Hence contextual awareness. The fact that you, as an LGBT person, do not immediately see a problem with it, does not mean that no problem exists.


 * >And they're probably right, so why argue?
 * Because people don't have an automatic right to use slurs against you? Man, don't be afraid to stand up for yourself. The only reason terms such as "faggot" exist is to belittle people like us for being who we are. They serve no other function. If you want to say that someone is being dishonest, lazy, abusive, manipulative, whatever, then describe the trait they are manifesting that is a problem. Don't say that they're a problematic person by saying, implicitly, "they're so worthless they might as well be homosexual", which is what "he's a faggot" literally translates to.


 * >paedophiles
 * This is an immensely difficult topic, and I wish our society could deal with it better. The kneejerk response, understandably, is to try to protect children by shouting moral condemnation at adults who are attracted to children. But I find the emergence of movements like "Virtuous Pedophiles" encouraging – people who have this attraction are feeling empowered to come forward, be honest about it, and seek support. Because, as horrendous as their sexuality is, they are still human beings. Think back to the Roy Batty scene, if you like. Can you empathise with the idea of going through your entire life suffering from a sexual attraction that society would never accept? I can, knowing how gay people have been treated. Of course it's not exactly the same, because such people can never act on their feelings, which I actually feel tremendously sorry for. Through no fault of their own, they will never experience sexual or romantic satisfaction. When you ask "what's ethical about being a grown man wanting to shag babies but holding back?" the answer is, "holding back". This hypothetical person has recognised that his uncontrollable sexual desires (and if you are expecting me to believe you are such a superior human being that you can control your sexual desires, please mate, pull the other one) would be harmful to vulnerable people if acted on, and has resigned himself to a life of celibacy. For the sake of ethics. Have you ever done something like that out of purely ethical consideration? I know I haven't; I'm fortunate enough never to have needed to.


 * >A normal person shouldn't ever have those desires in the first place
 * People literally said this about being attracted to the same sex 50 years ago. Again, loads of caveats apply, but. Now personally, I can't begin to understand where the desire could come from, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to a) empathise with people experiencing it (I kinda want to say suffering from it) and b) design a social system to prevent these people from suffering undue harm and prevent them from raping children. Your proposed system of castrating or executing people in this category would a) prevent them from coming forward (to say the least) and b) for this and other reasons (more of them will continue to appear; unlike Nazis you can't just kill them all and be done with it), probably not protect children. I'll give you a case study. The Catholic Church portrays itself as a beacon of sexual propriety. Clergy need to swear off sex for life, no sex allowed outside marriage, sex for procreation only, no divorce, etc. Quite a strict and conservative code of sexual morality. By contrast, for many generations, people like me would have been depicted as weird and deviant because we're unashamed and unafraid of our sexuality, and we see it as a natural part of the human condition.


 * The reality (I don't need to tell you) is that the Catholic Church has operated as a front organisation for the systematic sexual abuse of children, because of the corrupting effect of power. You correctly identify some child rapists as people who abuse positions of power (and this is true of adult rapists – in a masterpiece of irony, Cardinal O'Brien, former scourge of the villainous homosexuals of Scotland, was found a few years ago to have horrendously sexually abused several men in positions junior to him), but there is also evidence that deformities in the white matter of the brain can lead to intrusive sexual thoughts about children, i.e. that pedophiles' brains are somehow wired differently, such that the "protect and empathise with children" instinct gets blurred into the "sexual intimacy" instinct. One instructive case was a man with a tumour who, when it infiltrated a certain part of his brain, manifested attraction to children, and when it receded, did not . It's worth considering whether there's a medical solution, at least. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't know how, but whenever I meant to type "non-secular" I only typed "secular"... despite knowing what I meant. Fingers typing too fast without brain verfiying... I'm opposed to religion enforced on us, so that means I oppose non-secularism... for 26 Bishops to have unelected seats in the Lords is a mockery of our democracy. But then, so is the Lords and every crooked Peer in it.
 * Again, you write too much into my comments and project feelings. When I said "I don't like flamboyent men, drag queens, etc." That's it. The sentence ended there without my elaborating. All that stuff you put about "sissy-shaming" means nothing to me nor did I imply it... you ask "So these are acceptable forms of bigotry, in your mind?" Yes... because it's not bigotry, it's a preference. Like prefering blondes over brunettes, or tall men over short men. Or women with big tits over flat chests. Or confident women over timidy women. I don't like flamboyance – that doesn't mean I "hate camp men" or "bash on sissies", it just means I don't like flamboyant men, period. I don't like drag queens, period. There's no bigotry in that. It's not hate. I don't like flamboyance, limp wrists, lisps, hands on hips, in men. It all comes down to this: if a man is gay and wants to be loved by other men, why does he chose to behave like a woman? Any man attracted to that might as well just get a real woman. It's alien behaviour to me... I don't hate it, I just don't find it self-respecting, because it's all an act... and people who need to put on an act are claerly suffering from self-esteem issues. I don't like to use the term "straight acting" but for so you know what I mean, for the sake of clarity, I prefer gay men who seem like your average everyday bloke behaving naturally, whose personality doesn't revolve around his sexuality and being effeminite. Again, it's not hate... it's my preference. I don't sissy-shame, gay-bash or whatever which is "active hate" nor do I object to their behaviour behind their backs. I simply chose would not socialise with people from that corner of the gay community. As it is I don't socialise with any gay people, so it doesn't matter if I like them or not anyway. And I actually love Graham Norton's mannerisms... I mean, he's camp, but he's Irish camp, so it's hard to tell where the Irish ends and the camps starts in him. Now consider someone like Julian Clary or Alan Carr – no thanks, too far. Older gay men like Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi, George Takei come across as regular guys. Or John Barrowman... perky, but likeable. See the pattern? I'm naming gay actors who are so well known that it's impossible not to know they're gay, even when they're all generally straight-acting... because I don't really care who is gay... I don't follow gay news, celebs, trends... just which arsehole politicians, preachers or celebs are launching fresh anti-LGBT attacks so I can go verbally scorn them on Twitter or Facebook, or sign some petition which gets them fired, because karma often needs a nudge. You talk about there being a "fight", trust me, I've given more conservatives a verbal bashing than you're had hot dinners... I loathe those people, emphatically, to their graves and beyond.
 * There are only 2 medical solutions for paedos: chemical castration or lethal injection. Depends if they're convicted child abusers or voluntary seeking treatment for their sick tastes. Castration of paedos should be viewed like chemotheraphy – destroying a disease early before it takes over.
 * Actually, I am in full control of my sexual desires, that is to say I've always found myself capable of being being able to direct my desires accordingly, and to reject unwanted ones with ease. I have very strong will-power and self-determination, and don't believe us humans have as many natural instincts as animals, except for survival instinct. All animals want to mate and pass on their genes, humans have evolved to think outside of that box. We all have a libido, but I find mine easy to manage. And yes, I have made a major ethical consideration in my life... my family blood line involves some unusual genetics which can promote cancers 50% of the time. It came to me, I beat the cancer. So I have made the ethical decision to never have children to go through what I went through. The genetic line ends with me, I'm taking it to my grave. I haven't gone so far as to get sterlised, but I could. Perhaps it is my refusal to ever have kids that lets me control by sexual desires. Perhaps it is also what makes me bisexual... since a same-sex partner wouldn't be threatened my choice.. who knows? Either way, yep... controlling sexual desires doesn't need super human conditioning, just strong motivation. My motivation is to remain child-free. It doesn't upset me, I don't think of it as "a bold sacrifice" (my dad does), I simply made the decision years ago and know it is the right choice. Doesn't require a life of celibacy, but I've always prefered solitude, so it's not like I'm resigning myself to a life of misery. If I really wanted a kid, there are plenty that need adopting. I'm a "shit happens" kind of person... you have to take what life throws at you, no point crying about what you can't control, just make the best of it or seek alternatives. Every gay guy knows that, though, right? "The story of my life!" you think? — <b style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray; color:#531BFF;">Marcus</b>(talk) 22:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change
 * : — <b style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray; color:#531BFF;">Marcus</b>(talk)

to
 * : — <b style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray; color: #531BFF;">Marcus</b>(talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Carlton bank photo
Hi Marcus

I used to live in Carlton and your photo captures the Bank perfectly.

I would like to get it printed for my mother's Xmas.

Is ther any chance you could email me a high res copy?

Many thanks

Morag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.60.159 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Which photo of the Bank would you like a copy of and please provide an e-mail address. You might want to register and use the option to e-mail your details to me. I'm not sure what the highest quality photo is that I have until I dig the files out. Thanks. — Marcus (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Over the line
Your comments here are way over the line with respect to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Would you like to replace with a moderated comment, or do I need to seek help to get that removed? Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree you need to seek help, but not in the same context. In order for one to assume good faith, others must first demonstrate it, that is a fact. I believe you fall foul of that, per WP:PLAYPOLICY. Go cry to admins all you like, you have left a hefty paper trail of contrived comments, ignored attempts to reach consensus and intepreted policy to suit yourself. I think this goes far beyond policy. Any man who starts and maintains his own bio, thus determining himself as notable, has one hell of an inflated ego and deep-rooted narcissism. I determined a while back that a man such as you, who invents technology for the internet, is probably a millionaire, or close. I don't need to verify it, because I don't care. You proved your elitist nature by the way you look down on wiki projects and talk down to others who don't agree with you. I think you are a cheat and a bully, who strives to only to get what he wants, and derides anyone else as unworthy of opinion. I won't be bullied by the likes of you or anyone. It may be the norm in Texas for older men like you to be domineering and authorative, but don't ever dictate or make idle threats to me. I don't have to like you, I don't have to trust you, and since you have never shown any respect for me or those MILHIST member who opposed your Campaign to revise history for your own ends, even though you play the WP:CIVPUSH character like a pro, I likely never will. Don't demand respect from me. Don't cry foul with your record of cherry-picked N-gram returns. I could pull enough of your conflicted comments to raise an ArbCom case, if necessary. Can you even lie straight in bed or does it have to bend to your will also? And so far as Napoleonic histry goes, that is my main area of milhist; I own dozens of books on the topic. But I sure as hell ain't going through them for hours looking for 2 words to satisfy your whimsical ego. The fact is, references to many war campaigns are seldom used mid-sentence, more as titles or in an introduction, but it is fallacy to think historians repeat them over and over. Focus is on battles more often than not. The Waterloo Campaign is often given alternative names such as the Hundred Days Campaign or the Seventh Coalition, since Waterloo was not Napoleon's end goal. If he had won, at least against Wellington, we might just as easily be calling it the Brussels Campaign, or the 1815 Campaign. Fact remains, you embark on your crusade uneducated in historical terms, not having read actual sources, and arming yourself only with N-grams as so-called evidence. And I'm still ont convinced that you're not utilising wiki as a testing grounds for Google, given your connections to them. Be very careful how far you go, or push me, with your threats. If this did go to ArbCom, they too might review the validity of N-grams or your abuse of them, and you might find yourself challenged on a much larger scale, given how many problems could be raised with regards the merits of using N-grams and the fact their data contradicts core wiki policy in several forms. You're like Anatoly Dyatlov to me, you act like everyone is stupid but you. You ignore obvious problems, appear vain in responding to others, and can't help being close-minded and obnoxious when challenged. It's such a shame, though no surprise, that people like that still exist in the world. And how can I know this? Well, you see Dick, I'm a realist – I can take a block better than you can handle criticism, and since I always speak my mind I'm used to biased websites blocking me from time to time. Should I boo-hoo over butthurt idealists? If something I said offended you, perhaps you should try to censor my online opinions, if you can't deal with them like a mature adult. You'll find they are on many platforms and are far-reaching. Maybe I should thank you for that, since you gave me Ethernet? I don't do hate or harassment, I just don't tolerate bullies. Can you say you're not a bully, guided by your own egotism and attempts to be influential on a webproject which requires community consensus as opposed to dictated terms and policies that don't exist, except when you spout them to your detractors? Good luck seeking help, I care not a jot. I know the truth hurts those who are most afraid to deal with it. I have nothing to fear from you... I stand by what I say: N-grams is a farce and you abuse it. If I need to take that to the wider community, I will. Your threats won't silence the truth. I don't redact or moderate or apologise on demand: when I say something the die is cast. I take time to moderate my comments before clicking Publish, which you should be glad of, sometimes I type much meaner things, then tone them down. You'd think a Texan would have more respect for someone who speaks their mind, since you're the only true Americans, or so I hear, you should have a greater respect for free speech. You're free to speak your mind to me, cowboy, I won't go cryin' to my pa if you cuss at me. The only alternative is to "build a wall" and not communicate further, but I don't feel that's proper when the issue of naming Campaigns remains unresolved. Before you make any rushed decisions, read WP:POV railroad and decide whether you want to board that train. — Marcus (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not interested. — Marcus (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack removed
Your personal attack at Talk: Waterloo Campaign has been removed. This was done per consensus on WP:AN (the link sent you above this one) and because Wikipedia [[WP:NPA | forbids personal attacks]. Focus on the content only, and try to keep your comments a bit briefer, no one's going to want to lead a long wall of text. 13:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Corps
From the article “Cavalry Staff Corps”: “Consisting of four troops of cavalry, the corps was first raised in 1813”

Can the terms “troops” and “corps” be defined more accurately?

As an American, a “troop” to me means a company sized unit while a “corps” consists of 2-5 divisions but I’m guessing neither of these are accurate for this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:C102:C5BC:FD53:F42B:272A:B9B7 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

emails
Please do no send me any more. The last two made no sense. I have no wish to have contact with/from you. This includes any unblocked account you have. Thanks, -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * is never acceptable. I've blocked you for a week, but the discussion in progress may result in a longer block. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Winter is Coming. — Marcus (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@ – I demand that the accusations here be removed and suppressed as defamatory and libellous per WP:Oversight. I have never engaged in the off-wiki behaviours detailed therein. These are unsupported and fabricated claims, morally, legally and factually. I also insist that the user be dealt with appropriately for posting grossly false claims in such a manner. The entire comment is a crass poison pen statement designed to encourage or incite hate. The nature of the comment far exceeds my own in terms of uncivility because they are intended to be provocative slurs. — Marcus (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NLT: The request above makes no threat. Please ignore the dog whistling post by Dlohcierekim aimed at you, . He's clearly becoming retaliative and resorting to off-hand measures contra policy. Triggered and needs to cool down, else he's only proving that he can't handle himself socially and resorts to attacks of his own, since he is currently casting false aspersions and clearly feels provoked. [Don't forget context BMK]. Such behaviour only works to support my comment. Wouldn't want that, would we? The other editor continues to lie regarding his comment, insisting something is true yet still offering no evidence. The pair of them are baiting quite maliciously. Sad. Only Trump would be proud of their methods. — Marcus (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinitely for Disruptive editing and personal attacks, per the ANI discussion. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Courcelles (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Using SUL to export en.Wikipedian shit to other wikis is a sufficient pretext for deprivation of the global account. But, for the record: no ban from en.Wikipedia stands for this person. He only is unable to contribute for an indefinite term, and boring unbanning procedures will not be required in the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MarcusBritish, this is pretty sad. "Pat my back and I'll stick my finger up your ass mentality." That doesn't even make grammatical sense., if I can bother you for a moment, MarcusBritish, who has seriously outworn his welcome on this project, was sending harassing emails, so I revoked his access to that functionality; they sent me some BS via the Hungarian wiki, apparently. There was also this, "And even then how do you know this is not my only account?", and some nonsense that suggested we admins are Nazis and he is a victim of a Holocaust. You have global powers, don't you? If you could pull the plug on this person, that'd be great. Thanks, 02:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
 * ✅, globally locked. Trijnstel talk 13:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Napoleonic Wars
Portal:Napoleonic Wars, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Napoleonic Wars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Napoleonic Wars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Napoleonic Wars portal


A tag has been placed on Category:Napoleonic Wars portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)