User talk:Wasteland betty

You should review how our articles are written. The informal "snark" is a feature, but if you have a strong justification for removing it, more than just "it looks weird and unprofessional", you can always explain so. 23:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is another warning. Please review all those talk pages before making any more edits. Your last edit is unacceptable. 23:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * * MY* edit is unacceptable??? Who the heck are you to threaten me?  This kind of childishness is part of the reason why some people don't take RationalWiki seriously.  --Wasteland betty (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you're wondering, I'm a moderator on RationalWiki who patrols the recent changes. We get a lot of edits trying to remove "editorializing" that swiftly gets reverted because most of the people making the edits do not read our policy pages. The welcome message I gave you isn't some pretty talk page filler, it's information that's supposed to help you understand why your edit might have gotten reverted. Some people don't take RationalWiki seriously but that's because they don't bother researching what we actually are in the first place. Michio Kaku is an example of a person who stretches his credentials and authority to make unqualified statements, which is a reliance on the indisputably irrational Credentialism; we call out on that. What you're doing it is removing our way of criticizing how irrational Michio Kaku is acting, replacing some explicit statements with weasel words ("he went on record about his concerns with nuclear power") or outright validating false statements (you have removed "blatantly false" regarding "core of Chernobyl's Unit 4 core still being molten") and therefore removing some of the truth on him, which is not okay at all. 23:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I concede you are the person in charge. I thought you were just some random guy.  Alright then, I will say I see what you are saying now, but I feel it needs to be more subtle.  Kaku gets a little weird sometimes like with his "5% of UFOs might be real" kind of thing, but he is mostly pro-science and anti-woo and doesn't deserve the treatment on that page.  Compare to Carl Sagan's page who also campaigned against nuclear power and had concerns over nuclear powered spacecraft.  --Wasteland betty (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a more workable solution we can accept. It's really easy to focus on his bad parts, but if you can find some of his substantial contributions to science, it should be really mentioned. Maybe the language can use a little moderating, but I think we have to leave false statements as it is. I think maybe you can remove some of the snark there if you think it's unnecessary. But some statements I still think can stay. "(like he's talking to a 6 year old, and trying to make stuff sound cool)", this is actually a compliment to him. I think the language is indeed rather strong and provocative, but it's rather a conclusion from his words and predictions rather than unjustified attacks on him. Nevertheless, I think reporting on statements do a better job than attaching "fear-mongering", so I've removed some of stronger language. 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)