User talk:GrammarCommie/Archive1

Welcome
Christopher (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you any relation to the Grammar Vigilante? Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can assist me in my "project" of correcting the past participles of prove all over this wiki! —Kazitor, pending 22:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Automatically Patrolled
RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Indwelling to Dwelling in
Just be aware that Denlinger uses "Biblical language" meaning the uses the not so current grammar of the KJV. The word indwell is one such instance. The use of the ablative noun was translated incorrectly as on instead of in. Hence, why the sycophants of the KJV movement claim to believe "on" Jesus rather than using the word in. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies then, I was unaware of that fact. --GrammarCommie (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. Every time I hear someone saying believe on it gets my goat too, and I too want to yell back and correct their grammar.  However, the KJV is the unadulterated word of god and according to the cultists its grammar is perfect. I attempted to explain the use of the ablative case, and I was admonished because I was correcting god. :) MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also If you could hie to Kolob is a Mormon hymn ... Prophet Joseph Smith spoke hick instead of proper English... so yes it is hie as in walk quickly.  Hence the word fraid instead of afraid in the Book of Mormon. LOL.  Its hickenese (pidgin spoken by hicks).  MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That explains it, even though I'm from Texas I can't read Hickenese. (or recognize it for that matter) --GrammarCommie (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sysop
CowHouse (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What have you done? Giving Power to a Communist? Now where have I seen this before? Oh, that's right. The United Nations. Nerd (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Soon Comrades, soon we shall begin the global revolution of...err... Rationalism and Skepticism? Who wrote this speech? 04:04, 1 December 2017
 * GrammarCommie is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star! CowHouse (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew it!!! Communists are plagiarists! Nerd (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Capitalist lies I assure you!!! GrammarCommie (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling
Remember to patrol edits after (or before) you undo them. Both actions are separate. —Kazitor, pending 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

170.140.161.127
Pardon my French, but are you seriously sticking up for a concern-trolling fundamentalist bitch? All of those fundie schools ought to be hard blocked. Samantha (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd honestly prefer them over you. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Samantha" seems to be a Grawp clone. Don't engage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who or what is this "Grawp"? GrammarCommie (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind I looked it up GrammarCommie (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverts on the slut article
Why? Impeach Trump (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at a few of your entries and tell me what you see. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Facts? Humor? This site is full of humor, what's a little more? Impeach Trump (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling sorority girls and cheerleaders "sluts" is neither amusing nor truthful. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is when you are the fat girl who got picked on by them in high school and college. I love giving the Pop Warner girls in my classes bad grades. Impeach Trump (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

apparently had the same idea, because he wrote on there that sorority girls are sluts but someone else must have removed it. Impeach Trump (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please think twice,, about castigating cheerleaders just because they're cheerleaders. Did you know that Representative was once a cheerleader? Being a cheerleader doesn't automatically mean you're stupid. I remember some high school teachers openly stating about how they gave grades arbitrarily: it was the second biggest bummer of high school after having to deal with my fellow students. Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We have an amazing art teacher at our school who has won numerous awards and is well liked by everyone. She went to a religious-right college, is known to have voted for Donald Trump, and she believes in creationism. I'm glad she isn't a science teacher though. She is the exception of the rule with conservatives, and Barbara Lee is the exception of the rule with cheerleaders. Impeach Trump (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right crank
That's quite an allegation against Ian. Care to back it up? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you actually bothered to read instead of getting upset you'd have noticed that I didn't write that particular statement. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also can't help but noticing that you keep citing a nazi website, need pageviews much? GrammarCommie (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't write that piece - but you had a problem with me removing that unsourced allegation. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Nazi website"? Are you writing that with a straight face? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt-right, nazi, same thing. As for the post click the handy dandy link for the citation. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, where is this citation? Is this the rarefied national socialist citation? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, anyone there? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What is going on in the world
Why did you revert my edits to rational wiki what is going on in the world? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Think on it and answer your own question. GrammarCommie (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you reverted it for no good reason and your reversion should in itself be reverted. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GrammarCommie: Please stop editing other user's WIGOs. That's why we have voting. 04:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WIGOs are not signed, so they do not belong to any one user. If you are correct then should not have made this edit (which was productive and a huge improvement). Where is it a rule that entries cannot be edited? CowHouse (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider WIGOs to be an unsigned talk page post. Let people express their opinions -- don't rewrite to suit yours.
 * Entries shouldn't be deleted because the poll number progresses up by 1 and we will lose count. 05:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. GrammarCommie (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this policy though? It is not disclosed anywhere (as far as I know) that WIGOs are considered unsigned talk page posts. Since there is no disclosure, this has the potential for newbies to come to the site and see a bunch of shit in the WIGO pages and then (rightfully) conclude this site is either full of crazies or has no quality control. It also actively encourages trolling if they know their entries will not be edited, and trolls do not care at all about our votes. If this is policy, it should be clearly stated that each individual entry is not representative of the site but of one contributor. Either that or actually have people sign the entries (this is preferable).
 * Also, in your view, what are the criteria for commenting out entries? For example:
 * nonsense entries
 * misinformation
 * trolling
 * links to pages from more than a year ago
 * ads for alt-right speakers
 * CowHouse (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird, I don't see that rule in the community standards, or the manual of style. Even as a suggestion, it doesn't pass the smell test.  The WIGO pages are linked directly from the main page; the wider public is encouraged to view them.  If an entry is shit, it should and will be changed to make it not shit.  If an entry reflects poorly on us and is simply unsalvageable, it should be commented out.  It is not a "talk page post", because talk page posts go on clearly-labeled talk pages.  What then, are the WIGOs themselves?  Not conventional article pages, but nonetheless, as a content/resource/non-talk page we encourage the public to read, they must be curated.  They are not a dumping ground for shit—that is, after all, what talk pages are for.   06:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note, however, that the Fox News and Breitbart entries are heavily downvoted and would not appear to have RW approval. The system works.

More broadly, RW needs to be more careful to allow a diversity of opinions in talk-like spaces. An echo chamber is useless for all of us. 14:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If an entry is downvoted to death it should be removed or modified, if there's a blatant factual error/fallacy/whatever it should be removed. I really don't like the idea of treating WIGOs like talk-page posts. Christopher (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's confirmation bias. You don't know why people are downvoting. People could downvote because they think those entries do not belong on the page and should be removed, which would support my argument. Leaving entries up that you know will get downvoted can also massively backfire. For example, if a story about anti-white racism gets added by a troll, and it gets downvoted to death, then that will be seen as proof that RationalWiki is "anti-white". Another problem is entries added to the clogosphere page where the article belongs in the page but the description describes the article favourably. Downvoting then becomes confusing (see this discussion). The far better approach is to simply edit the entry. So no, the system does not work.
 * Your comment about diversity of opinion on talk-like spaces is only relevant if I accept your premise that it is like a talk page. If the same story is corroborated in a better source then I'd probably agree with you, but we should never link directly to Breitbart or Fox News (unless we're criticising them). Diversity of opinion does not mean we include content from websites known for promoting conspiracies, false stories and which generally have a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking. CowHouse (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and my biggest issue with leaving Breitbart with an unedited WIGO description, we're also encouraging clicks to Breitbart's site. We're giving it attention it doesn't deserve at all and by leaving it there, it seems like we're endorsing it and the downvote system makes it unclear; are we endorsing the site but disliking the news, are we objecting to the site AND the news, or are we just holding our noses at the site itself? 23:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuerst article
For all involved, this discussion has been moved to Talk:John Fuerst (the page is now unlocked). Please continue the discussion there. CowHouse (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you for unlocking the talk page. These discussion can be lengthy and tedious since there is so much hermeneutical disagreement.
 * Feel free to delete.--PBJsandwich (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

complaint
why do you keep on removing everything i do my edit to clogs
 * occult ritual secrets

and me crying sad on the talkpage

this guy and you deleted my stuff https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.174.51.72 Revision as of 00:56, 5 December 2017 by 206.174.51.72 (talk) https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F&direction=next&oldid=1900335 Revision as of 01:03, 5 December 2017 by GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) (→‎November 2017: The clog BoN is back) https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F&direction=next&oldid=1900337

i tried to add this to the steve salier page, relevant discussions of saliers raceism by robert , you even removed it from the talk page
 * https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/niggers-and-beaners-destroyed-the-economy-and-other-disgusting-lies-of-the-right/, "Niggers and Beaners" Destroyed the Economy... Steve Sailer, Republican Party operative, was one of the major people pushing this lie.


 * https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/on-hbd-the-difference-between-me-and-steve-sailer/, "For a long time I defended Sailer on the charge of racism, because I honestly did not think he was racist. Since the election of Obama, he has frankly gone over the line.

why did you get rid of the edits 101.180.193.48 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Clogs article it was because it was poorly formatted and simply put a standard internet hoax, same as dozens of others on YouTube and other sites.
 * Removing the talk page post in hindsight was a mistake and will be rectified.
 * I fail to see why a relatively obscure blog should cited in the "Steve Sailor" article when more noteworthy and public sources can be used instead. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

robert has known steve sailer for years thats why, also robert is just awesome... well was

and that blog secretsun on clogs was not a hoax he is very serious, he wrote a book on comicbook superheroes, in fact he dug up previously known facts about lovecraft stealing ideas from the theosophists and alice bailey

also why dont you delete the crooked timber quote on the sailer page too they are a blog 101.180.193.48 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I never knew that past life equals to doxxing as opposed to researching personal information that was ONCE private and never avaliable on the web unless you forcibly get the info yourself?! The only thing that was close enough to a dox was his alias names that he long abandonded (which was literally a name taken from Terminator which he even stated himself on one of the sources) and his real name which you can already find on his Wikipedia. He only made his nickname because it was easier to pronounce as opposed to Mark Shouldice, if you even read it, you would of known that. Don't you think the Wiki page already has revealing information about him? Might as well clear out the whole page. Didn't even have to search publicly available databases, hack, or social engineer to find this information, I just looked at the footprints he left throughout the years. Now, please recite your definition of dox.

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Dice&action=history

(cur | prev) 20:17, 14 December 2017‎ GrammarCommie (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,016 bytes) (-3,645)‎. . (Undo revision 1903368 by 74.79.192.167 (talk) Doxing is not ok.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:15, 14 December 2017‎ 74.79.192.167 (talk)‎. . (21,661 bytes) (+3,645)‎. . (→‎Past Life) (undo) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After reviewing your sources I must admit that my deletion of your edits was in error and shall restore them forthwith. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wangmeister
Please stop reverting his edits, we agreed that he can put the information about FST in the article. 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your revert of your revert as the only alteration he made with that edit was moving a paragraph and adding a sentence blabbering on about race denial. Christopher (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, actually Tuna just posted some data refuting his claims, so maybe it would've been best if you kept him out. I guess we'll have to see if Wang can prove the veracity of what he says in the face of Tuna's data. 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering Wang's repeated citing of Rightpedia, a wiki founded by users who were too insane for the neo-nazi/nazi wiki Metapedia I very much doubt he will be successful. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I won't be successful correcting SJW pseudoscience on "Rationalwiki". I'd have more chance of voting in the "Democratic People's Republic". Nice ad hominem and genetic fallacy BTW. Helps avoid addressing data and arguments you know nothing about. Wangmeister (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yawn, you've used up your entire vocabulary of Alt-Right/Nazi insults and snarl words, and are now repeating yourself. How quaint and typical of you. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this doesn't pass your esteemed peer review
https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Racialism&diff=prev&oldid=1903260 Wangmeister (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to reinforce that nothing in this edit is not full of shit on some level or another, thanks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

John Fuerst
John comes here every month on a new account to complain at his article, he's written like 100,000 words and nitpicks at everything. To get rid of him we should just re-write his article like I did so it only includes his comments and minimal commentary. As another sysop said on the archives - if you do that he cannot complain since we merely quote his own crazy or racist posts. He can hardly argue with what he himself wrote on the internet.Tuna (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of content you deleted you might as well delete the entire article. Furthermore, there will no gutting of articles without a vote from the community. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right
What the hell are you doing? You are trying to frame people for violence. Why are you hiding the facts of what happened? How can you be so sick and twisted? You are a criminal slanderer. Why are you doing this? You are demented. You are evil lying White hating scum. 31.55.14.199 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's cute that you think that little Nazi brat. Are you going to call me a race traitor next? GrammarCommie (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm spreading how sick you are all over the internet. 31.55.14.199 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So much for due process. Please remember to spell my username correctly, it's GrammarCommie not grammarcommie or Grammarcommy. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We must be enemies.
Our usernames are implicitly at war with each other. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fear not Comrade, for when the revolution comes your brutal execution sacrifice to the glorious cause shall be celebrated by the survivors many!! GrammarCommie (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Warming
Why did you revert this change on the Global Warming Denialism page? Its content is duplicated above. DankMemes68 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please hold on while I re-review the edit in question. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies as you are indeed correct. I shall rectify the matter immediately. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Unite the Right
What the hell are you doing? You are trying to frame people for violence. Why are you hiding the facts of what happened? How can you be so sick and twisted? You are a criminal slanderer. Why are you doing this? You are demented. You are evil lying White hating scum. 31.55.14.199 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's cute that you think that little Nazi brat. Are you going to call me a race traitor next? GrammarCommie (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm spreading how sick you are all over the internet. 31.55.14.199 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So much for due process. Please remember to spell my username correctly, it's GrammarCommie not grammarcommie or Grammarcommy. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We must be enemies.
Our usernames are implicitly at war with each other. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fear not Comrade, for when the revolution comes your brutal execution sacrifice to the glorious cause shall be celebrated by the survivors many!! GrammarCommie (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Warming
Why did you revert this change on the Global Warming Denialism page? Its content is duplicated above. DankMemes68 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please hold on while I re-review the edit in question. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies as you are indeed correct. I shall rectify the matter immediately. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for this. If it weren't for your timely correction, it would have had the opposite meaning. Nerd (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. GrammarCommie (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I got help from a Communist?! In the name of the Holy Fatherland, what just happened?! Nerd (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok I have to break character for a a bit here, and make a confession. As evidenced by my lack of of attempts to whitewash articles relating to communism or even criticizing them, I'm not a real Communist (though I do enjoy the music from The Hunt For Red October). In reality I lean more towards democratic socialism than outright Communism (though my views differ somewhat from the description given in the Socialism article). The username is actually a more of a multifaceted joke than anything else. 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (Yes, I have X-rayed your mask. You are as Communist as I am fascist. For the record, I support social democracy and civic nationalism.) A pinko-commie forgetting to sign his post? Must be an ideological attempt to deny private ownership and thereby individual responsibility. I knew it!!! Nerd (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads-up
Hey, you might wanna block this account as it's listed on bugmenot. Anonymous User (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't block people without reason, and even then most of those blocks are not infinite. GrammarCommie (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, it's so terrible though. Someone might just... edit this wiki without having a log in.  It'd be like if we just let any old ip address from anywhere in the world make an edit.  Goarsh, how awful would that be.
 * (also there's a special place in hell for people who log in to bugmenot accounts and change the password, please, no one reading this be that guy) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching the site after checking the claim, just asking for opinions since the account creator did state the goal was to acquire sysop privileges. In short my goal was to inform, not incite. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should leave a note on the user or talk page to alert unaware sysops that rights should not be granted? —Kazitor, pending 11:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

you have a problem
Let's hear it then - on the clog talk page. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Faulk
Why did you revert and lock the edit? --CorrectTheRecord™ (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was clarifying the context
by including the relevant images, rather than changing the conversation. Don't revert, please.t
 * Very well then. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You've been nominated as moderator
Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Complimentary hug
Thanks for endorsing me! - 23:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling and deleting
Stop beating me to it :P —Kazitor, pending 01:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You must work harder Comrade Kazitor. GrammarCommie (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! Got to this one first! I win! —Kazitor, pending 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not mistake a battle for the war Comrade. Comrade GC (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But... but I declared victory. That means I win! —Kazitor, pending 04:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with the idiot
Although it annoyed me that every step I tried to take to clean it up, it said "Grammarcommie just did that thing 2 seconds ago". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your welcome . Comrade GC (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my edits?
Some flavor of misogyny because I'm a woman, hmm? J. Zoia (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The edits I reverted were of low quality, same as almost all the cases involving complaints on my talk page. Comrade GC (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you don't have to cuss at me like that. I am new here, it's not like I was deliberately trying to cause trouble. J. Zoia (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling a statement "bullshit" isn't cursing. Comrade GC (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * J.Zoia is a troll who hasn't made any edits that actually break any rules yet, just ignore them. Christopher (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, so my trolldar isn't on the fritz. Comrade GC (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I am a troll? J. Zoia (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am experiencing disturbing flashbacks to my early days. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for unsigning all of those comments
I would advise subst:ing the template though as it makes the page load marginally faster. Christopher (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though it appears the user in question seems to have misunderstood the placement of their signature. Comrade GC (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've left them a message on their talk page explaining it. Also *you're. Christopher (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your essay in progress
Let me know if you want a hand with it.

All the best,

Mai--MAI742 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Preparation for election hacking
It sure seems like this election is going to be hacked just like last year: one candidate with only anti-endorsements, and an active troll who likely has a sock puppet army. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So if Pbfreespace3 or Xbony2 end up winning, then it's forensic examination time? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably, though on the upside MC hasn't gotten involved (yet). Comrade GC (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the chance of MC getting involved is roughly the same as the Dark Universe succeeding as a franchise. The last time he came here, he lost interest and left as quickly as he came. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * [EC]I don't think we need to worry about Xbony2, they're clearly a joke nomination. I trust Fuzzy to remove obvious sockpuppet votes and ClickerClock to monitor Fuzzy. Why is this conversation taking place on GrammarCommie's talk page? Christopher (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently my talkpage has become an extension of the Saloon Bar. Or something. Comrade GC (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, so if your talkpage is part of the Saloon, where are the adult beverages? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, this just sort of happened.&mdash; Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs
 * You wouldn't've got GrammarCommie's ping, so I'm pinging you. Christopher (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why did you revert these edits? They seem fine to me. 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A few sections appeared to be ripped from the Wikipedia article. However if they look fine to you feel free to put them back. Comrade GC (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, if they're plagiarized, then that makes sense. I didn't realize that, as I haven't read the Wikipedia article on him. 01:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be frank I merely skimmed the WP section of the WP article concerning Darwin's early years so I may have misread or misunderstood some of it. Again, feel free to double check my double check. Comrade GC (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the first sentence is nearly identical to the first sentence of the Early Life section on Wikipedia, which is probably why it looked like plagiarism to you, but otherwise it isn't really plagiarism, though it's probably based off of the WP article. I don't know that the detailed personal information is really necessary, but the rest of the edits are good enough and I'm far too lazy to try to snip out the unnecessary stuff, so I think it can be put back. Does need some citations, though. 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop vandalising
Hi, can you please stop reverting my edits on Egyptsearch. You're not constructive editing, but vandalising by reverting me with no reason. Dr. Witt (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those accusations of vandalism are pretty  strong given the fact that you're whitewashing the article in a similar manner to most of the actual vandals that come through here. Furthermore unless you have a good reason for removing multiple sourced statements and gutting the article I will bloody well revert it back as many times as I please. Comrade GC (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I created/wrote the original article in 2015. What has changed since then is what I discussed in the revised article; I'm also the person who brought about this change last year after contacting the forum host, as well as its administrator and have spoken with him by email. All black supremacists were banned from the forum, although as I noted in my revised re-write Clyde Winters remains. Arguably, its no longer a black supremacist/Afrocentrist forum and there are now some sensible discussions there.Dr. Witt (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Because I created/wrote the original article in 2015."
 * Our own disclaimer states that "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You don't have any ownership of the articles you create. 20:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually A user named Krom (who has since retired) created the article according to the history page. Comrade GC (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If Witt wants to reword the article to reflect the forum's change in userbase, he should submit a draft of a revised version of the article. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I confuse you?
RE: Fun:God? 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was editing from my phone and mis-clicked. Comrade GC (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Troll blocked
GrammarCommie has received multiple complaints over reverting people with no valid reason. Has repeatedly reverted all my edits and is edit warring, despite the fact I raised this on both the Egyptsearch talk page and his own. Dr. Witt (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please stop edit warring. If another user repeatedly reverts your edits, try to take it to the talkpage. If they don't, get a moderator to lock the page for a while.

If you continue to edit war, you will have sysop privileges temporarily revoked. 19:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood.
 * PS: How do you set up an archive for personal talkpages? Mine is getting a tad long. Comrade GC (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See ARC 19:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help page. Comrade GC (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It won't work, our archive bot is broken. Christopher (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can always manually archive. Having the template is still a nice way to organized old topics. 20:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And how do I manually archive? The help page doesn't say. Comrade GC (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You just copy and paste an old topic into an archive page (e.g. User talk:GrammarCommie/Archive1) and remove it from your actual talk page. Christopher (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)!
 * Ah, thank you for the information. Comrade GC (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest moving the information instead. That way, the archive page gets a history and can be easier to parse through. 20:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I Have the Money you requested
I will leave the briefcase of $100, 000 by your front door like you requested in 20 minutes and you will release the hostage. Please just let her go, I have the money. Sceptic (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish, now time to go bye-bye and get blocked like the other spam/troll accounts. Comrade GC (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment signing
04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry was a little distracted IRL and forgot. Comrade GC (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More evidence of a world government trying to deny individual identity. Isn't that the plan, Communist International? Nerd (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can neither confirm nor deny any rumors of any alleged Communist conspiracies. Comrade GC (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Reaganism page
Why are my edits being reverted? Saying that government deficits are private savings is a misrepresentation of Sectoral Balances and leads to misunderstanding of economic phenomena.

Start with a little parable by economist/Bloomberg View Columnist Noah Smith about this specific subject:

"Suppose that the economy consists of a number of hunters, who never interact with each other. They just hunt deer, eat some of the meat, and store the rest in the form of salted venison in their sheds out back (imagine that salted venison stays edible forever). Over the years, the stock of salted venison grows and grows.

Is it correct to say that total saving in this economy is zero? Well, it seems like the answer is "no", since households are increasing their stock of real assets. There's no debt, no money, and no firms. It seems like real aggregate saving is positive in years when the total stock of salted venison increases.

Can this be right? Do the hunters have some liabilities that I am not counting, to balance out their real assets? I can't think of any. They have no debts. They don't interact with each other at all. I could make up a corporate sector, and pretend that each household owns a "firm", but it seems like the liabilities and assets of each of those firms would exactly cancel out, leaving the private sector (households + firms) with positive total assets, due to the positive assets of households.

So it seems to me that by storing durable goods, it is possible to save by lending not to an external counterparty, but to nature itself. The private sector runs a real surplus every year, and the only deficit is nature's deficit.

Similarly, suppose we measure savings as income - consumption. Well, income (the amount of fresh venison + the amount of salted venison that enters the hunter's possession each year) is definitely more than consumption (fresh venison eaten each year) for each hunter. That seems to me to indicate that real saving is positive for each household, and thus for the private sector as a whole.

I've been talking in real terms so far. But how about nominal terms? To measure surpluses and deficits in nominal terms, we need a unit of account. So suppose that the hunters now are able to interact with each other, and to trade. Suppose that they decide that the unit of account is the pound of fresh venison. Hunters can trade salt for fresh venison, salted venison for fresh venison, etc. The amount of "money" (fresh venison) in the economy is determined randomly, by nature - i.e., some years, there are more deer to be hunted, some years less.

OK, so what about the nominal value of the real assets (salted venison) sitting in the sheds? This is determined by the nominal price of a pound of salted venison - i.e., how many pounds of fresh venison must be exchanged for a pound of salted venison. The total stock of nominal assets in the economy is given by: (lbs of salted venison) * (lbs of fresh venison / lb of salted venison)

Can this rise? It seems to me that it can. Suppose that the stock of salted venison increases, s per the previous example, but the price of salted venison stays fixed (which we can assume because we're just looking at accounting identities, not at the determinants of prices). It seems that aggregate nominal saving is positive.

So it seems to me, at first blush, that there can be net private saving without the existence of a government, and hence without net government deficits." '' Or, to keep it simple/short, another example would be a man cutting wood, and using some of it to burn in a fire for warmth and saving up the rest to build a house. Still savings and investment, even without a government.

Where does such a misunderstanding stem from? Well... the equation for GDP is private investment spending (I) + consumption spending (C) + government spending (G) + exports (X) - imports (M). Alternatively, one could put the equation as GDP = consumption + taxes (T) + savings (S) (Why? Consumption is already part of the equation, so that isn't being replaced, but taxes cut from private savings as the government is taking money from people, while savings finance remaining trade surpluses via investment/lending and government deficits via snatching up bonds.)

That leads us to I + C + G + M - I = C + T + S. Take out the C on both sides and we have I + G + X - M = C + T + S. We can then convert it to (S – I) = (G – T) + (X – M). This means that when there is savings net of domestic private investment, they end up going to other places, financing government spending and investment abroad (which translates into a trade surplus as you have money going out to finance the money coming in from net exports.)

But what it doesn't at all say is that government deficits are private savings. Not even close. It just says that private savings may finance government deficits as opposed to other things such as exports and domestic private investment (Which in fact somewhat backs up the 'crowding-out theory" among many Reagan-lovers on the right, saying that government stimulus is absolutely no good because it just replaces private sector activities). And you know as well as I do that that is by no means the intent of this article.
 * You didn't state any of that, you just removed a sourced statement without explaining your view that the source doesn't back up the claim made therein. Comrade GC (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, though. Put the summary for my edit as "Misleading. Private savings are possible in an economy without government spending. Rather, it's just private savings minus private investment that makes up the deficit, which is completely different." if that isn't enough, I apologize, I'm a bit new to this wiki thing. DancingCake (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Polygraph
Why did you revert this? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From reading the article in question it seemed to me the point was polygraphs can be "beaten" not that the basic design is ineffective. However that was how I read the article, if you disagree with the exact nature of the conclusions I came to feel free to revert it back. Comrade GC (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * well erm, this awkward but it part I deleted does fit with my findings so err... I put it back. Comrade GC (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Beware the Apocalypse
Don't know if you watched this. It was great fun. Nerd (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The show or the scene? Comrade GC (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both. But I remembered this scene -- whose music is wonderful -- when I was typing that line on the Coop page. Nerd (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tomkins
Hi. With regard to your reversion of my edit on Jeffrey Tomkins, its certainly not true that "there is no such field as plant sciences"! Its a synonym of botany, and an increasing number of unis have changed the names of their plant-based courses from botany to plant sciences in the belief that the former sounds old-fashioned (the same as the Zoology --> Animal Biology shift). A quick google search confirms this - e.g. my own uni now has a 'Department of Plant Sciences' (https://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/), as does Oxford. Crucially, the university at which Tomkins got his qualification (Idaho) has a Department of Plant Sciences (https://www.uidaho.edu/cals/plant-sciences) - hence my justification for my original edit that we don't need scare quotes around facts! Thanks 131.111.185.45 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We are winning.
Hope you're ready
 * That's nice, Comrade GC (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't think of Grawp too much
Keep those kinds of questions about Grawp to a minimum. Give benefit of doubt. Unlike whatever happened to J. Zoia, this person has significantly less grounds to be accused as a sock of Grawp. Either way, either ignore the post or point out that it's unacceptable. Take care! P.S. Your post you made in RationalWiki:Moderator elections in 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC) has a run-on. Use a period or a semicolon to separate complete clauses, not commas. 22:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass shooting
Why did you revert my edit? Was there something factually incorrect? KyleButler (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The edits you made were potentially libelous in nature and I'm really not interested in getting sued by the families of mass shooting victims. Comrade GC (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it could be argued libelous? Is there anything factually inaccurate about that? It could also be argued that the shooters were assholes, would stating that be libelous? Would calling fundies assholes be libelous? KyleButler (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Examine your edits, think on it, then re examine them again and think on it again. Which part could be construed a libelous? And for the record you cited no sources for your claims, making them opinions, not facts. Comrade GC (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Christopher (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie, just for future reference, a defamation claim can't be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. CowHouse (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies for using incorrect wording however, my point still stands. The edits in question were dubious, and that was before they started naming names. Comrade GC (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't a moderator literally just say that you shouldn't accuse people of being trolls without evidence? KyleButler (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor CowHouse made the post in question. Comrade GC (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And another moderator is saying that, even though there’s no proof you’re a troll, this discussion isn’t going to lead to anything productive and is in rather poor taste, considering there’s probably already been multiple mass shootings in America this year. I’m not ordering anyone to do anything, just asking you to stop with all the murder-relayed stuff. Christopher (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying I should go edit something about butterflies that doesn't interest me because it's a nicer topic than mass shootings? You must be a grave kisser. Rationally speaking, not everything in life is roses like they tell you in fundie church. KyleButler (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's murder-related not murder-relayed. Comrade GC (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ”t” and “y” are next to each other on a qwerty keyboard and I’m editing from my phone. Christopher (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't resist, sorry. Comrade GC (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC)It’s fine. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So far, all of your edits bar one have been about how mass shooting victims can be bad people, although this is obviously true, the degree to which you’re going on about it doesn’t paint you in a very good light. And I’m no fundie. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Christopher (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Wilder Bicycle 18:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, I now believe KyleButler to be a troll given no improvement after being questioned on the Chicken coop (and also playing a race card out of nowhere), so there is no excuse "but a mod said you shouldn't accuse me of being a troll". GrammarCommie, please do not engage further with this user. If this user continues being distasteful after the well-deserved block, then bring up a Chicken Coop case and we'll vote for this user to be banned. Fair enough? But yeah, if you suspect they're here only to make pathetic comments please don't respond to them. It drags the conversation, nothing is productive from hurling insults repeatedly, and I have to use troll collapse. 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I stopped caring about them hours ago, been busy watching anime (Overlord season 2 is finally out!!) and playing one of my favorite action MMORPGs. That was roughly after the above posts from Readymade and Christopher. Comrade GC (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good, I was spending my time playing Smash Crusade. But yeah, try your best not to feel the troll? Otherwise, just go play "GrammarCommie's favorite action MMORPGs". :P 04:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Elf Rogue
I'd say Halfling rogues are a bit more cliche. Besides, my campaign has to use Pathfinder rules (don't worry, they're not too different), and Elves get bonuses for Intelligence, not Dexterity. I'd say an Elf rogue would be cool. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ministry of Praise
I like your new signature, Comrade! Was it guided by from the gates of hell by the iron hands of Joseph Stalin himself? Nerd (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it was inspired by 1984, and the Ministry of Truth as well as the comment patterns on my talk page. 03:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Complimenting your efforts to ensure this corner of the World Wide Web embraces Communist ideology and Mother Russia, no doubt. Nerd (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Award
Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

kirkegaard as a pedophile
mainstream news source describe him as a pedophile: https://www.rt.com/uk/415595-toby-young-university-eugenics Pringles (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, please use proper capitalization, punctuation, and grammar. For example "A mainstream news source describes him as a pedophile." would be the properly constructed version of your sentence. Secondly, you cited RT as a legit source? LMFAO!!! 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I said mainstream news source... perhaps you cannot read. There's also posts where you have made grammar and punctuation errors - so not sure why you troll. One of your embarrassing mistakes here, where you cannot even spell "its" properly and you were laughed at already.Pringles (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Witt, RT is a bullshit source that says whatever Putin tells them to say. They're mainstream in the same way that Fox is mainstream.
 * PS:I see you're still sore over your last round with me. 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If I can add in, even if RT is "mainstream" with Russian context, citing only RT and then making a blanket generalization to describe the [already-vague] "mainstream media" is logically fallacious. Additionally, even in the source you listed, I don't see an explicit mention that Kirkegaard is a pedophile as opposed to someone who is apologia for its actions. 22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Goat being rated bronze
I also disagree somehwat with Goat being rated bronze. Policy states that the article is free of needless snark and in-jokes. It's kind of hard to achieve that when the entire thing is an in-joke. 22:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a point, shall we put it to a vote on the Goat talkpage? 22:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I also think we should really take missionality into account, later, when to rating articles too. We all know neither Goat nor Cat are missional. 19:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Swedish gay pride parade
What are your objections to the Swedish gay pride parade article? --120.148.131.196 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained by the article in question is from two years ago.  23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Theory
Is it possible that we all died, and we're in Heaven, EiK is in hell, and his eternal punishment/our eternal reward is discussing Dungeons and Dragons on his talkpage? Probably not, but the thought occurred to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe... or we are all trapped in the Warp and we deny it.  02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tips on how to be a better grammar guy
Well, I'm obviously on the other side of the political spectrum but do you have any useful ideas on how to be better on grammar edits and spellchecking, Comrade? K0rnsbl0d Let the galaxy burn!  "Kill!Maim!Burn!" 02:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Trade union edits and the trade union talk page
Hello, you reverted my edits to trade union. I am interested to hear what your qualms are with my edits. If you could state them in the trade union talk page that will be very good. Cheerio --120.148.224.4 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, your sources are shit. 13:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * how are they shit? Mieses is an important economist, what sources for his views are better then mieses.org? --120.148.224.4 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mises was a self centered pseudo-economist who actively endorsed financial systems that harmed the poor and working classes. In addition he supported Fascism and Nazism. The "think tank" named after him isn't much better, though to the best of my knowledge they haven't accepted some of von Mises more insane positions, such as the aforementioned support of Nazism and Fascism. 14:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Abd Lomax
I'm done responding there; you might want to just lock the talk page like the main article is protected (i.e. so only auto-patrolled users can make edits). Lomax is notorious for spam, and will likely post walls and walls of text. There's also the fact he's already been banned here and so is block-evading on socks.ODS (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ODS (or his brother) have a long history of posting vandalism appearing to spam something from his target. Lomax did no spamming here or elsewhere, so "notorious for" is just another lie. You blocked Lomax's real alternate account, "The real deal," which posted only a list of impersonation socks and a link to a page on his blog with nothing other than identity verification. ODS or his brother sucked you into responding as if it were all the same. If you care about the integity of RationalWiki, take another look. There is that obvious difference.


 * ODS admits, in his edits, being the object of Lomax's concerns, it's clear and this does not depend on believing Lomax. ODS and/or his brother (who may not be distinguishable, and he lies about the "overlap" of interests) have often been blocked on RatWiki, besides over 200 blocked and banned socks on Wikipedia, so, as to block evasion, pot, kettle, black. Keep up correcting grammatical errors until there isn't any more. --159.65.49.210 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You have a bad habit of reverting good faith edits without explanation. You should use edit summaries more often. CowHouse (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to shake the habit, though I do lapse back into it from time to time. 11:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You did it again. CowHouse (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No sure how else to reach you...
I did change the tone, but it was for a good reason. I believe we are on the same team and when you wiped out everything I wrote you threw out some really important truth along with it. I still have it saved. This isn’t about you or me. Please read my edits because I learned the hard way. If you believe any of it is valuable, add it back in yourself. Don’t just discount it because the Holy Spirit lives in me, too. James 3:17 says wisdom from above is unbiased so that’s why I changed some of the language because it makes anyone sympathetic with “the left” throw out the very real truth that’s in your message because it makes them defensive. I’m trying to help you.

Who are you and why do you keep undoing my edits?
You keep undoing my edits. Can you explain who you are why you are doing that?
 * Clearly I am user on this website just as you are. Now, the reason I removed your edits is simple, you wished to talk about the subject on the talk page due there being a "disagreement" as you put it. When opening such dialog, one should wait for it to conclude before taking action.  20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to "be bold" and "anyone can edit" and all that?
 * First, that's Wikipedia's schtick. Second, we try and come to a consensus when in conflict. Because our userbase is much smaller than Wikipedia's, we can afford to have more deliberation and discussion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to come of as rude but I have to ask why you reverted my problem of evil edit? Comradegreen (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)comradegreen
 * The edit in question disabled a working link to a source and the conclusions drawn were already explained and elaborated on later in the article. 14:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool,thanks

Is this in the proper tense, comrade?
"While his initial attitude was questionable and had attracted the plucky company of the sexist MRAs and white supremacists, his further actions would just further paint him as just another poor white dude who cries "Come see the violence Inherent in the System! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" and, beyond that, has nothing useful to offer when it comes to critiquing help for minorities and women (or, as he calls it, positive discrimination) or the suffering "conservative minority viewpoint" despite conservatives dominating all branches of government in the U.S., like similar poor white dudes in his company."

03:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a shirt
Upon which are printed the words "I'm silently correcting your grammar." It is this very shirt that I am wearing at this exact moment in time. —Kazitor, pending 07:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

MMO deities
Hi, sorry for taking too much to respond but I left the reply on my talk page and I feel the Wiki way to leave messages sucks. Anyway, feel free to add whatever deities you want to the Gods Christians don't believe in. And don't ask me permission to add them, please, I'm not the maintainer of that article and added all those RPG deities not only because it was suggested on the article's talk page, but also 'cause I know how Fundies hate those games.

How I miss those times and would have liked to have played a cleric of Eldath, goddess of waterfalls, springs, and peace, in the Forgotten Realms :P. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's in the archive, if you want to read it
It's in the archive, if you want to read it. Wilder Bicycle 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your nuclear edits killed the archive... 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * O RLY? ...although I do seem to have killed the link to the archive... I'll just go and fix that now. oops. Wilder Bicycle 22:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't like my edits?
They're all legit non-spam. 158.61.6.216 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that you seem to require this pre-emptive defense when before today I had not touched any edits by "you" seems to indicate that your motives are less than benevolent. 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ben Steigmann
See my comments here. Steigmann lied about giving up Holocaust denial, racialism etc., so his RationalWiki article would be deleted. It was an inappropriate deletion and we should bring it back.ODS (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I refuted the points of ODS with my recent edit I said that holocaust denial was untenable very clearly, and that I am unwilling to defend racialism - I just gave the sources that got me in it to provide context.24.23.221.227 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are you a Commie Bastard m?
Capitalism makes people freer and happier. It is literally the best of both worlds. Stop pretending to have an argument for Communism and just admit that you're too lazy to work and want to be paid exorbitant sums of money for pursuing personal flights of fancy such as bias-editing online portals.
 * Comrade!!! Why do you insult our glorious echo chamber?!?! Can you not see that we merely wish to congregate as is our right? Cease repeating such vile Bourgeoisie lies and join the side of the Educated Proletariat!!!! 22:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * GLORY TO ARSTOTZKA! 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because your echo chamber sucks and is stupid, and you have no arguments, and the fact that organic economic self-organisation works not just well but amazingly well can be demonstrated in clear cut cases of North vs South Korea, East vs West Germany, and most famously, East vs West Europe, along with East vs Western worlds during Cold War. Also, not to kill the argument too much, China versus its port colonies of Shanghai, Hong Kong, and neighbouring capitalist countries of Japan, and Taiwan that share many commonalities but do not share a backwards communal system of Communism which only existed during the prehistoric period of humanity. Undo my 30 minute posting ban like a pleb and perhaps I will deign it worthy of my time to educate you of the superior ideological position, of free markets, speech, and self-organisation, and how money isn't empty, but stands for value and human happiness, as long as it is exchanged in exchange for labour, and design.
 * Rimuru Tempest You guys socking or something? If you are, and that's how all wikipedias work, then FUCKING LOL and HOLY SHIT.
 * Perchance we might take you seriously if you A) signed your comments, B) weren't an ass, and C) didn't use Alt-Right buzzwords? 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not socking, I'm my own personal entity apart from these two, also you stole what I was going to do GrammarCommie XD. 23:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'm not socking, I just appear everywhere the first person appears, including on their own TALK PAGE while somebody else TALKS TO THEM" as pewdiepie so famously said: "HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"
 * A)Why the hell do I need to sign my comments? B)I reserve the right to be an ass for having my priveleges locked for cleaning up a not just left leaning but ridiculously left leaning online portal that leans so far left it crosses over into the next fucking dimension and comes out the other side. C) Is that a joke? Those are not alt right buzzwords, or if they are, then centrists are alt right, which throws the radical connotations of the term up in the air. No, I'm not going to stop using any terms, especially because they are not white supremacist, and especially here, because here I am just talking STRAIGHT ECONOMICS.


 * — Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1 doesn't apply 2 the "why is it called rational?" defense is wrong, you're basically pulling a fox news who call themselves "fair and honest" or whatever the hell they say. You can call yourself whatever the hell you like, even as you lie through your teeth about the fact that you don't stand on a certain side of the issue. You have that freedom. It doesn't mean its right. And it doesn't make it an honest mistake either, you can't use that excuse as a mostly left wing portal, and pretend to side on all issues on the left side of things because of your impartiality. Its pretty dishonest actually. Leftists and their word games.


 * Anybody got an entry on "Ministry of Truth" here? Well you should look it up, because that's precisely what you people are doing. Its one thing to be right wing and say that you're right wing and support policies, values, and facts that have proven to be correct throughout much of history (indeed that built the current world to the good place it is today when jobless NEETs can whine about having to work for their money), but another to be right wing and pretend that you're not, even to yourself. That - is dishonest, and false advertising.


 * Of course, for the greater good, amiriteguys? That's the moniker I should adopt from now onwards. Just call myself a right wing intellectual, because if you are intelligent, you inevitably end up at principles of social inequality (by all sorts of criteria, from race to gender to age) and libertarian freedom, that results in economic prosperity and a lack of totalitarian abuse of government. I mean IT IS TRUE. If you are unbiased and capable, then you will not be scared of freedom, or a lack of an entitlements program, or the fact that some people are differently abled, and should be rewarded in accordance to their ability to contribute...


 * Everywhere? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I wonder..... maybe because I can tell recent activity? But you know what... I'll let you figure out how I can do that, since you seem smart enough [edit] hopefully..... 23:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * INDENT NOOB. Sure, that's possible, but what reason would you have to be on that page to begin with, and to troll my activity page afterwards? And keep on replying to these messages here? Seems like you're not telling us what's up GrammarCommie.


 * Since GrammarCommie wants to silence me for redressing your nonsense claims about Carl Benjamin and about your nonsense left wing stances that aren't supported by reality, and is unable to provide an explanation of his views, I am calling him an idiot, and this entire website void.
 * I do indent, I just get tired of it always going all the way to the right. No one can take you seriously if all you do is spew hatred. 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not spewing hatred, I'm spewing facts. If you don't like that Haiti and countries like it are bad places, you cannot accuse me of "muh hatred!" because you need a reason to hate what I'm saying. If anything, the real bigots and hatemongers are the leftists who hate anything that disagrees with their idyllic niave view of the universe. People aren't equal. Sorry. Not on a genetic level, not on a desire level, not their climate is equal. Thus: inequality. And its not hatred to say that a person who scores 5 answers out of 10 DID score 5 out of 10. Its a fact. Its not hate. If I wanted to hate the less well off people I'd call them bad people. So far, its pretty transparent objective fact stating.


 * 00:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dont' feed the ignorant facts either it seems. Haiti - good place or bad? Bad. If its bad, I am not hating it by saying it is what it is. That is a statement of fact. SORRY, but NOT SORRY.
 * My apologies but I was taught never to text and use a vehicle at the same time. Now then, there are few points in your ad hominem laden rants I would like to address. First off, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is a benchmark of Socialism, and by extension it's more insane cousin, Communism. Secondly, your misappropriation of of George Orwell's work ignores one key fact that most right-wingers tend to ignore, or outright deny because it doesn't fit their narrative of the world (in addition to the fact that most of you have only really skimmed through 1984, and read none of his earlier work). That fact is thus, Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name "George Orwell" was a committed socialist.
 * PS: If you have actually read 1984 you wouldn't be calling me a communist.
 * PPS:If you're having trouble here's a hint, look at the second half of my signature. 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you can't keep up old chap! I'll make sure to simplify my "rants" to versions simpler to make sure you hit every last point:


 * 1 "from each to each" not socialism Leninism, but whatever
 * Refutation 1: Why only needs? People are allowed to have wants. I don't like this puritan version of Communism, because there is no nobility in depression, and a bleak, grey world full of bureaucracy, a lack of personal dignity, and grey, bland food that certainly satisfies your "need" of 2000 calories a day, but hardly does anything else.

Refutation 2: That statement is basically predicated on theft, and forcefully taking something from a person, and then giving it to somebody else. This violates a person's personal dignity, freedom, and property rights, especially property rights over the product of one's labour, which ensures that slavery does not take place. And who knew - people do not seem to want to work very much when everything they do will be taken off of them. It's almost like they're playing somebody else's game. Because they are. Refutation 3: If this vision of the world was at all accomplishable, we would be 5000 years in the future and levitating at the centre of the sun. Stephen Hawkings was able to earn millions and contribute to science in his wheelchair, with minimal ability. So really, any society that applies this principle should have a surplus trillions of dollars worth, per person, and have each person become Leonardo Da Vinci on steroids. Refutation 4: You need to be awarded according to your contribution. A sense of injustice exists in socialist societies if you talk to anybody, because anybody who wants to work and work hard in their job, is paid just the same as anybody who goofs off and drags their feet in their occupation. Refutation 5: This vision of the world is already possible under Capitalism, in that capitalism creates such surpluses and embarassment of riches that people are overweight from too much food, need youtube to recommend good videos to them because of the amount of videos availible. At least the latter half. You can easily have a mixed economy and actually accomplish Lenin's goal without ever risking life, limb, and not starving under Socialism.


 * 2 If George Orwell was a socialist, he was a piss poor one, because the establishment of a huge bureaucracy and state power under any socialist regime, EU being one example of a quasi socialist USSR-type construction, is exactly what he's written about in his 1984 novel.


 * Like, I'm sorry, but 1984 is way more about socialism and the USSR than it ever was about fascism. Political Correctness, purges, totalitarianism - it's all left wing fare, because the left sees a problem with the world in its natural state, and seeks to establish totalitarian state power that enters every area of people's lives, and "corrects it".


 * 3 You are still not addressing how capitalism is 1 perfectly moral and respectful of people's freedoms 2 more prosperous than Communism. Come on guy, join us on the right, we are free, we are loud, and we are happy. What else could you possibly want? Unless you don't think you could get a job in our world. Is that the real problem?


 * PS 4 Yeah I would, because, er, YOU HAVE THE FREAKING HAMMER AND SICKLE, and COMMUNIST IMAGERY ALL OVER YOUR DAMN PAGE, and your own NAME is GRAMMARCOMMIE. You're a Communist, regardless if you make a distinction between Hard socialism (total ownership and regulation of the economy by the state) and Communism, or don't.


 * Wow, you are still arguing on his page? When will you ever get a hint that it's just a username. Grammar Commie is basically a pun off of Grammar Nazi. Unless you are new to the internet or cant put 2 and 2 together then I don't see how you cant draw a connection. 19:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this guy has never heard of Poe's law. I'm also going to guess that he's never studied the comedic style of The Onion. 22:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
If I were a devotee of Infowars or Breitbart, as you claim, I would not have removed the link from NumbersUSA last year. NumbersUSA is part of the umbrella owned by John Tanton, a white nationalist activist. This is the sort of inflammatory material which was added during the election, added by a leftist, I might add.

Please be considerate and take your concerns to the talk page before reverting edits with news articles attached, which I am sure you have not read. We disagree on matters of style, not substance. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We do indeed disagree on substance given how the recent additions add various innuendo and general conspiracy mongering. For example "Some have alleged a “wag the dog” strategy to explain Clinton's blunder; the bombing coincided with Monica Lewinsky's testimony in front of a grand jury." practically screams Truther all over it. While we may agree that the Clintons are corrupt political opportunists that doesn't make them the fucking boogyman that several groups make them out to be. 20:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one pushing an agenda here. So, if we remove the offending passage from the changes made, you will let the edit stand?  Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the aforementioned passage is removed in addition to the flimsy "Crimes against humanity" category I will (grudgingly), let the edit stand. 20:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that "grudgingly". I am forever in your debt. Plutoniumboss (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted
Why was I reverted? 99.203.16.160 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you missed what snark is, also you edited more than just the "porn" part. 02:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I did mention that it was "unverifiable" and "unproffessional". 99.203.16.160 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally you should state your reason to remove something on the talk page if you are newer. Those who have been editing a while will know what to and what not to do. Even then sometimes it will be reverted so be sure to talk with the others at times if it does, state your opinion, pull up a goat, and wait for a response. 02:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And what is putting up a goat? Are there any forums here? 99.203.16.160 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The goat is RW's mascot, some like goats while others here like goats well done, medium rare, or raw. If you want to start up a new discussion please go to the article's talk page and click add topic. 03:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, why revert?
Can you not revert my edits on Lomax?Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Brazil
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brazil => there is a counterproductive revert (I am trying to fix a bad edit I made), and the page is now protected. But then the current page was reverted back to an older version which contains wrong information.

I see 3 options: 1) You allow me to edit 2) You fix it yourself 3) You join the talk page of that page: I warned some days before that I would change the text and nobody opposed.
 * You challenged a user (actually, if you go through the page history you challenged at least three editors) that may not be active on this site anymore, when they failed to respond you took the lack of notice for a lack of opposition and potential support. You then made edits, I reverted them, you edit warred and I locked the page. Now you threaten me in an attempt to put your POV in the article. Perhaps you could attempt to A) decrease your hostility and, B) provide some sources for your claims? Or you could just lash out at me and hope that works (it won't). 18:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-White racism in South Africa
Could you let me know in the racism talk page why you removed my edit? It was well sourced and relevant to the topic of racism. --SouthAfrica (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverting my edits without adding an edit summary
Could you let me know in the edit summaries or in your talk page or in mine why you are reverting my edits? I don't see anything wrong with them, but if there is I would be very much interested as to know why and how (if it is possible) I could fix them. --SouthAfrica (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Request
Can you unlock the Rome Viharo article, so I can create a deletion request? At the moment it is protected so only sysops can edit it.Agent47 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about getting information removed
What's the procedure for getting something off the quack list? Like, say, a treatment passes clinical trials and gets FDA-approved or something like that. In that case, you'll end up having an article on RationalWiki that's just plain wrong. 73.107.101.228 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Knotweed sources
You criticised the source for the Japanese knotweed xenophobia story. Are these three sources bad as well, and if so why? Source one S ource two and Source three --1.136.109.50 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * and if any of the aforementioned sources are good can you re-upload the clog article? --1.136.109.50 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source is a Murdoch publication, same as the original post, the second source maybe, the third source fuck no, Breitbart is actually worse than anything owned by Murdoch. 11:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the second source is pretty good. I was lookng into the person who made these claims in the above sources, he has made such claims before as well, few years ago.--1.136.109.50 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism
Hi, it's me, the guy form the Pseudoskepticism page. Let's talk this out here instead of cluttering up that page's fossil record. I'm not trying to say that being skeptical of religion of itself qualifies as skepticism. What I'm saying is that some of religion's self-proclaimed skeptics have a mindset such that even the hypothetical conclusive proof in religion's favor would not be accepted by them; the only difference between these people and the pseudoskeptics of AIDS is that the thing they refuse to believe in is something that the folks running this site also do not believe in. If these guys had their own page, the fictional snarkquote at the top would read as follows:

"My name is Bob the skeptic. I reject your superstitious claim that Jesus rose from the dead because people DO NOT rise from the dead. I know this because in my personal experience a bodily resurrection does not conform to human experience at all. Therefore literally anything is more reasonable than a resurrection. Maybe the body was stolen and over 500 people experienced one massive hallucination? Maybe It was just all made up and the disciples were actually having a good laugh? Maybe Jesus was deceived by an alien? Now, I know that I have no evidence that these things actually occurred, and I can't tell you why these things that have never been experienced in all of history is more reasonable than another thing I believe has never been experienced in all of human history, but that is how we skeptics think. I'm not the one making the claim, I simply lack a belief. You have the burden of proof to prove your position."Skadooshbag (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

anti Semitism?
I don't take kindly to being accused of anti semitism. "Women's march leader suggests Jewish rights group working with Starbucks is racist against blacks." was the headline on the Newsweek article and that's why I put it like that on the clogosphere. You want to complain? here you go. --SouthAfrica (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you arn't an anti-Semitic asshole who posts misleading headlines and then argues when someone points out that you have a stick up your ass, your just an asshole who posts misleading headlines and then argues when someone points out that you have a stick up your ass. My mistake. 17:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * nice to see you didn't bother reading my message and are doubling down on your bullshit. --SouthAfrica (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

racism in SA
SouthAfrica, knock off the edit warring in the racism article. Revert one more edit without coming to a consensus in the talk page, I will block you. If someone else is reverting your edits, report it to the talk page. Thanks. 21:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * what's your problem with my edits? Take it to the racism talk page, like I have. --SouthAfrica (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is my problem. You've been edit warring with four different users: Cosmikdebris, GrammarCommie, ClickerClock, and Spud. Please do not edit war again or I will temp block you or lock the page, whatever gets people to stop. Reach to an agreement in the talk page first before you make any more edits. The racism talk page isn't the appropriate place to discuss about the nature of your edits. Neither is GrammarCommie's talk page. So if you're willing to continue this, we need to do it in your talk page. 21:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Rome Viharo
I added a source for the claims. If you search Lumen Database you can find reports filed against his website for defamation, harassment and doxing. https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/14711678 Debunking spiritualism (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My question to your revert
Why did you ignore my question in Talk:Age_of_consent after you have reverted me without an explanation? --178.11.82.73 (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been busy 11:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Automobile revert
That was not vandalism. Old dog, new tricks (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I never claimed it was. 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why did you revert? Old dog, new tricks (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you are permanently banned from this site Grawp, now buh-bye!! 13:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

race realism archive
the edits on that are several years old, buried and no one views them. I thought it would be best to flush them for a clean redirect.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if they're a hundred years old and sitting in a dusty bunker at the bottom of the Atlantic, you still don't up and delete archive pages. If you want more proof go check with one of the Mods. 18:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an archive though. The original "Racial Realism" page was removed and redirected to the "racialism" article. There's no archived talk for the old "racial realism" pages, but edits for a deleted page left up on a redirect.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Archives are for talkpages, and talkpages alone. You never delete talkpage archives, which is very likely why the talkpage was never redirected in the first place. 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:Racial realism redirects to Talk:Racialism. What I removed was the obsolete Talk-page for racial realism, which isn't even a archived talk - some obsolete edits on that page were left up. There should be no edits on redirect pages. I think actual policy is to delete. Ask someone like :. Regardless, I was just trying to make pages more clean.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

dude, stop reverting or I'll make a coop case to de-sysop and block you
You're reverting stuff, including doxing. You have a history of reverting people, purely to annoy them.

You're an anonymous troll, so it doesn't matter what you do here. I/My family in contrast got doxed, we receive threats on a daily basis, are libelled and stalked all over the internet etc. Hence the stuff I'm deleting is done to protect me and family.

Please just fuck off and stop being a nuisance.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Back down kid, You didn't get the go-ahead to delete that content, quite the opposite in fact. And I would think twice about making accusations you can't back up. 02:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need permission to remove doxing. Perhaps read the rules. Like I said you're an anonymous troll. I'm sure you would rush to delete things if someone doxed your family members here.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only "doxing" I saw was the mention of the surname "Smith" which if you haven't been living under a rock you'll know is the most common surname in the English language. In addition I will once again warn you against throwing around the charge of "Troll" without any evidence. 02:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's odd... I remember that you reverted my edits!(here) Note that the information is correct and the source is sited.24.217.122.12 (talk)
 * Generally, you're not supposed to reveal your own last name over the internet, regardless if it's an extremely common one. So I think any sort of surname reveal should be erased. It would be easier for me to see what other content GrammarCommie was trying to revert, though. When in doubt, GrammarCommie, provide a substantial edit summary by not clicking the rollback button. 21:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy Victory Day
What kind of anti-Hakenkreuz activities are you going to be involved in, Mr. Commie? 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll shoot Nazis in Left 4 Dead 2 as a celebration. 23:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I went shopping, however I am thinking about shooting space Nazis later. 23:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes yes yes 🚀🛸pew pew pew 🔥卐🔥 00:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Marx and homophobia
you need to re-read the source. It's all there. --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The source states "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters". Are you saying the encyclopedia of homosexuality is wrong? --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying you're putting words in their mouths. 03:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters" is on the pages I cited. I'm not taking anything out of context here. --The Rationalist 01 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point the rationalist 01, you were not out of context. --SouthAfrica (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you continue to defend a homophobe, commie? --SouthAfrica (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , do you have a publicly available source? He probably was homophobic given the time period but we should have sources anyone can verify. Christopher (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this was the source cited, though I was unable to locate the relevant information on the page cited, however I will admit that I only skimmed the page so I might have missed something. 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I said I was leaving this site, but quite frankly, Christopher has shown himself to be really quite reasonable, so I'm going to try one last time to show the people running this site that GC is not doing his job well as a sysop at all by not giving serious consideration to facts that conflict with his worldview, and that in doing so, his personal political opinions are taking precedence over data quality on the Wiki. It took me all of five seconds to click that link, type "Marx" in the search bar on the left, and find the quote referenced by as one of the very first mentions of Marx in the book. You didn't "skim" this, GC - you didn't even look at it or you absolutely would have seen this. It's right there on the very first page of the book that mentions Marx's name. "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters on Jean-Baptiste von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair. Similar lack of subtlety characterizes their views on the pioneering homophile theories of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, in which they confused uranism with pederasty and pederasty with pedication (anal intercourse)." The implications of this are obvious and glaring: Marx was quite plainly a homophobe who compared homosexuals to pedophiles (and also a huge racist, but that's a topic for another thread), which was not at all unusual for his time, but there were many anarchists and other far-left extremists who did support homosexuals during this time period, and Marx was not among them, nor did he take a stand for them; in fact, he went so far as to eject these anarchists from the First International (also referenced in the source provided, one page later than the above reference).
 * This also begs the question: why are you so adamantly defending Marx if you aren't a Communist or Communist sympathizer, GC? You told me in the other thread that you just had to have your precious hammer and sickles so that you could mock these authoritarians, and that they weren't comparable to swastikas around a signature for this same reason...yet here you are, defending their thought patriarch without even bothering to give half a glance to check the sourced data provided? Very telling, I'd say.
 * For a savvy site moderator, the above should indicate that, just as in my complaint about him below, GC is far more interested in identity politics, personal opinion, and furthering his own agenda by preventing legitimate edits than he is interested in the veracity of data on this Wiki. --LogicalNerd (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I skimmed over the page linked as a source, if it was the wrong page that is on the person who originally linked it. Please refrain from making an accusation of malice when the evidence points in a contrary direction. 18:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You could've just said the part where "it's right there on the very first page of the book" and went into detail and leave out the rest of that junk. GC, there's another source here that seems to talk about Marx's homophobia. 18:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. You're right, Mario, that I could have done that. I didn't because I am trying to show a broader case for malicious intent and/or negligence here. GC, the evidence here is that you claim to have "missed" the quote in question even though it's the third mention of Marx's name. I contend that if you would like for a rational observer to not assume this is due to malicious intent, then the only other conclusion that can be drawn is ineptitude. Neither is a good trait for a sysop, and in either case, you reverted a legitimate edit without giving the person making it due consideration, even after he came to your page to complain about it, until I made such a big deal out of it that another mod, Christopher, got involved and forced you to defend your statements. --LogicalNerd (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the user in question has/had a history of far-right ideologically driven edits, most backed by poor sources such as (but not exclusively) RT and Breitbart I was less inclined to assume good faith and as such was less inclined to believe they were telling the truth, which I admit was a mistake in this instance. 19:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a sincere tip you may find useful, if you would genuinely like to improve your abilities as a sysop in verifying information: you can take a quote, leave the quotes around it, put it into Google, and often find out if the quote is legitimate or not by doing so. If you'd done that with the phrase that The Rationalist 01 posted above, "Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letters," you would have seen that the second link in Google was the book The Rationalist 01 linked to...this "trick" is pretty common knowledge, so, again, if you were unaware you could do this, then if it's not malice on your part, it's surely ineptitude. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * About the homophobia, might be worth looking into this, which disputes Marx's comments toward Schweitzer. Basically, contradicts the homophobia at least in that part. Either way, I think it's worth mentioning the homophobia, real or imagined. 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fair. I wouldn't trust people who use Brietbart or RT, much less those who are transphobic on top of all of it . 19:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I revert my edits restoring the Homophobia section to the article then? Or should we add the countering opinion, with clarification that the the information is contested but not disproven? 19:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the initial edit shouldn't stay because it's a lazy no-effort one-liner. For a better edit, you can try to go into detail why Encyclopedia of Homosexuality Volume states Marx as a homophobe, go into detail somewhat about the affair with Jean-Baptiste von Schweitzer, and then you can try to use that blogpost I cited (if you think it's any good) to try to dispute the claim. I'm no historical scholar and I don't know much about Marx and all (wouldn't be surprised if he were a homophobe as he'd be a product of his time), and I myself don't really feel like diving too much into that factoid, at least not right now. You can also review the general Wikipedia article; seems like Ctrl + F + "Marx" is enough for me. 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say, too, that I can understand and appreciate your apprehensiveness towards believing a user's good faith when he has already presented poor sources like RT and Breitbart as if they were hard evidence. I don't know this guy from Adam; I just happen to know a lot about Soviet history, and knew that there is at least some evidence to suggest that Marx and Engels had homophobic tendencies. To be fair, in the historical context within which they lived, this was not uncommon and, as far as I can tell, despite how they may have felt about gay people, they weren't particularly virulent homophobes, especially not for their time. Others were calling for outright extermination of homosexuals while Marx and Engels seem to have merely found them to be degenerate/distasteful. And most of the homosexuals they insulted were also political rivals, so that element is at play here, too, for what it's worth. --LogicalNerd (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for understanding the matter from my point of view. Since the source is to the best of our collective knowledge trustworthy we should now endever to investigate the matter in depth. To that end we have three possible conclusions we can make. One, Marx and Engels attempted to smear Schweitzer because he was Homosexual. Two, they attempted to use Schweitzer's homosexuality to smear him because he was their rival. Three, the source is mistaken. Out of all three scenarios I believe One and/or two to be the most likely based on my understanding of the men in question and their society at the the time. 20:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with that assessment. --LogicalNerd (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)