User talk:ScepticWombat
(→Hiroshima) |
(→Hiroshima) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:Now that sounds plausible (i.e. protected patches of skin '''not''' being burned), rather than the inverted examples mentioned in the article. Again, I see no problem in highlighting the truly horrific effects of the nuclear blasts, which caused multitudes of terrible burns. And I admit to being wrong about the example, so thanks for the pic (however unpleasant it may be). [[User:ScepticWombat|ScepticWombat]] ([[User talk:ScepticWombat|talk]]) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | :Now that sounds plausible (i.e. protected patches of skin '''not''' being burned), rather than the inverted examples mentioned in the article. Again, I see no problem in highlighting the truly horrific effects of the nuclear blasts, which caused multitudes of terrible burns. And I admit to being wrong about the example, so thanks for the pic (however unpleasant it may be). [[User:ScepticWombat|ScepticWombat]] ([[User talk:ScepticWombat|talk]]) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Some synthetics will worsen burns when they melt onto skin, so that could cause patterns to be burnt into skin.--[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | ::Some synthetics will worsen burns when they melt onto skin, so that could cause patterns to be burnt into skin.--[[User:TiaC|TiaC]] ([[User talk:TiaC|talk]]) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::True, there are things that could have happened but might not be written down. However, I think EE is taking more than a bit of artistic license with a number of articles, like inversing what happened with the thermal impacts and patterning of skin. It's just guessing without a source. Some license would be no problem, and I know I have done it, but it's getting a little out of hand with this...Hitler owning slaves, not as bad as with the bug bite pain scales...people are reverting these issues more often than known pains like RobSmith. -[[User:EmeraldCityWanderer|EmeraldCityWanderer]] ([[User talk:EmeraldCityWanderer|talk]]) 20:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:44, 31 December 2014
What's up, buddy? Welcome to RationalWiki, the internet's most cherished goat. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Contents |
You are
Autopatrolled- in other words, us admin folk no longer get notified when you edit. This is our way of saying "you've been doing some good shit around here". If you keep up the good work, it's likely that you could be further promoted (or as we say here, "demoted") to a sysop/admin- this demotion will give you the abilities to change some user rights, to block people, and to do a whole bunch of other stuff I can't remember right now because I'm tired as fuck. Anyway, yeah. Keep up the good work! DØØM MĖSSIÅH Push the envelope, watch it bend
10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Whoah! Thanks a bunch! Don't know what I'd do with "greater rights", you know, power corrupts and all that jazz..., nah, I really couldn't care less about other users' abilities to share their wisdom and/or ignorance. I'm simply happy that I no longer have to complete a word puzzle for every edit I make (whoohoo!) :-D
- ScepticWombat (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Addressing people
Just a heads up: no need to copy/paste the signature links of the people you mention on talk pages, especially the more... decorative ones. Typing the name or a reasonable approximation of the name is enough. Even initials are sufficient, if it's clear who are you talking about. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism
Please don't vandalize pages on RationalWiki, as you did at Republican Party. Continuing to do so can result in a block on your account. FrankNFurter (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since when does replacing a grossly simplifying edit with a more accurate and snarky one (which also links to more relevant RW articles) constitute "vandalism"?
- PS. I can see that someone else preferred my version too, since it has already been reinstated. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Greetings!
Thank you, I suppose, for the "welcome", rather than the unwelcome. ^_^ (And Happy Christmas!) As you might be able to tell, I am not the standard RationalWiki visitor. But I looked at the mission statement and POV of this wiki, and while I will not make the scientific method my God (my be-all-and-end-all, for there is more to reason than the natural sciences), I think we have a lot more in common than not.
Now it seems very irrational to attack St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI alongside John Calvin and Ray Comfort. In my naïve Catholic rationalism, it makes you all seem just as bad as the fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalism is bad, precisely because it attacks things foreign to it without discretion. And it seems Christianity is attacked almost without discretion on this wiki.
That being said, I understand why, somewhat. There are many truly irrational and science-hating Christians here in America, where most of the editors hail from. And a lot of them make a lot of press. I am personally opposed to this sort of thing, and would like to help the viewers and editors of this wiki discriminate between the anti-scientific and scientific (in the sense of encompassing all sciences, including the natural sciences, history, philosophy, and even law). [Only if you reaaaaaaalllly have the time.]
I am not the most learned man in the world. I have much to learn. But we could be allies against made-up nonsense - real made up nonsense - even if y'all wants no part of mah religiyun biyzness. What d'you say?
174.19.85.155 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC) PS: You may call me "Fr. Yuriy Shevchenko", even if I never get an account. PPS: Happy Christmas, and/or Channukah and/or Kwanzaa if those are still going on!
The importance of the selection' process in the evolution of wiki page
Hello. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to look at the work I had done on the evolution page, before it got rolled back.
I got the distinct impression that the person who rolled it back meant well, but didn't actually read my changes. The stuff above the index had gotten a bit long, so I moved much of them are in the new Overview section. It's possible that it was thought at a glance that I had deleted other people's work or something, but that is simply not the case. I do not know who is currently active in here, as I am new here, but you seem to care about the topic of evolution, so I'm asking. Thanks.
DonaldKronos (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm somewhat flattered by this "referee request", I think the proper place for such a dispute is on the evolution talkpage and/or the talkpage of ZooGuard, who reverted your changes. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hiroshima
He's wrong about the reasons for it, but kind of right about the effects; the thermal pulse from the bomb did things like leave areas of unburned skin where people were wearing wristwatches, and there were cases where people received burns which corresponded to their clothing (eg this) but they weren't as comically horrific as is being suggested. King Skeleton (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Now that sounds plausible (i.e. protected patches of skin not being burned), rather than the inverted examples mentioned in the article. Again, I see no problem in highlighting the truly horrific effects of the nuclear blasts, which caused multitudes of terrible burns. And I admit to being wrong about the example, so thanks for the pic (however unpleasant it may be). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- True, there are things that could have happened but might not be written down. However, I think EE is taking more than a bit of artistic license with a number of articles, like inversing what happened with the thermal impacts and patterning of skin. It's just guessing without a source. Some license would be no problem, and I know I have done it, but it's getting a little out of hand with this...Hitler owning slaves, not as bad as with the bug bite pain scales...people are reverting these issues more often than known pains like RobSmith. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)