Talk:The Golden One/Archive1

So this article sucks tits.
Don't we have list of internet douchenozzles where we can index the fuckwit who is the subject of this article? -- MtD Bogan   05:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We had a bit of a policy change. Nobody YouTubers get the axe. I doubt this article will survive longer, not in this current state. 07:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (EC) Indeed, I still don’t know why some of our contributors have this unbending urge to create crappy stubs for all these nobody eejits who happen to have a YouTube channel.


 * I raised the same issue on Talk:Laura Loomer, Talk:Lady Checkmate and RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Kraut and Tea. Who... gives... a... fuck? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it's time consuming to watch their videos and see claims we likely have seen already (which probably contributes to why no one cares). Aren't we promoting Streisland? 08:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've AFD'd it but this tedious process wonk seems to differ. Do as you will. -- MtD Bogan   08:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just saying, afd should be reserved for potentially contentious afd. This is a clear cut case. You will save time reaching a talk page consensus. 08:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Good points. Also, I don't need the brain pollution from watching videos by Joe-random-shithead-Nazi. Bongolian (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well surely even Opera has a back button. -- MtD Bogan   08:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Back button... That's an idea for an afd header that support s deleting it. 08:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You should get on that most Rikki-Tik Mr TechNinjaGoderator. Might take your mind off that norwegian blue. -- MtD Bogan   08:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Because he's not a nobody, you fool. He has 87 000+ subscribers. That may not be YouTube superstar status, but it's not tiny either. Tyrone8934 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * But, Tyrone, being a ”not tiny” YouTube channel is not a good or good enough reason to merit an RW article. Also, a channel’s total number of subscribers is not a very good indicator anyway. E.g. people are much quicker to subscribe than unsubscribe and just because you’ve subscribed to a channel, you don’t necessarily watch it regularly (or it may have lots of views, but not from subscribers).


 * So again: Why should we care enough about this dude to have an article on him? Is he saying something particularly crazy/interesting/novel? Is he especially influential? (No, idly speculating that ”Some of his subscribers may even be in positions of power” is not enough) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "being a ”not tiny” YouTube channel is not a good or good enough reason to merit an RW article." But being a crank and authoritarian is. See "About Rational Wiki" on the upper left corner of the main page. "a channel’s total number of subscribers is not a very good indicator anyway. E.g. people are much quicker to subscribe than unsubscribe and just because you’ve subscribed to a channel, you don’t necessarily watch it regularly (or it may have lots of views, but not from subscribers)." Fair point. "Is he saying something particularly crazy/interesting/novel?" You checked The Golden One's main page before you replied, so you must know about all the crazy shit this guy says. Or did you forget in only a few seconds? Tyrone8934 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know the mission and no, I haven’t forgot ”about all the crazy shit this guy says.” I merely raise the issue of why we need articles on all these YouTubers and ask our contributors to consider the message/point of writing an article beyond merely listing “all the crazy shit [insert subject of article her] says.”


 * I’ll readily admit that this article is not the worst of the bunch by far, but it would be nice with a wee bit of debunking or some other original material (i.e. along RW’s mission of ”explorations”, as well as ”analysis and criticism”), or even just some entertaining writing, rather than simply pointing fingers and shouting “boo!” It might be a good idea to take a look at RationalWiki:Article rating for some pointers as to whether and how a subject could potentially/eventually generate a (highly) rated article. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I analyzed and criticized his encouragement of kidnapping, his comments on homosexuality, and his anti-porn arguments. If you can (supposedly) do better, you're welcome to try. But since you're too lazy and stupid to even read The Golden One's main page before replying, I doubt you will try. Tyrone8934 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for that constructive comeback. Just a friendly piece of advice; you might want to rethink the way you engage with others if you don’t want everything to turn into a screaming row. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Dude, you started our verbal pissing contest by calling by calling my article "crappy". To be fair, it was crappy, but you didn't have to be nasty about it. LOL. Dat feeling when you bully another kid, he fights back, and then, you make him look like the bully when a teacher comes. Tyrone8934 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Calling an article a "crappy stub" is criticism of content, not character. Even if criticism of material is harsh, your immediate response should not be to launch a series of personal attacks and insults. Wombat is correct; you have been responsible for escalating this. It makes you look thin-skinned and immature. So I'm gonna have to ask you to calm the fuck down when dealing with other contributors, especially since they also only want to see this wiki improve. 17:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Calling an article a "crappy stub" is criticism of content, not character." Why does it matter? If you're gonna enforce civility, you should enforce it across all contexts. Your argument is more shitty than sewage. "you have been responsible for escalating this." I wouldn't have escalated it if he didn't start it. Your argument is one that I would expect from an inbred homeless crack addict, not a respectable moderator. "I'm gonna have to ask you to calm the fuck down when dealing with other contributors" And I'm gonna have to ask you to drag your moderation skills out of the dumpster. PS: If you ban me for the aggressive tone of this comment, then you're a massive hypocrite. I only attacked your arguments and moderation skills, not your character. Tyrone8934 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop. 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So this kid's thin skin and hyperaggressive immaturity makes him nearly impossible to engage with on any level. Do you think a coop case would be appropriate? 19:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Resorting to personal attacks, are we? Allow me to use one of your own quotes against you. "Even if criticism of material is harsh, your immediate response should not be to launch a series of personal attacks and insults." -- DuceMoosolini, 2019. Anyway, my intention wasn't to be aggressive but to force you to empathize with my POV. If you allow people to be douchebags when they criticize content but not character, you're gonna have a lot of douchebags who exploit this loophole. I'm ashamed to say I've been guilty of this a few times. Tyrone8934 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, rejoining the “fun” for a brief public service announcement: I know this message wasn’t for me, but: No, I don’t see any serious grounds for a coop case. Tyrone8934 is not being so much of a thin skinned drama queen that it merits breaking out the big guns.

As for you,, it does seem rather, ahem, “curious” that you start bitching when hit back with the kind of epithets that you began applying to those who simply criticised your article. As I have noted previously, I’m not merely questioning your article, but the slew of YouTuber articles that devote little time to analysis and simply reproduce quotes and video links. I also pointed out that yours is not, actually, particularly bad, but is indeed better than some of the others (at least you seem to have some interest in doing a bit more than merely quoting the subject of the article).

To wrap up, I think that something along Anna Livia’s suggestion of bundling anyone not part of the really big “stars” of the alt-right echo chamber into a common article organised by topic, rather than by YouTuber (vlogger, whatever), might be a way to not have oodles of articles on “Joe-every-Nazi with a YouTube account and more than a few thousand followers”. It would also help to distinguish those alt-righters who might have some sort of unique/novel ideas or angles from those who merely rehash the standard ideological potpourri of the movement; though whether simple recombinations should be considered original (enough), is up for debate (cf. my brief exchange with ikanreed on Talk:Men Going Their Own Way). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
Rather than have a page for each of these legends-in-their-own-minds vloggers (wherever they happen to post) have a single long list with 'chief topics of concern', 'angle to reality' and entertainment value.

Anyone care to do a vlogger version of this? Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Response video
Anyone want to go through and shore up the claims? - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)