Talk:Metapedia
[edit] Research psychologist's edits
A lot of the things he is adding to this article he either added to Metapedia or his actions caused them to be added, either way he is essentially using this article to spread the "hate speech" he was spreading there. I don't think he should be allowed to add to the quotes section as we don't really want this to be a proxy for him to spread racist views. - π 07:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
HA HA HA! You just made a reckless mistake, Pi. Your anger is making you unstable.
I love how you try to put a polished covering over it with your wording (e.g. "proxy for him to spread racist views"); it's just so comically pathetic!
Anyone can look at the edit histories of all of the metapedia articles in question and see that Pi is a liar; I didn't add any of those ridiculous things to metapedia.
What's next Pi- having made such a deliberate deception against me, are you next going to try to assassinate me? Both actions are acts of great anger and deliberate focus.
Research psychologist (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am not angry, what gave you that impression I am? You did add that stuff about east-Asian only being good at torturing people, I had a look. - π 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that was Hu1. However, I still think there is way too much of this crap and I don't want to turn this page into a outlet of this kind of material. - π 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- ???... Come on, that stuff that I pointed out on metapedia is ridiculous. Who are you afraid is going to believe that crap who doesn't believe it already? An escaped mental patient? ...Besides, if you don't want the page to be used as an outlet for racists, then there are some more believable statements that you should be removing. Research psychologist (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. I would like to hear someone besides yours or my opinion on the matter. - π 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the edits some of that stuff was pretty unbelievable.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thoughts on how little or how much to include? - π 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- The changes are here. No point in including the Wikipedia or V for Vendetta comments since they relate to stuff on talk pages or buried in edit histories rather than in articles. Kitler is a deleted article. Few of these are direct quotes, & they're not really adding much to the article. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- The changes are here. No point in including the Wikipedia or V for Vendetta comments since they relate to stuff on talk pages or buried in edit histories rather than in articles. Kitler is a deleted article. Few of these are direct quotes, & they're not really adding much to the article. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Thoughts on how little or how much to include? - π 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Looking through the edits some of that stuff was pretty unbelievable.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever. I would like to hear someone besides yours or my opinion on the matter. - π 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- ???... Come on, that stuff that I pointed out on metapedia is ridiculous. Who are you afraid is going to believe that crap who doesn't believe it already? An escaped mental patient? ...Besides, if you don't want the page to be used as an outlet for racists, then there are some more believable statements that you should be removing. Research psychologist (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that was Hu1. However, I still think there is way too much of this crap and I don't want to turn this page into a outlet of this kind of material. - π 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] What they say, redux
Section is a bit of a mess, with some direct quotes mixed in with our "takes" on what MP says. Can we pick one approach--I prefer the former, let 'em hang themselves with their own entrails--and be consistent? P-Foster (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. I will revert RPs edits on sight, however. It has failed the test of endless edits that sucked eel soup. ħuman
05:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer direct quotes with quotation marks, referenced with screenshots if possible. I also think we only need a half dozen or so, enough to get the point across that they are racist bigots, without this becoming a site mirror. Lets be honest what isn't copied straight from Wikipedia is stupid, we don't need to copy it all to show that. - π 05:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the irrational one. ħuman
06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the irrational one. ħuman
- I say we leave in only the wackiest quotes, and take out the more basic moderate stuff that one would expect. That way, it's more of an exposé. Research psychologist (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be quiet, you. The grown-ups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha ha! I see you're pissed that a good suggestion came from me! Research psychologist (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's a crap suggestion--obviously the "basic moderate stuff" is of little or no interest because we've already established it's copy pasta from WP. and it's really not much of an exposé when the site wears its ideology on its sleeve. now run off willya, kid...P-Foster (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you actually think that that quote on Race came from wikipedia? The site's mission statement only states that it is 'pro-european'. Research psychologist (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about ANY particular quote? And who f=cares what the mission statement says; it should be obvious to anyone who reads at above a fifth-grade level that MP is what it is--I fail to see what sort of a coup one can score with a great exposé. It's pretty damn obvious all the way through. P-Foster (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you actually think that that quote on Race came from wikipedia? The site's mission statement only states that it is 'pro-european'. Research psychologist (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's a crap suggestion--obviously the "basic moderate stuff" is of little or no interest because we've already established it's copy pasta from WP. and it's really not much of an exposé when the site wears its ideology on its sleeve. now run off willya, kid...P-Foster (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. We should have a few examples, with direct quotes, & none added to the article by Metapedia editors/supporters. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- RePsy's reversion was left in again, so I went ahead and cleared out some of the quotes and reformatted them while I was at it. His edit had a single quote that wasn't his own work, dull, or fake; past that, some older ones were pretty dull and/or long since toned down. Feel free to add any you guys like (if you can find them on the site; screenshot cites would help), I just went with what seemed like the best examples. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice work Kuposoop. Much better. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice work Kuposoop. Much better. Wéáśéĺóíď
- RePsy's reversion was left in again, so I went ahead and cleared out some of the quotes and reformatted them while I was at it. His edit had a single quote that wasn't his own work, dull, or fake; past that, some older ones were pretty dull and/or long since toned down. Feel free to add any you guys like (if you can find them on the site; screenshot cites would help), I just went with what seemed like the best examples. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha ha! I see you're pissed that a good suggestion came from me! Research psychologist (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be quiet, you. The grown-ups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer direct quotes with quotation marks, referenced with screenshots if possible. I also think we only need a half dozen or so, enough to get the point across that they are racist bigots, without this becoming a site mirror. Lets be honest what isn't copied straight from Wikipedia is stupid, we don't need to copy it all to show that. - π 05:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- All the quotations need reference links with capture tags, or deletion - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Looks like I've confirmed the foolproof formula for making my opponents weaker: Help an opponent after getting them to hate you, and they will permanently reject one's help and refuse to admit to themself that their opponent was helping them, such that they harm themselves. I likewise got metapedia to permanently reject a ton of racial science material using that method, so now they will forever look like the unscientific bigots that they are. Egotism is such an exploitable weakness. Gya ha ha ha ha! Research psychologist (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from the quotes that were written by you two weeks ago, your grammar was bad. Please don't post megalomaniacal soliloquies here. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha! I see that I upset you a lot, to make up such things about me. Wanna tissue, Kupochama?
- P.S. The only metapedia excerpt that was at all created by me was that quote on Rupert Murdoch, which I later prefaced with "there is an allegation that" when I learned that it was a lie, and then Hu1 changed it back. Research psychologist (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't challenge Research psychologist, he is the genius that control the internet by making people angry. I think he might be the hat guy. - π 03:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Change section to "What it said"
I changed section name from "What they say" (a stereotype) to "What it said". What the wiki said at one moment could be the work of wandals, or "they" may have changed their mind since. If we linked to Metapedia, reader could see current version but I guess that has privacy implications or something. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, though (since the Wiki is still around) why not go present-tense and title it "What they say"? Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sound like good idea or no? Who has verified this is what their communEntity said (and not just some wandal) and that it is what they say still? It will always be truth that something is what it (the wiki) said (unless someone make fake screen-shot). This wording is far more accurate. (Side note: I write about discrimination against racists in Wikipedia. Interesting is Chomsky's Jewish wisdom quote written by Trivers.) ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, how about "What it has said" then? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh you meant it sounds like wiki is no longer around. Yes that is better then. I thought your edit history comment said "How about 'What it has said to Lumenos?'" I misread but look at good reply I write already: With wikiforum rules we would sign the individual "comments". I suppose it is just as well when you have screenshots because you can easily see the source of the screenshot (so long as it is not anon IP address). ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 02:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, how about "What it has said" then? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sound like good idea or no? Who has verified this is what their communEntity said (and not just some wandal) and that it is what they say still? It will always be truth that something is what it (the wiki) said (unless someone make fake screen-shot). This wording is far more accurate. (Side note: I write about discrimination against racists in Wikipedia. Interesting is Chomsky's Jewish wisdom quote written by Trivers.) ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a better idea: bother to look through the history on Metapedia and see if it really was something said by a regular. Then leave the article heading not being stupid - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both suggested titles are rubbish. I've changed it to "sample comments" & removed or amended other instances where we've referred to the website as "they". Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- +1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you will bother finding the true author, put their name as the source (along with the screenshot. If you put direct link instead, Human may delete. I guess they could change their edit history. To me ideal would seem to be both, but these gentle(wo)men may be more edumacated in the fine art of cyberstalking.) ~ Lumenos 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both suggested titles are rubbish. I've changed it to "sample comments" & removed or amended other instances where we've referred to the website as "they". Wéáśéĺóíď
[edit] How to link?
Thanks for tracking down the links Kupochama. However, tinyurl does nothing useful (besides annoying Nx) since the external linking at RW is configured so as not to impact web rankings. If we do link directly to a hate site, we should link to it directly. Alternatively, as suggested in some of the comments above, we could use screenshots instead of direct links, to avoid sending our readers to a hate site. Personally, I could go for either option, but what do others think? Either way, I think we should also tag some or all of the links with some kind of NSFW warning. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome. I just went with it because it was apparently the custom at WIGO:4R (elsewhere on the page) to "filter" them that way. I lost track of recent opinions, other than that there's no official restriction...but anyway, I imagine the captures could have their links removed. Alternatively, the links could just be copied into the refs from the captures/meta-links.
- As for NSFW, I tacked a little warning on the footnotes before reading this. (That "negroid" edit scared the crap out of me.) A NSFW template could help if someone wants to go measure the racism concentration levels at each one, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. I didn't notice that you'd capturebotted it - good thinking. I just added a NSFW warning in the article text as well without noticing yours. So I'll tidy it up some. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. I didn't notice that you'd capturebotted it - good thinking. I just added a NSFW warning in the article text as well without noticing yours. So I'll tidy it up some. Wéáśéĺóíď
- I see no reason not to make them not just reference links with the full URL visible as sufficient warning, e.g. as done on European Union Times - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but your YET article was the straw that changed the camel's back. Please stop using it as an "example". ħuman
06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- The substance of your objection is not clear. (Nor what you're talking about with YET, if you're not me.) I suggested it here because I thought it a good idea. What did you consider a bad idea? Etc, etc, etc. Clear, indisputable rationality please - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but your YET article was the straw that changed the camel's back. Please stop using it as an "example". ħuman
- I suppose I agree. Since our links don't seem to boost stuff to #1 on Google, I doubt we're tricking anyone into becoming racist. That said, I'm burned out on wiki-ing, so I'll leave it up to others for now. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- The capture pictures do a good job and if Metapedia ever gets sucked down the intertubes, we will still have them. - π 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if readers do want to check out the site, maybe it's better that they can go there with a nofollow link, rather than looking it up themselves on Google, which could boost rankings. So maybe there should be an external link section with a single direct link to the site, with due warnings etc. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 06:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah hah! Yes, that way should be. But then they might go now and then get meme in memery bank, then do search later. We need experience sheeple trainer tell us right way. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if readers do want to check out the site, maybe it's better that they can go there with a nofollow link, rather than looking it up themselves on Google, which could boost rankings. So maybe there should be an external link section with a single direct link to the site, with due warnings etc. Wéáśéĺóíď
- The capture pictures do a good job and if Metapedia ever gets sucked down the intertubes, we will still have them. - π 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Coppicing
To me, a stump implies something that has been cut down or hacked off. The bit about trees not regrowing is/was way off the mark. Many species can and do recover vigorously after being cut down; this is a common technique for obtaining copious firewood, etc. - cut the tree down every few years. The reason for the rapid growth is the large existing root system. I once cut down a damaged white birch and the dozen or so new stems grew to 15' and 3-5" thick in three years.
In other words, their choice of words is ignorant. ħuman
23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I still like the comparison, since it does imply that the things won't grow (to we uneducated "most/all trees don't do that" folk)...but I dunno how common that perception is. Guess it should be removed in a while, if nobody can reword it to be funny without much ignorance. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. ħuman
08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. ħuman
[edit] "Internet hate site" = a bias newspeak epithet
This website is currently in a category called "internet hate sites". However, regardless of ideological affiliation, this can in no sense be considered a legitimate category. The term is an Orwellian newspeak epithet, associated mostly with Communists and Jewish propagandists, in an attempt to strangle freedom of inquiry and to blacklist any form of free speech which dissents from their totalitarian party line. If anything, Metapedia is an "internet love site", dedicated to the love of European people and culture. - Neutralist (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's quite funny! Well done!--BobSpring is sprung! 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- George Orwell poked his nose out of the grave and told me to remind you that he was a devout socialist and anyone who might defend Metapedia probably isn't his kind of people. EVDebs (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced "hate" is the best description. It is preaching to the choir. Homophobia is another one of those words. Is bigotry always rooted in fear [or hate]?
- To call MP "pro-European" also seems to lack accuracy. Wikipedia is probably the most mainstream wiki, run primarily by decedents of Europeans (including Jews). It seems that most with European ancestry, doubt most of MP's unique claims.
- MP's uniqueness is not simply racial ("European"). It is sexuality conservative, for example. ~ Lunemouse 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I rather think that I'm with neutralist on this one. I think that we should find a way to get the phrase "European love site" in there somehow. It's such a wonderfully inappropriate description of the place.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thy will be done. The intro is getting a little messy, but I like it. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- We have a place for "fun" articles BOB! Remember the mission. ~ Lumenos 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Luckily, we also have an entire wiki for snark. Plus, the whole "hate" thing isn't actually part of this article anyway, while Metapedia's "love" for "European" people certainly is. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice, after reading this, that is exactly what I was going to suggest. Very good work, and a great way to twist the knife the interlocutor brought back into their own ribcage. ħuman
00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice, after reading this, that is exactly what I was going to suggest. Very good work, and a great way to twist the knife the interlocutor brought back into their own ribcage. ħuman
- Lumenos, snark in mainpage articles is on-mission. Be as silly as you wish, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the facts. Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this in the last year or so. EVDebs (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Luckily, we also have an entire wiki for snark. Plus, the whole "hate" thing isn't actually part of this article anyway, while Metapedia's "love" for "European" people certainly is. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I rather think that I'm with neutralist on this one. I think that we should find a way to get the phrase "European love site" in there somehow. It's such a wonderfully inappropriate description of the place.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I got Poe's Law'd and was about to call out a Nazi concern troll. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Not again...
The formatting for citations is messed up like it was on the OS Wars page a while back, and like that page, it seems to be caused by the Internet template. Citation 1 is supposed to be for a comment I wrote for the disambiguation notice about Meta-Wiki, but instead it goes to a completely unrelated citation from the Swedish Wikipedia. Could someone fix this? I'm worse with wiki syntax than I am with programming and Web development. --GastonRabbit (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me... ħuman
22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I moved it to the top of the code, under the bronze template, so that's why it looks better. But putting it in the middle (I don't know why it was there to begin with) screws things up. --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] No links....
Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but what is the point of not linking? If people are going to read the article, they are going to want to see for themselves, so it is not as if not linking MP actually reduces their traffic in anyway. (Maybe discouraging/banning discussion/mention of them might, but would you want to do that?) External links from here are rel="nofollow", so compliant search engines (including the one everyone cares about, Google) won't increase MP's pagerank due to links from here. So really, what's the point? Zack Martin
08:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because IIRC they can track back site that link to them and we don't want that crap in our lives. Have you read their RW article? --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because they'll see RW as the referrer in the access logs? Yes, if they are watching them. What's the point? They know about RW, they know RW doesn't like them (hey, nothing unique there, not very many people like them, for good reasons)... what difference will it make? I have read their RW article, but please enlighten me as to how it is relevant here... Zack Martin
08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's been shit with them in the past. We don't want it repeated. The policy is no links to that shit hole. If you want to read them, go ahead. But not via RW. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly is this shite of which you speak? Zack Martin
09:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- More than a few trolls in the past. - π 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- They've been trolling here? Hey, part of me wouldn't mind trolling them... but I got the impression they were happy to roll around in their own shit all day long, like (popular misconceptions of) pigs, rather than trying to spread it elsewhere. Zack Martin
10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, uh...I don't recall anyone caring that they can see who referred them. The same could be said of any random site, and it's not really a problem. The only complaint that made much sense was giving them search engine boosts, which is debatable and largely solved by nofollow. Screenshots were just used to avoid arguing about it, really. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 11:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- So to summarise... there's actually no rational reason not to link them, and those who say there is a policy otherwise are mistaken. Zack Martin
09:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if you were around when we debated this but the "policy" on not linking to naughty sites was removed. (Some time later the link to the Community Standards in the sidebar was removed.)
- There are a lot of issues regarding privacy and informed consent on the internet. Now that we have this wicked kewl way of linking YouTube vids on any page, will readers (without Flashblock?) have their IP address, etc sent to the Illumenati when these pages load? There are many times when it is not obvious to ("underage") users what information they are giving anytime they request/click/type. I guess Metapedia trolls might be more dangerous than Google logs but maybe that depends on there being no Zionazi conspiracy or something. ~ Lumenis (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- So to summarise... there's actually no rational reason not to link them, and those who say there is a policy otherwise are mistaken. Zack Martin
- So, uh...I don't recall anyone caring that they can see who referred them. The same could be said of any random site, and it's not really a problem. The only complaint that made much sense was giving them search engine boosts, which is debatable and largely solved by nofollow. Screenshots were just used to avoid arguing about it, really. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 11:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- They've been trolling here? Hey, part of me wouldn't mind trolling them... but I got the impression they were happy to roll around in their own shit all day long, like (popular misconceptions of) pigs, rather than trying to spread it elsewhere. Zack Martin
- More than a few trolls in the past. - π 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly is this shite of which you speak? Zack Martin
- There's been shit with them in the past. We don't want it repeated. The policy is no links to that shit hole. If you want to read them, go ahead. But not via RW. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because they'll see RW as the referrer in the access logs? Yes, if they are watching them. What's the point? They know about RW, they know RW doesn't like them (hey, nothing unique there, not very many people like them, for good reasons)... what difference will it make? I have read their RW article, but please enlighten me as to how it is relevant here... Zack Martin
[edit] Quick Comment
"slave army of beast-men of the demiurge" - I was not aware that Metapedia ascribes to some racist version of Gnosticism. I find that ... interesting. Perceptron (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] thought I'd throw this in for the article (and perhaps other uses)
File:RedOpenSource--work in progress.PNG. "When you contribute to Metapedia, you contribute to Nazism."Civic Cat (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- No thanks. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why not?Civic Cat (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's a mess, & pointless. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I worded the heading poorly. If it's done, or a better version is created, then what?Civic Cat (talk)
- Then I still wouldn't see the point. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Normally I would put a link here to the Metapedia article on Wikipedia, however some posts in this talk page seem to indicate a discomfort with linking to that site. The point is, the Metapedia article includes a version of the RedOpenSource image to discredit Wikipedia and its contributers, who include a number of RationalWikians. Therefore, if we are going to make fun of Metapedia a bit--to add "snark"--then here is my offering: a satire of their satire of RedOpenSource image. The image I have is, I concur, messy, but it might give better artists than I, with better tools than I, an idea on how to make a better image. Such was the purpose of uploading and linking to this talk page.Civic Cat (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The original RedOpenSource is fairly well known & most readers wouldn't associate it with Metapedia. It's a clever satire on OS Wars and red scares. The version at Metapedia is kindof satirical but lacking in irony since they genuinely appear to be saying that Wikipedia is run by communists. Your version is lacking in any subtlety or irony at all. What point is it making? "When you contribute to Metapedia, you contribute to Nazism." No shit. It's not like the site hides its white supremacist credentials. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "RedOpenSource" poster itself is based on a poster mocking anti-piracy adverts: http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.cfm--ZooGuard (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cute ZooGaurd. :-D Weaseloid, must it be subtle or ironic to be humourous or permitted in RationalWiki? Is all humour in RationalWiki subtle or ironic? Is even the original RedOpensource subtle?Civic Cat (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- What do you find humourous about it? Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- (One might ask het men what they find so sexy about women's feet or breasts. :-D ). Sounds like you're asking me to give an analysis on my sense of humour. :-D Of course, I don't really know what I find humourous about it. It maybe that the humour is gross, i.e. in your face. Neo-nazi
shitskinheads are gross. At times I like to be gross in return. "In your fascist face!!" it might be telling them. I'm not even sure if it's humour, but something that is nonetheless as gratifying as most humour.Civic Cat (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)- Weaseloid has basically summed it up. It's completely unfunny, because it's just true. It might be funnier if it said something like "When you contribute to RationalWiki, you contribute to Goats", but even then not that funny. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- (One might ask het men what they find so sexy about women's feet or breasts. :-D ). Sounds like you're asking me to give an analysis on my sense of humour. :-D Of course, I don't really know what I find humourous about it. It maybe that the humour is gross, i.e. in your face. Neo-nazi
- What do you find humourous about it? Weaseloid
- Cute ZooGaurd. :-D Weaseloid, must it be subtle or ironic to be humourous or permitted in RationalWiki? Is all humour in RationalWiki subtle or ironic? Is even the original RedOpensource subtle?Civic Cat (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "RedOpenSource" poster itself is based on a poster mocking anti-piracy adverts: http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.cfm--ZooGuard (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The original RedOpenSource is fairly well known & most readers wouldn't associate it with Metapedia. It's a clever satire on OS Wars and red scares. The version at Metapedia is kindof satirical but lacking in irony since they genuinely appear to be saying that Wikipedia is run by communists. Your version is lacking in any subtlety or irony at all. What point is it making? "When you contribute to Metapedia, you contribute to Nazism." No shit. It's not like the site hides its white supremacist credentials. ωεαşεζόίď
- Normally I would put a link here to the Metapedia article on Wikipedia, however some posts in this talk page seem to indicate a discomfort with linking to that site. The point is, the Metapedia article includes a version of the RedOpenSource image to discredit Wikipedia and its contributers, who include a number of RationalWikians. Therefore, if we are going to make fun of Metapedia a bit--to add "snark"--then here is my offering: a satire of their satire of RedOpenSource image. The image I have is, I concur, messy, but it might give better artists than I, with better tools than I, an idea on how to make a better image. Such was the purpose of uploading and linking to this talk page.Civic Cat (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then I still wouldn't see the point. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Maybe I worded the heading poorly. If it's done, or a better version is created, then what?Civic Cat (talk)
- It's a mess, & pointless. Wèàšèìòìď
- Why not?Civic Cat (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you've heard the expression, "It's funny because it's true." As for this goat thing, I still haven't figured out what that means.Civic Cat (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Such a shame
That such a nice name for a wiki is wasted on a wiki full of neo-Nazi kooks. : / —84.198.53.190 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] End of Metapedia?
The Admin "[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atlantid Atlantid" who added most of the scientific racist content to Metapedia left in December since he has schizophrenia, and even posted he renounced his attachment to the site or their views. I was following this guy, and his debate with the racialist forum Bonesandbehaviours (see talk page). Metapedia now seems to be almost inactive. Saxton (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- And nothing of value was lost. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Put de lime in the coconut, call me in the mornin' 22:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Saxton is Atlantid. He is probably the most deranged liar I have ever encountered.
- http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5299104/1/
- The world would be a better place if he was not in it. 211.168.4.27 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am obviously not Atlantid dummy, i've exposed who he is with details at the above link (as someone suffering from schizophrenia), along with Henry Stevens another lunatic who believes in Nazi UFO's. I can easily look or add data from Anthroscape, or any other forum. However based on the other thread where there is a population genetics debate, we know 211.167.4.27 is Mikemikev from Metapedia. Mikemikev certainly isn't sane either, he has thousands of sockpuppets and is a compulsive liar. As I posted in the other thread: Mikemikev even lies about his credentials i.e. claiming to have studied genetics at the University of Sussex, when he qualified there with a crappy 2: 2 in ICT (the guy is a pseudo-intellectual). Even from his own link: "I agree sometime editors go too far, writing things like 'blacks behave worse than chimps', which I removed myself." Yet, check Mikemikev's avatar he's been using on forums: [1] What a nutcase. Saxton (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the content was removed. I've got the racialism page again locked - because Mikemikev is socking there again. If it wasn't for me you would have him running around all over this site still. The above accounts are both his. He has multiple online persona and accounts with different personalities, and speaks to himself on these socks. Saxton and Charlie Bass are both users where he is impersonating anti-racists on this site, where he debates himself on race or race & genetics. His sock Bass set up the Anthroscape and other entries as 'hit pages', because Mikemikev has been banned on all these sites. He then joins forums blaming his socks onto innocent people.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CharlieBass http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SaxtonDust77 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Um, okay? I don't think we've got any problems here. These are both inactive accounts. Ikanreed (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Needs updating
Sections like "Sample comments" are no longer accurate. UnrealName (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Metapedia's RW article
...suffered a partial rewrite a few days ago, so RW no longer is "a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's still there in the text: "[it] often promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism." Bicyclewheel
09:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. Now we are controlled by Zionists. I guess they will have to take their place in the queue alongside the CIA, the New World Order and Big Pharma. I can't remember who else has supposedly been calling the shots over the years.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that was the snippet that appeared in Google results under the link. Not that it stopped some people from linking to Metapedia in an attempt to discredit RW, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Discredit RW? No way! 203.226.200.153 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I must say that attempting to discredit RW by claiming that we are controlled by radical Jews seems to be a rather difficult way of doing it. I guess that they didn't read any of our stuff which criticizes the old testament god.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Discredit RW? No way! 203.226.200.153 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Reading their article again this from the introduction made me laugh. "Since liberals already control the contents of Wikipedia there is little need to present the liberal factual arguments which are already stated in Wikipedia"
Those cursed liberals and their "factual arguments"! We don't need no "factual arguments"! Facts just confuse things!--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Read this - [2] to see what happened there. 5 admins were banned, and now there is only 1 admin active there called Upplysning. The 5 admins were banned for being "crazies", but the admin who replaced them is no less a neo-Nazi kook. He's obsessed with Jews, conspiracy theories and far-right hereditarian pseudo-science. If you actually look you will see he removed the only sourced anthropology content on Metapedia: [3] instead replacing it with Neo-Nazi crank sources. Supposedly though he regards himself to not be crazy and a "moderate" on race. lol. A total joke. The site just wouldn't moderate itself enough and scrap all the anti-semiticism or Rushton/Lynn worship & crude racism, which is why it was never going anywhere. 5 neo-Nazi loons might have been banned, but one just as nutty replaced them. Those banned admins then set up their own site called "Rightpedia" which is a Metapedia clone. It even is just a 99% copy & paste job from Metapedia.Dust77 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I find the extent of your knowledge to be both comprehensive and disturbing. :-)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- This would be worth noting under the Rightpedia section. (Possibly with an archive.today of that link.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)