User talk:WatcherIntheDark

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Isn't there someone else you can annoy? Friends? Family? Poisonous reptiles?

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Contents

[edit] The SM article

I think it would be better to let them write for a while, then wipe it.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But then it wouldn't be a distraction from the tax essay I'm supposed to writing. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost

Your proved you have no interest in ever revealing any form of that information on rationalwiki, regardless of how it's worded, or else you would have done it your self. Prove me wrong by posting a version you find acceptable or admit you can't create anything useful. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not copy straight from Wikipedia is not a difficult concept to understand; it's even small words. If anyone wants to read straight copies of Wikipedia articles can they do so at Wikipedia. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Come on, Exiled Encyclopedist. You don't want to antagonize other users, especially if you're new. I'll help you write the article once I've finished my dishes and laundry, okay? From what I've seen, WatcherIntheDark just doesn't want there to be any copying and pasting from Wikipedia. And I support that. If the wiki just copies other people, it'll just harm its reputation and credibility. Also, content from Wikipedia isn't necessarily right for RationalWiki. Just be patient, and I'll come by and help you out, I promise.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Also, WatcherIntheDark, if Exiled Encyclopedist is indeed the author of the original Wikipedia passage, accusing him of plagiarism is quite unfair.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

He did not originally write anything I removed, I checked beforehand. You are also right that my objection is the copying and pasting not the information itself WatcherIntheDark (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You removed what I said about Umm Nyuluk you ass. Also this is now an issue in the chicken coop. I can understand not wanting to tell people how to fake ghosts, but that's also the way you debunk. I can just cite the parts from Lives of the Necromancers if you prefer, but a more complete picture would be more useful. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

As already requested, please take your objection to my edit to talk. Do not undo my changes again. SuperInfinity (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you not like the edit? SuperInfinity (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] How the hell is that "Crack pot" spam?

Did you even read what I typed? It's not spam! This is a wiki for debunking claims by cracks, so why did you remove it?

You do realize Chip Tatum has never been debunked by someone, so you could be the first!


Just want to let you know: Just because someone genuily asks a question about a whistleblower does NOT mean they're a "crackpot"! It gives the impression you're censoring.--71.222.47.95 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

talk:WatcherIntheDark seems to be what can be called a #mockingBird.

[edit] Do you deny the truth?

Is this why you seek to hide it? --Elvis is King (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I would like to learn from you by working on an article, will you educate me through assistance and example?

I would think that were those references reworded by an expert on avoding repetition like your self, than it would make for an excellent way of proving your superiority over me. Educating me this way helps you as much as it does me. I'd love to work on an article you choose though, name one. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios from EE?

I see this edit - is EE actually posting slabs of copyright violation? - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call it copyright violation but it is heading in that direction. The text I removed can be found here and here with almost no changes (there are some few word swaps in the first paragraph while the second is verbatim). When the copying was from Wikipedia it less of an issue but EE's branching out to other sources is more problematic and makes it slightly more difficult to track down original sources WatcherIntheDark (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Shuffling a few words counts as plagiarism and, if from a non-PD source, copyright violation. This is extremely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Food Babe

Stop reverting my accurate updates you cunt. Who made you God, asshole?

[edit] Dean Irrebod(d) doesn't exist, but appears to be another pseudonym of Denierbud

You deleted the section on Holocaust denial pertaining to "Dean Irrebod" because he doesn't exist. However, "Dean Irrebodd" (note double d) is apparently yet another pseudonym, along with "Mike Smith" of "Denierbud". The latter's YouTube account is currently empty of videos, but "Dean Irrebodd" does have an entry at the website of the Holocaust revisionist Barnes Review. A section (rather dubiously) entitled "Holocaust Handbooks & Movies" contains all the videos mentioned, though the original poster here on RW made yet another spelling mistake in the title of one of them (should've been "Dumb Dumb" not "Dumb Bumb"). I'm not sure if Irrebodd/Denierbud/Smith is interesting enough to make this particular RW (dis)honour list, though. That's why I didn't simply revert your deletion. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi could you explain the revert? Thanks.--206.255.11.166 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Statism revert

You simply reverted. Why did you revert?

[edit] Who are you?

So who are you? Seriously, can I speak to you on the phone? Your edits are ridiculous.

[edit] kill this pls

A few other people FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] That wasn't pro-crackpot spam

It was someone complaining about a crackpot. Hard to tell, I know they used a crackpot style to write their post. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd have left it but it was written by the same individual who has been spamming talk pages with a variety of crackpot links and I'm not prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. --WatcherIntheDark (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why I didn't outright delete LM's Statedidit crankery

Hi WItD, I was sorely tempted to simply trash LM's latest piece of crankery unilaterally, but that would have seemed a wee bit hypocritical coming on the heels of me appealing to AgingHippie and Nutty Roux to call in the mob, rather than ego-wielding their mops (however justified the cases may be). Also, given my experience and run ins with LM, I'm hardly an impartial judge, so if I also grabbed the jury and executioner's caps, that'd be tad bit problematic. Anyway, I doubted that I'd have much of a problem getting this particular turd flushed off mainspace. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sorely tempted to trash most things LM writes but I limit deletion to those in main space WatcherIntheDark (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Same here. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts without reason

This guy seems to have a habit of reverting edits without providing any reason.--72.223.111.221 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's not the only one reverting your persistent and silly little edits and I fully understand if WItD, FuzzyCatPotato, CIA, myself and whoever else have reverted your tedious edits doesn't feel the need to write a summary of every revert. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
He hasn't provided a single valid reason for a revert (even after asked in an edit) nor has he participated in any talk page rants to discuss his reasoning. If he wants to undo my edit and then protect a page he should be able to defend his reasoning. Right now, I'm speaking for the MKULTRA article in particular, because I don't think he has anything logical to say about it --72.223.111.221 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The reverts of your edits to MKULTRA are logical, because while you argue that not all conspiracy theorists think X, the paragraph in question concerns (only) those conspiracy theorists who do think X; hence your hedging makes little to no sense in the context. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
How does the paragraph in question concern only those conspiracy theorists who think X(all events that could conceivably have been contrived by the CIA is a false flag MKULTRA operation)?
It does not specify, as it clearly states that MKULTRA "continues to be cited as evidence for further unspecified CIA nefariousness by conspiracy fans" and this statement follows the one involving X which is speaking about conspiracy fans--72.223.111.221 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Because "conspiracy fans" is quite obviously the vague place holder used to indicate "conspiracy theorists who suspects that CIA is behind everything", not all conspiracy theorists. Jesus, you seem to bring your wikilawyering attitude to every single edit. This is not a prosecution manifesto naming the accused in a trial. It is clearly meant to point to the inflated claims by conspiracy theorists about MKULTRA.(See? I did it again, I omitted "some" because the context and common sense makes it rather obviously that I'm not referring to all conspiracy theorists) Hedging is simply unnecessary if the reader bothers to read (and understand) the entire paragraph, rather than jumping straight into quote mining. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Do we now block people for being whining asshats?

Hi WItD,

I suggest that you unblock LM (otherwise, I will). Sure (s)he's a moron and a whiner, but neither is something that is usually punished by a block on RW - especially not a multiple-day one. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't block LM for being a "whining asshat", I blocked him him for the deluded breach of contract threats. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I must have missed that one - but then I suggest starting a coop case. LM has a record, after all, and I do like to see the mob pitch in. If LM is up to more of his pseudolegal posturing and (more or less) veiled threats that got him blocked last time I'd like to hear what the rest of the mob think is a fitting punishment - LM might actually merit a longer block than you've dished out. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifically it's this edit, the others flow from it. Starting a coop case seemed counter productive given LM's love of pontificating there and the whole point of being to keep LM's drivel confined to as few places as possible. (I'd also have to actually participate in it and I've tried to avoid ever going near the coop, even when I've been named in a case.) I was hoping 3.6 days would give LM something to think about (though I'm not optimistic) but if you think the coop is worthwhile it is probably worth considering. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Hell?

What's wrong with a little bit of organization? Why did you undo that edit? I didn't remove any text from it. It doesn't make any sense for the description of the bills to be oddly placed in the middle of all that information about them (and I wrote that paragraph for the most part).--FedTruther (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support