User talk:Summa Atheologica

—  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki,  has been added to your user rights. If you have questions, bleat ask away. 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Biogeography
I moved your page to: Draft:Biogeography. Please work on it their until it amounts to something. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker
Hi, I don't think you should summarily remove the sysop privilege from this user without a chicken coop case, no matter how egregious it's conduct is. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll give it back and go to the coop.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

When blocking people...
...for offensive commments, you don't need to say what the offensive comment was. Just remove the comment from the edit window and say "offensive comment" or whatever. Avida Dollarsher again 19:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
Don't do it. You had a chance to make your case and you failed to do so. 16:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given LGM's comment, I think I mostly succeeded in practical terms, even though I agree that mos probably disagreed with me.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Coop status
−

−	Instead of a date, you should actually enter the number 1 (at this point, this is HCM 1, based on the definition of what HCM 1 is). I'd put money on if one of the two of them doesn't LANCB for real this is headed for HCM 0... They're already squabbling over the site's structure. And gosh darn it metro's signal sucks today... 2607:FB90:932C:342A:0:12:32D9:3401 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC) −
 * It's minor for now. By the way, who are you, and what connection do you have to this site?Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

−
 * This is my harasser. — Oxyaena Harass  21:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

−
 * Oh, this is the bastard. Have you blocked him, or should I?Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

−
 * Last to block is a rotten egg. 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

−
 * Ah, GC has merited that title.Summa Atheologica (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

−
 * Dude, Ox, you need to get off of your high horse, I don't even know who you are beyond an anonymous username, don't even know what continent you live on. On the other hand, you have made threats of real life harassment that would probably be enough for a judge to grant a protection order if I knew who you were and where to serve it. I've been around here longer than you, asshat. No one is harassing you, it's all in your head. 2607:FB90:9094:C803:0:F:D9DD:7101 (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Respect
You're doing good work, Summa, keep it up. — Oxyaena Harass  23:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your appreciation.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocking people
Try to be lighter and more sparse with your blocks. Your targets may engage in some suspicious bad-faith white-washing and edit warring, but the measure would be assume good faith and leave a message on the page. Short-term blocks for white-washing are a bit too hard: try even shorter blocks, 9 hour max, and/or at least a message telling them to knock it off before using a block. As for edit warring, use short-term protection or a 1-9 hour block, and leave a message on their talk page warning them about their behavior. Of course, if they continue, the block can be a little longer, but imposing a 40 day block, much more an indef block would be way overkill. Imposing 3.6 ban for changing an article POV is overkill as well; some people might not know better (such as not liking the snark in our articles) and actually can have legitimate criticisms for the article but can't express it better. 21:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is only reasonable when the blocked party is not clearly acting in bad faith, as the person you are probably discussing clearly was. 01:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, you shouldn't have blocked a user for making an edit that apparently promotes pseudoscience. Engage with that content please, rather than reverting and blocking for a whopping 9 hours! 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And what should I say? "Dear editor, this link is probably BS. Please remove it."? 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's better than issuing a block? That's how it's supposed to go. If the user has clearly ignored your post, then that would be an edit war and then a short term block can be applied. 20:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Edits
Why did you just revert my edits to the Falkland Islands?
 * They bordered on whitewashing and attempted to change POV to something not resembling what RW is supposed to be. 18:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusion regarding Block
I was hoping to ask why you blocked my IP address? I still had an account but haven`t used it a lot recently, or at all. I have not meant to engage in edit warring and tried to engage in a discussion of the talk page of Positive Christianity and provided sources. I don`t understand how I engaged in whitewashing or BS insertions and I don`t understand why you didn`t first tell me how things I said were incorrect. I acknowledge Pope Pius XI was a Reactionary with semi-Fascist sympathies that fluctuated based on the circumstances, but as many historians especially Stanley G. Payne and Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have noted, Catholics and full Fascists tended to be at odds both because of the anticlerical origins of Fascism and its desire for the state to be supreme in all issues, this caused Far Right Catholics to favour more Traditionalist Authoritarian regimes instead. Pointing out that nuance, (which was already alluded to in other parts of the article), is hardly BS or whitewashing. The involvement of Pope Pius XII in the 20th July plot has been described by many historians, most recently Mark Riebling. Pope Pius XII was more Liberal Conservative than his predecessor, more supportive of democracy and more firmly opposed to ultra-nationalism but still very Conservative compared to all the popes who came after him. Lastly the excommunication decree from the bishops in 1931 has been referenced by multiple historians as well as the Pave the Way Foundation.

I hope this was a proper and constructive was of addressing my confusion over the block of my IP address, I prefer to wait with making any edits to articles from this account until this is resolved. I look forward to your response. JohnLogan (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits engaged in a policy of denialism of the deep and well-documented links and collaboration between the Catholics and the Nazis. That's why Oxy binned you, for example. 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected, but why?
I get that editors from IPs have a bit of a bad rep on this site, but really, it's not that hard to see that I was trying to make a constructive edit and improve the flow of the Holy Lance popular culture section. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you weren't. The relevant information referred to the historical context of the artifact, and you attempted to turn it into something worthy only of Uncyclopedia. 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, I was trying but failed, apparently. The rest of your rationale I don't quite follow (nor do I quite understand what Uncyclopedia has to do with this, never been a fan of the site), is it possible to ask you to elaborate? --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you ought to go read the article I mentioned in my last comment. 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...ah, well I understand your suspicions much better now. In any case, would it be possible to ask the italics around the media titles to be put back? That at least is not grammatically incorrect or controversial. Sorry for any inconvenience. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That has been done. 23:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything for the betterment of this great wiki. 00:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How not to make puff pieces
Hello! I recently found out a few of the articles I've been writing for sociologists have been getting deleted, because apparently people are calling them puff pieces. I don't really understand why, considering that I'm trying to summarize their work and give access to people who might be interested in the literature they have, and am wondering what exactly should I be doing to improve these articles. I'm not exactly clear on the 'standards' that I'm supposed to be writing for, nor am I quite sure what people want when they say its "non-missional". If I could get some feedback for this, that would be great, thanks in advance.Forpsionics (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2020 (PST)

Crust displacement
Hi, uh, did you look at the content of my edits? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did. They removed perfectly good information and damaged the logical flow of the article. 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree; I expanded the topics that were already in the article. I wasn't aware of removing anything. What information do you think I removed? I have no objections to others revising my writing, but overall I think I added useful stuff. Would you like to ask for input from others? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know what was removed. 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hey, how do I add user boxes like the ones you have to my profile? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a guide at RationalWiki:Userboxes. 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove the userbox categories.
See title.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? They're useful and if you want them removed so much, go and remove them yourself, and absorb the backlash. 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty?
Really? Have you tried reading, for example? Whether insects are able to experience pain or not is controversial, and it is difficult to know for sure. Note that I never claimed that they definitively aren't able to feel pain - just that there is a distinction between them and animals that are certain to be able to feel pain. Besides, you're reverting my edit which removes the argument that is essentially "veganism is hypocritical because vegans don't care about insects". Do you see how dangerous this line of reasoning is? If we treat all living beings as the same, then slavery becomes acceptable, so too murder for cannibalism, etc. If you don't see the difference between a mosquito and a dog, then it's likely you're going to face jail time for animal abuse. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny that you cite Wikipedia. Also funny that it disagrees with your claim. I hope you never get patrolled. 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Coop
A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yo
Check mod nominations. 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Are you running? 17:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ummmmm
Why do you have a picture of a naked woman on your user page? AceModerator 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It comes from an old edit war. See the edit history of the page linked in the caption. 22:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't because I am at work and while I have my own office I still wouldn't want someone coming in at the wrong moment. AceModerator 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? 22:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I was thinking to myself if that was a naked picture of you then that's OK but if not you does the person in question know there is a naked picture of them sitting publicly on RW. AceModerator 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is from Wikimedia Commons. So I imagine it’s okay for public use. 23:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * just checking everything is above board. AceModerator 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Female supremacy
Hi Summa, I note that you deleted my discussion of female supremacy in the talk discussion that related to the discussion that was deleted in the actual article about female supremacy. I can find no explanation. Do I not deserve an explanation or am I just completely dumb? Please show me the kindness of putting something in that talk section at the bottom to replace my apparent violation of the rules, as I am confused. I will give you a few days before I escalate this to obtain suitable feedback about my conduct. Thanks.
 * Let's see what's wrong with this.

1. You don't just randomly past talk page comments from other pages, you link to them.

2. You are in no position to threaten me.

3. I was unable to find any evidence of you editing Cosmikdebris's talk page, as you said you did, while looking through your contributions. That itself is enough to lead to suspicion. 19:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Summa, I have to say, that I find your repeated deletions of anything I write without ever offering any explanation to be somewhat unfair. Will you at least allow this comment to stand?
 * I wrote explanations in my edit summaries, which you can view by clicking the tab marked "fossil record" in the top right corner of the page. Also, sign your comments with four tildes (~) after them. 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, the feedback I am getting is that I am a Noob and look dishonest. I accept this, but I'm not sure I will ever find time to write on this wiki. Sorry. John Smith (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I never used the phase "leave and never coming back". I am also honest enough to admit that I am a Noob and I played it wrong. I should have started by reading the rules. Writing RationalWiki articles isn't as easy as it looks though. The review process is thorough, even harsh when you get it wrong. Just realused my phone doesn't have tildas! John Smith.

Don't remove talkpage comments
If they don't break our blocking policy. Someone going "I thought it was RATIONALwiki" does not constitute a talkpage removal. 22:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, because it seemed spam-like. 22:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobic comments
Summa your posting here is phrased in an islamophobic way. I hope you recognise that replacing this with "some Turkish" instead of Muslim (something that could easily be swapped without changing any of the meaning) would make the phrase entirely accurate without the loaded meaning. Do you still stand by what you posted? Shabi DOO  13:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Murdering Turkish children as opposed to murdering Muslim children is still murdering children...--Hastur! (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize it could be taken in that way, but saying "Turkish/Kurdish/Azeri/Circassian/Chechen... etc children" would be unwieldy so I used the term "Muslim" as shorthand. 16:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocking
Could you go easy with the block button? A then mod mentioned this before. Christopher (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which blocks specifically do you think were unjustified? 20:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted your most and third most recent blocks, and your removal of a talkpage comment by one of the BoNs you blocked (removing talkpage comments is also something a mod has asked you not to do before). “Right wing deceit” and “being a tankie apologist” aren’t good reasons to block someone. Christopher (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, so you blocked me because you think I'm a shill, please explain how that reasoning doesn't violate the site's blocking policy
You blocked me in Feb, and said that I was a shill. That's not true, and, more importantly, that's not a valid reason for blocking someone.

The reasons for blocking someone are: Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki. Because it does not contribute to constructive dialogue, and merely causes disorder, malicious editing is a blockable offense.

If you have the ability, please explain your reasoning. You must have reason to say that my contribution was malicious, so explain it.

21:35, 25 February 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Shilling, likely ban evasion.)
 * You are the same person that's been vandalizing that page for months. repeatedly evading blocks, and, yes, I can block you, as Kevlarstar did. Nice try at puffing. Goodbye. 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We don’t block people just because they’re the subject of an article
This is ridiculous. He isn’t keeping his conflict of interest a secret, and took his concerns to the talkpage when asked. I’ve objected to some of your blocks before, but this is more serious, we can’t ban people just for having an issue with what we say about them. Christopher (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe this guy is Michael Coombs though, he loves to impersonate people that we criticize. GeeJayK (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The account was created in 2012 and doesn’t fit his very consistent pattern at all (Johnston isn’t notable for racism, no mention of “antifa”, etc), we can’t just ban everyone who complains about our articles because they might be him. Christopher (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) You're right, I didn't know the account was so old. GeeJayK (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's still not autopatrolled and he was edit-warring. 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He clearly isn’t experienced with wikis and doesn’t know what an edit war is. He edit warred a tiny bit 3 days ago, the only edit he made today was to a talk page. Even if he was edit warring, just protect the page again. There’s absolutely no justification for any block, let alone a three week one. Christopher (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to post to the Saloon section of RationalWiki and I am getting this message
I am trying to post to the Saloon section of RationalWiki and I am getting this message:

"A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

Function: Revision::insertOn Error: 3 Error writing file '/tmp/MLanwojx' (Errcode: 28 "No space left on device") (db1.rationalwiki.org)"

Is this a problem for the whole website or just that portion of RationalWiki?Eat More Vegetables (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m having similar problems, although some edits are clearly getting through. Christopher (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem went away for me.Eat More Vegetables (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably a server issue and you should ask for help here. 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Moderator demotion
With heavy heart and regret I am here to announce that you have been demoted to moderator. This should show up in your user rights log. Enjoy your newfound rights abuse opportunities power coursing through your veins and don't forget to watchlist ATIM and the Chicken Coop so you can help herd the Goats that are the users. Hope it'll be a good time working with ya. Techpriest (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Article request
I am not sure if RationalWiki has an article request page. But if it does, if you could place this article request there, I would appreciate it.

I would like RationalWiki to create a 2022 United States Midterm Elections article.

Thanks! Geregen3 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, it would be titled 2022 midterm elections, for other formats please see 2018 midterm elections and 2014 midterm elections. Second of all, does RW make articles based on projections?
 * Personally I would vouch for more hurricane-related articles, like for example one on Hurricane Maria that could probably be missional. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both climatology and political science are sciences. RationalWiki does have climatologists projections as far as climate change. So why not have political scientists projections on the 2022 Midterm Elections? Geregen3 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stuff like that goes in the to-do list. 22:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the user requesting is a blocked sock. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

String Theory
Hey,

I made the recent edits to the String Theory page. Are there errors with what I wrote or is it more a breach of wiki practice etc to make large edits anonymously? I believe the edits were more scientifically accurate than the previous version of the page, but perhaps not in the style of the wiki? --LittleQuark (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsourced major edits, especially those that are by new users, are usually cause for suspicion here. 04:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense, thanks for the response. If I reintroduce the edits with references to current graduate textbooks and actual papers would that be alright? --LittleQuaark (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably should be, but make sure these textbooks are easily accessible online and not paywalled. 15:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms draft
Yo, I'm what I guess you could call the "owner" of the Kiwi Farms draft - I saw you reverted some of my edits and I'd like to know if there's anything I did wrong (and eventually how to do it right). Fuckeverything (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven´t edited that page in months. Not sure what you´re talking about. 23:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A Mod-est Proposal
ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding articles
I was thinking about whether or not we should add some articles that haven't been added here yet. Rational Dude (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to write an article you can start it in draftspace. 14:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Rational Dude (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Drafts to articles and adding more content within them
When do drafts become articles? And should I get assistance for adding more content into articles? I'm new here, so I don't know how this place works. Rational Dude (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)