User talk:GrammarCommie/Archive3

men's rights page circumcision section dispute
We got into an edit war on the circumcision section of the men's rights page. I left my concerns on the talk page and so far you haven't gotten back to me. The argument the page makes about FGM causing greater loss of sexual pleasure than MGM is wrong, according to the paper I read about it. Here it is: Earp, B. D. (2014). Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? Practical Ethics. University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3530.4967.

I encourage you to read it and get back to me ASAP. Sewblon (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please format your links properly. 03:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather trust the WHO to be honest. 03:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the links. What specifically did I do wrong in the formatting? Back to the main topic. I understand wanting to trust the WHO. But the page cited doesn't compare FGM and MGM at all. the paper I cited does directly compare them. So one doesn't actually contradict the other. Sewblon (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You put a newline in the middle of the link. And the rest of the citation, but that's less important. 23:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the WHO page doesn't compare FGM with MGM, it doesn't actually back up the claim that the rational wiki page made, at least not on its own. So there is no reason to think that Earp was wrong when he argued that FGM is not any worse than MGM and they do belong under the same discourse. Sewblon (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits on the Owens article
Quick glance, it looks good to me. I won't get a chance to do a more detailed look for several hours, so I put it on my to-do list. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop violating policy
From the community standards: "Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions: Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks. Spam and copypasta posts. Content that makes the talk page awkward to read or navigate, such as unsigned comments (use the template), messy formatting and footnotes (which should not be used on discussion pages)."

Kindly stop messing with my post on Nutty Roux's talk page. That used to be one of the few things this site cared about. You're abusing your sysop rights. 98.143.231.154 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, you could have just linked the community standards rather than copy/pasting them to my talkpage. Second off, given the circumstances (Nutty has been inactive since mid-2015, and has expressed no desire to return, the elections have yet to start, and due to their inactivity Nutty is ineligible to run for the board.) your posts could be viewed as falling under vandalism/trolling. Finally if you believe that I'm abusing my Sysop privileges take it up with a mod. 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * lol a bon thinks he runs the site as much as a mod does. 01:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * we normally don't like minimodding around these parts 02:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I quoted it instead of linking bc I was fairly sure you either weren't going to read it or don't care what it says. I believe you're abusing your powers bc the policy is clear as day that the kind of post you keep removing is protected. Locking the page is worse. Make up your own rules as you go along but it just makes this place shittier. This stuff was taken seriously back when this site was run by adults.
 * First, the elections have yet to start. Please refrain from posting nomination notices until campaigning rolls around. Second, the fact that GC told you this and you continued to do so could conceivably make your post count as malicious. Third, again, if you think he's abusing his powers, take GC to the coop. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "make up your own rules"
 * like? 03:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not I actually did read the rules, both the rules governing talkpages and the rules governing board elections. Based on what I read I made a judgement call. You are of course welcome to disagree with me, you are welcome to take the issue over my head to the mods and even the Coop, but I stand by my decision whether you like it or not. In addition, feel free to make an account (or sign in to yours if you already have one) and make enough edits to qualify for the ability to participate in the upcoming Board election (the voting option is restricted to auto-patrolled users). 03:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I don't believe you read either policy. It seems the only judgment you made was whether to double down and lock the page.

I'll walk you through this since neither you nor this feckless moderator or the people accusing me of vandalism and trolling to get it. What the heck is going on here?

RW treats talk pages as community property. That used to mean something and there were extensive policy discussions setting up the system you people ignore so you can do whatever you please.

I quoted the talk page policy because it is unambiguous that the only reason to delete anything from someone else's talk page is if it's obviously vile trolling. Telling Nutty Roux I'm going to nominate him for the board isn't obviously vile trolling. Asking if other users he knows might come back is not obviously vile trolling.

The board eligibility policy is silent on deleting talk page comments, so certainly your premature decision that Nutty Roux is irrelevant. How the fuck are we supposed to tell old users we can't contact off the site we will nominate them. Others have mad similar posts on his page no other busy fuckers swooped in to delete. If as you claim Nutty Roux is not eligible, he has plenty of time to change that.

You multiplied your boneheaded error by locking the page.

I would like you to admit that the policy as written forbids what you did. If you think you've got an exception other than the moderators are weak and you do what you please, let me know. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 98.143.231.154 / talk
 * Four things. A) If you want to contact Nutty so badly you could Email him, or since Ace knows him in RL, have Ace ask him. B) I never claimed Nutty was irrelevant. C) A Nomination message before the election period starts is still a no-no. If you were to say ask Nutty if he'd like to run that's fine, but spamming a "You've been nominated in a race that doesn't exist yet" is trolling. D) Sign your damn comments, you've failed consistently to do so since day one of this whole shebang. 12:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you're being dishonest. I was sure you would be. I didn't only use a template, I posted that I would nominate him and asked him a question. I don't want to email him and it's not your place to tell me to. If you're so bent out of shape about me using a template, why did you delete my entire post??--98.143.231.154 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 hutch That sentence should have read "The board eligibility policy is silent on deleting talk page comments, so certainly your premature decision that Nutty Roux is ineligible is irrelevant. " &mdash; Unsigned, by: 98.143.231.154 / talk
 * You know what? Fine. I'll unprotect the page and restore your comment. Why the hell do you even want Nutty to run, anyway? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it should not have. since A) I did not refer to the disputed comment as a template, nor did I express a dislike of after the appropriate time. And B) you have no right to control my speech. My gods, are you this dense and insufferable in real life when you fail to get your way? 22:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's dense? I was correcting my own sentence, you fucking nitwit. What's wrong with you? Beef and dairy (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remain civil. 01:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So I have no right to control your speech, but you have the right to control mine? Charming. Beef and dairy (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way, let's say you went into a bar, ordered a seasonal drink (out of season) and tried to put it on the tab of someone who left and will likely not be coming back. Does the barkeep (not the owner, but the person manning the bar) not have the right to tell you not to do that? 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * protip: Threatening new editors is not a great way to build community and is generally poor leadership. You're supposed to empower, not demean. Very authoritarian. Beef and dairy (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't a barkeep treat everyone the same? Poor service at this joint. Beef and dairy (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When exactly did I threaten you? Provide an exact quote.
 * PS:If a customer is being rowdy or unreasonable then the barkeep has the right and obligation to get them to stop. 02:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Will likely not be coming back." This analogy is boring already. Just talk straight. Stop with the othering while you're at it. Beef and dairy (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

chaosdragon49
Is that you, or should I ignore it? —Kazitor, pending 03:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, answer me. The notification is annoying me. —Kazitor, pending 02:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon the delay as I just recently woke up and finished breakfast. Yes that's me on Steam. 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. —Kazitor, pending 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hiding spam account names
Just curious, is it really necessary to hide the account names of spambot accounts? It's not like they use profanity or include dox or hate speech anything like that. It may make it hard for fellow sysops to investigate vandalism caused by these accounts. For example, just last night, I caught a spammer who appears to have picked a random article to add it's garbage to. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally try to restrict the action in question to "spam rushes" i.e. when a large number of spam accounts are created within a relatively short period of time. In addition I am unaware as to whether the account names are removed from all logs rather than simply to account creation log. If so I apologize and will cease, as my main intent was to weed out the spam accounts so that dedicated vandals and/or banned users might be more easily identified, rather than sifting through a sea of redlinks. 17:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. The names aren't removed from the logs; they're just hidden, e.g., here. I understand your logic for applying this action when a sea of spam hits the site. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sent TO Kevin
I've sent Kevin a message about your revisions. This page needs facts in it or it is considered libel. Do you not get that? I personally am tired of seeing his name tarnished by people like you. Add those facts back in or Kevin will address you.
 * Mr. Martin, you've been through this before and lost miserably, don't embarrass yourself again. 01:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice
— Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your dedication and diligence, Comrade! For Stalin! Nerd (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And here I thought I was doing this for you, the people, the proletariat... 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you flatter me, Comrade! What do peasants like me know? We are ignorant and not very intelligent, which is why we need the Central Committee to plan everything in our lives, our economy, our education, our occupations, and so on. The Party knows best! Nerd (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
We should create a page about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. LuodiWang (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think such a page is mission-related, go for it. Nerd (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Protection
Consider protecting your talk page to preempt the trouble makers. Nerd (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would prevent communication with BoNs who wish to complain or debate. 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Maybe just for a day for a few hours, enough to discourage whichever trolls with a bit of free time at the moment. Nerd (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well in that case please pardon me while I semi-protect my talkpage. 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Were you really upset?
Hey GC, I'm rather bad at reading into things. Were you really upset over in the Problem of evil talk page or are you just playing around? If you are truly upset, I sincerely apologize; I was honestly just poking fun. I was not putting words in your mouth when I stuck your insult to God in the middle of a bunch of insults from Trump; seriously, nobody would think you said the Trump parts! Or do you feel I put words into your mouth somewhere else in the discussion? Ya know, when I said your insult sounded like Trump, I was lobbing one over the plate for you to hit back with "I sound like Trump?! Now who is being insulting!!!" :-D

. . . Still nothing? Come on, please smile; after all, it's us Christians who are supposed to be sensitive! :-)

Eh? Eh? :-) . . .  :-(  *sigh*  Okay, look: I honestly want to engage, even though I am trying to keep it light. Have you noticed that I haven't been reverting your changes (I once accidentally rolled back one of your changes when I was trying to get a copy of some text, but I reverted my rollback) and whenever you complain about more than a couple change versions I make to something, I stop touching that bit and move to the discussion page. I've also broken out the specific issues I have into sub discussions and invited more editors to give their opinions. Really, please put in your thoughts: Do you truly think that the obvious response any Christian with a gram of sense will give is that "God is allowed to violate his own morality"? Do you truly not understand how saying the tautology is completely useless may be a bit too much hyperbole and be in need of some nuance? (If you want to respond to those two questions, please do it in the article's talk page)

BTW, If you are just playing around, please disregard. Like I said, I'm lousy at reading into things! -- Bertrc (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the Trump comparison. While I am not the best person in the world (arguably I'm probably closer to one of the worst from an objective standpoint) that "man" is worse than me by leaps and bounds (one could even argue by light years). 21:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I guess I can understand that. For the record, though, in my defense, lumping your insulting of God in with Trump's insulting of . . . well . . . just about everybody . . . is not "putting words in your mouth."  You might have a case for unacceptable hyperbole and you certainly could have chastised me for insulting you much more than you had insulted God but, if I may give an honest constructive critique: Claiming I put words in your mouth is a little . . . I dunno . . . sloppy? . . . By the way, you do realize that if you let the mere mention of "Trump" put you that much off your game, then he wins, don't you?  Ugh, I worry that he is affecting the entire country that way!  -- Bertrc  (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt you (or most people for that matter) have to actively deflate (and satirize) your own ego. No, you are not important Ego, you over-hyped figment of thought! 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dude, I'm afraid that your last post went over my head. What did you mean?  I'm not sure how it relates to Trump's effect on the masses. I actually do have to actively deflate my own ego; it really is overblown.  Besides which, doing so is kind of a Christian thing. Heck, why do you think I post on this site?  :-)  Yes, we are supposed to humble ourselves by submitting to God and giving up our belief in and our need for being in control, etc.; I do try to do that, but I also seem to arrange many opportunities where people can digitally yell at me.  :-) -- Bertrc  (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

WIGO
So to clarify, I should not actually revert additions to WIGO, even if they link to tube8? Dysklyver (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should use to edit out WIGOs (or any inappropriate vote for that matter) .  12:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok no worries. I will do that in future. Dysklyver (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. It's one thing when people add links to Breitbart or put "Justin Bieber bought a new pair of trousers" in WIGO world. When a pissed off troll adds links to porn videos, that just needs to be removed like any other vandalism. I did the right thing and I stand by what i did. Spud (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about the type of link but about how the voting mechanic works. If you simply revert the vote carries over to the next WIGO entry (as it did in this case). 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All right then. I just hope nothing like that happens again. Spud (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I. That particular troll is becoming almost as annoying as the other two (and twice as boring to boot). 14:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts
First of all, certain parts of the Bible being fictional does not mean that the entirety of the Bible is fictional. That doesn't even make sense. There's no way to know for certain whether or not figures like Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob existed because they were random people living in the desert thousands of years ago who would have gone largely unnoticed in their own time. You can't prove or disprove their existence.

Secondly, Julius Evola was not a fascist - he was even farther to the right, and rejected fascism. He didn't ascribe to fascist beliefs like the notion of a national rebirth being necessary, for example. Julius Evola is his own type of batshit crazy reactionary. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that anything within the Old Testament is true, ergo by default it is false. As for the Evola, Trump and Le Pen.... Trump has been described by experts as displaying Proto-Fascist tenancies, Le Pen is an outright Fascist, and Evola was his own brand of crazy that while not specifically Fascist, was related to Fascism. 00:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "There is no evidence that anything within the Old Testament is true"? Except for artifacts corroborating parts of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. So you're wrong about that. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you perchance have better sources than Wikipedia? 01:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here. It's reasonably certain that King David was a historical figure and he founded a dynasty in Israel. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * late to this, but... Spider-Man fallacy covers this, I think. 79.68.230.71 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC) (Sophie)

Please give reasons for reversions
As a rule, I only use rollback for obvious vandalism like blanking or spamming. Even if it's something as transparent as flipping the POV, use undo and please provide an explanation. —Kazitor 10:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking
While it's not worthy of the attempted cooping, you should not block users after one edit. Please read over the blocking policy again. —Kazitor, pending 02:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of our current trolls are guilty of both points three and four of the long term blocking requirements. 03:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do note that almost all behaviours should be met with short blocks, not indefinite. Don't forget the existence of the vandal bin either. But even then, one edit is not enough to take any action. (and why is pinging so inconsistent?) —Kazitor, pending 06:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You really need to lay off the banhammer. The vandal bin exists for a reason. But also, "impersonation" leading to an indefinite block? Are you serious? —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 02:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to be more merciful in the future, though I am not accustomed to using kid gloves on rather blatant trolls. In closing I apologize for my behavior and will endeavor to improve it as best I can. 02:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Was I wrong to comment in the coop?
I'm still not entirely sure when it is or isn't proper for somebody to comment in a coop. Sorry if what I did was a violation.Teurastaja (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's archived from a while ago, so it was settled. You should check the dates and time when it's archived to make sure. 01:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All is forgiven, however it's best to avoid editing archived pages as that somewhat defeats to point of archiving them. 01:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Something nice for a change
Happy birthday, comrade! Spud (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a song from the imperialist warmongering capitalist pigs. We prefer songs written by our fellow glorious working class revolutionaries, such as this one. Nerd (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Congrats man. I have no clue how old you are but happy birthday all the same. :) 16:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but Happy Birthday! RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Capital Offense
Dear Comrade Grammar, please be advised that according to the standard rules of capitalization, all words of the title of a book or article other than prepositions and articles, if they are not the first word, must be capitalized. Nerd (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defense I was more concerned with formatting than spelling when I made that edit. 03:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comrade, spelling and capitalization are not the same thing. Nerd (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree...
… with your vandal binning of 5ive or the 3 month block of Hello Everyone. Their posts on WIGO seem accurate to me. --RWRW (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that they're the same person right? They're also User:SouthAfrica, User:The Rationalist 01, A literal laundry list of BoNs, and User:Dank Kekistan Memes to name but a few guises they've used. All of them banned, binned, or told to fuck off when it became clear that they had nothing to offer beyond juvenile far-right trolling. 13:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh… I wasn't aware that they've been doing this for a while. --RWRW (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can I not archive discussions on my own talk page?
The discussions I archived were old discussions that I think the community would agree are best left to lay like a lazy dog. What's wrong with doing that? What a Wonderful World (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed the archive page you created. 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting updates
Dear Comrade, can you please tell me the difference between and ? Thanks! Nerd (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first one is a template from the edit toolbar (Which needs to be updated to remove "Subst" from several templates, and is cleaner to look at when editing an entire page. The second is a manually added template that isn't as clean to look at in edit mode. 20:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's all about being "clean". Got it! I've been doing it the old-fashioned way for a long time. I suppose I should just use the new code from now on. I hate change. I like things the way they are. Why do you people keep changing things? Nerd (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Not bugging Nerd with my answer to your question
Yes, that's the one. It's not without its problems as a hypothesis, but it is one of the more interesting conjectures to suggest the hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics. I haven't read enough physics journals to see if it's had a stern rebuking from other physicists. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then that would seem to be based on the same premise as my rather amateur theory, i.e. that the concept of time,space, and matter ceasing to well, matter can be explained by a black hole, or at least the event horizon of one. 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Please forgive my ignorance regarding physics, I only really studied some basic concepts via a kids/teenager science encyclopedia, and that was years ago. 16:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologizing for ignorance is kinda like apologizing for breathing, we all do it and it's only annoying if you do it 3 inches from my face.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, don't give nazis any room
Please. It wasn't a demopping and anyone could give him the rights back if he proved to later not be crazy, but nazis are not okay. And taking an engineered smear campaign by nazis(and there's a paper trail here) to get a minority writer fired as something that just needs peace and understanding. Please reconsider your appeal to the process. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you took it to the Coop I would probably vote on your side, but my standard policy is once Sysoped only de-Sysoped via Coop. Why do you think I fought so hard to prevent RWRW from gaining Sysop rights? 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, the paper trail I mentioned fwiw.   ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Tolerant' left-wingers being tolerant of other's views... --RWRW (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, We're just sick of bullcrap, sick of moderates nodding their heads to what extremists say because "screw the left", tired of tribalism, tired of the primitive crap that costs people their lives. You want to try your ideas out? Fine! Go buy an island and set up your perfect paradise of special specialness, and if it succeeds I'm sure everyone will be very impressed. 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will never, ever tolerate nazis, the way I tolerate mere difference of opinion. And if you think I should, that's because you fucking suck at having a functional brain.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And would you both consider me to be a Nazi? Because I certainly don't consider Kingdamian1 to be pushing any Nazi agenda. Any sane person would be utterly opposed to Nazi ideology. --RWRW (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I made it clear that specifically the stupid ass smear campaign was nazi originated and the reason for my objection, but I'm also aware of the biological need of smug dimwits to say "so everyone you disagree with is a nazi?" regardless of the particular facts; just get it out of your system. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am honestly confused, can you quote anything I said that supports Nazism? Or which Nazi website did I link to? I am a bit confused! Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While the jury is still out as to how much of this crap you actually believe, the fact is that several talking points you've brought up are Nazi in origin. that is to say you might not be a Nazi but the talking points are. Or let me put it another way, James Randi supports Eugenics, and as far as any of us know he himself is not a racist, however eugenics is.  02:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you before, much of the problem seems to be that you parrot talking points without actually thinking about them first. And then you stick by them while ignoring the people refuting you, and then you get offended when we stop taking you seriously. That kind of stuff doesn't make you look good. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  02:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by Nazi talking points? Do you mean that Nazis may agree with me on something? If so, then how is it my problem? You stated that you believe in open borders. That is the talking point of many black supremacists, does that make you a black supremacist? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Open borders has its roots in several different schools of political thought, including but limited to, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Anacho-Libertarianism, Anarcho-socialism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho-Communism. Where you got the idea that the concept of open borders originated with advocates of a black ethno-state is beyond me, as much like their white counterparts, they value control over freedom. 03:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That should be "its" not "it's". With the contraction, what you wrote is "Open borders has it is roots in several different schools..." I sentence you to no less than 10 and no more than 15 years of hard labor in the Grammar Gulag, comrade. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  03:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have mercy Comrade, for it is late and I am tired. 03:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It was just an example. Just because Nazis might agree with someone, does not make one a Nazi. I am sure many racists agree with Richard Dawkins' gene theory of evolution. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, it's not that they agree with you. It's that you agree with them.  03:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean? I am the POLAR opposite of Nazism. When it comes to racism, not only am I NOT racist, but I think that the concept of race is outdated and needs a reform at least! Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Excessive vandalism"
One user making a few edits is not "excessive" and usually not "vandalism" – in most cases you can just revert a few times, but if they persist, protect for "Counter-productive edit warring" instead. And keep the duration reasonable; even one hour would make most people give up, but a few hours is fine too. —Kazitor 10:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

stop
you should stop reverting my edits they my edits i made them so leave them


 * i started coop case youre so banned now they will ban you and youll cry because you banned
 * The Saloon bar is not an aproprate venue for attempting to get a ban revoked.
 * PS: Learn to write. 22:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw, don’t be mean to the poor kid. He can’t be older than 12. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  22:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop giving us a bad name
Having came back after about half a year, I've seen some of your edits and to be honest, they aren't very good. Despite clear evidence displayed from myself, the Mao page continues to suffer from a anti Communist bias, and no one has used the sources that I gathered up to fix it. It still functions as a bunch of shitty statements. Get reading, and get it fixed. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But the cynicism is correct, the page lacks many sources, and is generally seen as full of incorrect statements. For the record- it's rather funny that legit issues with articles are laughed off by their users. Nice to see this place hasn't changed a bit. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Electrocution
00:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WWW
Hi, I have removed your re-instalment of WWW's block. He should be allowed to defend himself in this case, it isn't for me to talk on his behalf. However I assure you, if he edits the RMF election page while the Coop case goes on I will happily re-install the block myself. --RWRW (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion
I'm not sure who you thought this was a few days ago but you obviously confused me with someone else because I'm not evading any blocks... 204.86.170.187 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way... That was actually me, I just felt like not logging in. It's not Grawp or anything like that. What a Wonderful World (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was adding to what I already said, not replying to myself, so I don't know why you would change the formatting like that, but whatever. Hi myself! Bye myself! ;) What a Wonderful World (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's the proper formatting standard. 01:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never knew that to be true on other wikis, but whatever. It's your page, do as you wish. What a Wonderful World (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the proper formatting standard even on Wikipedia. 16:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice
What a Wonderful World (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit of the "Self-Refuting Idea" article
That source I gave was my own deviantart profile, where I quote C.S. Lewis. It was simply the most readily available source of the quote I had access to. You didn't claim issue with the logic itself when you removed my edit (btw I personally find it odd that a *logical argument* needs a source, but hey), so what source would you prefer I use?Skadooshbag (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None, given that the Omnipotence/Omniscience problem applies even with the variables of infinite time/space, as those merely (infinitely) prolong the problem. 00:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Either you've misunderstood the counterargument, or I've miscommunicated it. Infinite space-time has nothing to do with it.  The original argument says "a being stated to be both omnipotent and omniscient would be unable to do anything but the things it had foreseen itself doing..." and the counter I'm trying to give is that this does not apply, since God does not 'foresee' anything, as God exists outside of time. This is what is meant when it is said that a day for the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years for the Lord is like a day. Here are some analogies:


 * 1a)Draw a timeline of your entire life--from birth to death--on a sheet of paper. Eternity is represented by the sheet of paper the timeline is on.
 * 1b)Draw a timeline of your entire life--from birth to death-- on a sheet of paper. Now pick that paper up and look at it edge-on. That is how God views and experiences your life.


 * 2)Take any standard comic book. for the characters in-universe the events occur one after another as they transpire, but *you*  have each individual panel all at once in your hands at the same time.


 * 3)All the timezones converge at the North and south poles, so what time would you say it is *at* the poles right now?


 * Now do you see why it is inaccurate to speak of God as "foreseeing" things?Skadooshbag (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then God is not Omniscient. Also, how does a being who exists outside of time exist, since time is one of the building blocks of reality? 04:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)It's clear you're having trouble grasping this. God is not ignorant of the future, God is *already experiencing* it. Just as how the sheet of paper with the timeline drawn on it does not "foresee" the later events, but experiences all events on the timeline at the exact same moment. 2) Time is one of the fundamental building blocks of *this universe*; God is no more obliged to abide by the rules or laws of a universe they've created than Bill Gates is obliged to abide by the codes and algorithms of a program he's created. 3) Even then, I'm surprised you have to ask this question in the first place; physicists have been saying that there are things outside of time for several years now. Photons and the insides of black holes do not experience time, for example.Skadooshbag (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then the problem remains. Look, just give up trying to defend this concept, the only plausible models are A)that there is no deity, no afterlife, no destiny and that the universe and everything in it are naturally occurring phenomena, or B) . Those are the results we get when we apply both Occam's razor and Hitchens' razor to the problem. 12:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the problem remains. Science itself ha already established the existence of timelessness, so explain the problem form the perspective of a hypothetical sapient and omniscient black hole. And what do destiny or polydeism have to do with it?Skadooshbag (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey. Don't go re-undoing my edit if you can't justify your argument, dude. I gave you plenty of time to give a response, and you didn't. If you can't justify your edit, then don't make it. Remember what that other person told you after our fiasco with the pseudoskepticism page.Skadooshbag (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise if my schedule conflicts with yours, however, I have explained why your counterargument falls short and have no desire to repeat myself. 17:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I apologize for my harshness (I've been trying to argue with a rather immature bunch of flat-earthers lately), but you really didn't explain what's wrong with the counterargument, at least not that well. The first time you merely said "then God is not omniscient," then the next time you merely said "then the problem remains" before jumping to some false-dilemma preclusions without actually explaining how they follow. Are you under the impresat what you were thinking? A better way of phrasing it would be that God is beyond time, but still fully interpenetrates it. Like how the quantum foam does with any given object. It is not bound by the circsion that God needs to be bound by time in order to be omniscient? Or maybe you misunderstood me? See, when I said "God is outside time," I didn't mean that God has no presence within the temporal frame of reference; is thumference of that object, but is filly present within it just as much as without it nonetheless. Did that clear it up? Remember friend, it's better to lose an argument than to win it, since when that happens you get to learn something new.Skadooshbag (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Did that clear it up? Remember friend, it's better to lose an argument than to win it, since when that happens you get to learn something new." first off, stop with this nonsense, you have yet to prove your point.
 * Second off, by saying that the Abrahamic God exists outside of reality/spacetime you attempt to move to goalposts to a "safe area" for your claims. Given that the area between universes is theorized to be a chaotic soup with nothing that could even come close to being called life, let alone intelligent, this comes off as pretty desperate. 01:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)Desperate? I'm not making this stuff up, dude; These are all aspects of God's nature that were agreed upon centuries ago. 2) Your error in thinking here is that you have an ontological frame of reference limited to tangible (for a given value of tangible)material for which instruments could conceivably be constructed to measure and detect, and thus you think God is necessarily some sort of organism that owuld be made of things and have an existence founded upon and underlayed by interacting components. This is not the case. God does not have a foundation in or underlayed by anything. Rather, existence itself has a foundation in and is underlayed by God. Just as infinity is always larger than any number you can pull up, so to does God underlay any sort of foundation you can dig down to. Asking what God is composed of is a bit like asking what the molecular density of a single atom is, and also a bit like asking how many miles are in an hour, or whether yellow is square or round.Skadooshbag (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Presupposition, appeal to ignorance, god of the gaps, special pleading, and escape hatch. Not necessarily in that order. 19:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)Ad Lapidem: Dismissing an argument on grounds of it being X without doing anything to actually demonstrate how it meets X description in the first place. Not only have you commuted this here, but it has been your biggest problem in this conversation so far and furthermore has left me confused as to how some of these accusations apply.2)Nonetheless, I will address those accusations where I can understand where you're coming from. god of the gaps: this fallacy does not apply, as I'm not trying to use God to explain anything, merely informing you of centuries-old agreed-upon facts about God. Special Pleading: as C.S. Lewis put it, the chicken-egg-chicken-egg sequence can have no logical beginning, so it would only be logical for us to look for the beginning outside the sequence altogether. Furthermore, an eternal being (again, meaning one from beyond time) cannot logically have an origin, as something's origin is the point in time when it originated, and "when" is a word that presupposes time. Escape hatch: If my argument here is an escape hatch, then appealing in an argument with a creationist to any of the mountains of evidence you don't have on hand at the time is an escape hatch. Also, the entire escape hatch page is one big Argumentum ad hominem, as it's attacking the motive of the arguer rather than the merits of the actual argument itself. Skadooshbag (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lewis built his entire premise on presupposition, more specifically Thomas Aquinas' arguments concerning the nature of the universe. (Fun fact: Almost all of Aquinas' arguments were so horrendously flawed that most of them were disproven by other Christian Apologists, until only the Prime Mover argument remained.) The Prime Mover argument in turn is killed via it's own logic, i.e. infinite regress, and so the "God exists beyond time" excuse was born. Now, this brings up some slight problems. A) Why should we presuppose someone created our universe? B) If someone did create our universe why should we believe they give a shit about our pathetically insignificant lives? C) Why can't the universe have created itself? D) Why should we presuppose that your religious figure created our universe? E) Why, if the universe was created specifically for us, is over 90% of it not only lifeless, but actually hostile to life? F) Why would a being that exists beyond time create a reality bound by such constraints, especially when one presupposes that said being is omniscient (Literally knows everything) and omnipotent (can do literally anything with zero constraints? And G) What evidence do you, the theist, have to support your claims? My personal working theory is that any usage of "Goddidit" can immediately be translated to "I have no fucking clue, so I'll make up some bullshit that makes me feel good."  21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter 9/10 of your response is a strawman, as it's addressing arguments I didn't make. I will discuss them nonetheless. First, as I've already stated, attacking someone's motives for using an argument rather than the merits of the argument itself is a subtype of Argumentum ad hominem. And dismissing your opponent's argument as an "excuse" (especially when you do so without demonstrating what an actual argument would look like) is an ad lapidem. Second, the Prime mover argument only proves that whatever the Ultimate Origin(TM) is, it must exist beyond time, even if it's just an atemproal and totally nonsapient brane or some such. A&D) Lewis proved that there is A God, but he never proved nor claimed to prove that it's The Abrahamic God (that must be done via quite different means) The proof is very complex and spread throughout several of his books, but it's unbelievably conclusive if read in its entirety (if I was told it second hand I wouldn't have believed it any more than you do), but unfortunately it's so complicated that one must be taken through it step by step and it's thus impossible to summarize or compress without loosing vital info. B) Well lots of people care very deeply about their pet ant farms, so why not? C) Sorry, but this is one of the bizzarest arguments I've ever heard; I'm going to have to ask you to explain how the heck that'd work without creating a bootstrap paradox. E) Well my personal belief is that the universe was designed to churn out some assortment of life, but God doesn't give a crap about the specifics of the life as long as it's beautiful; If Earth had instead produced a civilization of silicon-based lizard-whales that were nonetheless capable of returning God's love, then God wouldn't care less. The fermi paradox and the vast distances between astronomical bodies are likely God's quarantine measures meant to keep those planets that become sinful form infecting others. F) the reasons are (at least in part) for the same reasons that devs put rules and restrictions on a game, or why an artist works within the confines of a set of tropes or a specific art style when working on a piece; it's part of the beauty (which is also likely the reason God prefers to bend nature's laws as little as possible when performing miracles). G) First, I have never used a Goddidit, and agree with you completely on that copout. But to answer your question, I would first like to point out that the validity of an argument has no bearing on whether it's being presented by the person who came up with it, and I would second direct you to the youtube channel tektontv. (but let me clear this up right now: he disables comments purely to protest how youtube treats him as a channel-owner like an ad for Google plus)Skadooshbag (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you ever get the message?
You have a lot of reading to do. —Kazitor 03:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Help:How to handle vandalism
 * RationalWiki:Blocking policy
 * RationalWiki:Community standards
 * RationalWiki:Constructive dialogue
 * RationalWiki:Sysop guide
 * If you wish to have me de-sysoped, go right ahead and start a Coop case to do so. However, There is no constructive dialog to be had when one side denies the other's very existence. In short, when hate speech begins, debate ends. 03:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strawman? I'm not promoting anyone. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

hi
I left a message here. Could you reply? Westnichefaise (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed it not long after you posted it. However I'm simply trying to stop an edit war, that's it. Spud will either respond or not within a few days, so give it time. 22:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to answer this
Do you know where you get internet stalkers from? Has kiwifarms picked you out or something? I'm always surprised with my personality they don't immediately pick me out as someone to mindlessly "troll" forever. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just a few trolls who seem to think I'm amusing to toy with, hardly stalkers. And last I checked my internet infamy hasn't spread much, mostly just Coldfusion.com and Mikemikev bitching on Twitter when it comes to offsite vendettas. 15:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have trolls from a dying web framework? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently so, though I am unsure as to which site you are referring to. (I'm assuming it's CF.com) 15:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, coldfusion dot com is owned by adobe inc for selling a php web framework. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, That explains the crappy formatting. On a slight side note, are you suggesting that Adobe is dying or just their php service? 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Acrobat and coldfusion and flash are dying/dead. I'm pretty sure they have perfectly sustainable products, like photoshop and premier too.  I was just commenting it's a weird place for trolls to originate.  I assumed you had some cold fusion(the pseudoscience) nutbars who really hated you and gave the wrong url.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, just Abd, Mikemikev, and a few trolls that loiter around the site. Nothing really all that noteworthy from my perspective. 16:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Are blog posts a credible source to "debunk" peer reviewed medical studies?
Why exactly did you block me and reverse the changes I made to the vegan gains page? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vegan_Gains It says that the china study has been debunked. The source for this is a blog post by Denise Minger, who has an english degree and no other qualifications. As it so happens the lead researcher himself even debunked her claims. https://nutritionstudies.org/minger-critique/ I get that the entire page is meant to slander VG but that is just absurd.
 * A) You refuted nothing, nor can you apparently understand the difference between and . B) You added commentary which I felt was inappropriate, and should really be brought to the talkpage anyway. C) We only used Denise Minger's blog as a source once. And D), Ms. Minger apparently addresses concerns like yours on her about page. Which is more than Mr. Campbell can say, as touts out his Ph.D every time his name is mentioned, yet fails to elaborate on what that Ph.D is or where he got it on his about page.  13:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * GrammarCommie should have directed you to the talk page and should not have blocked you. If you want a bit of friendly advice, it's not a good idea to use the username "Fucksjws" if you want to be taken seriously. Having said that, you didn't do anything worthy of a block.
 * The post by Minger is not the only reference on the page but perhaps this could also be included as a reference?
 * This isn't particularly important but slander is spoken defamation. The word you're looking for is "libel". I welcome you to point out anything that's incorrect, our pages are not meant to be defamatory. CowHouse (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I meant to direct them to the talkpage but due to my tiredness, forgot. It's early over here so again, I apologize. 14:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly not how it works. A blog post is not a credible source in the first place. It doesn't matter whether or not you use it just once (How about I use this source on the flat earth page? https://whytheearthisflat.blogspot.com Just once, of course) You need to prove the china study wrong, I don't need to prove it right. That's hitchen's razor, which you even acknowledge on your very own page. The other source is actually a peer reviewed medical study which is obviously fine, but it is only about gastric cancer and therefore does not refute the china study in the slighest, you had to link a blog post for that. And to get this straight: You actually doubt the validity of Campbells PhD? Are you kidding? Because Denise Minger has an about page on her blog she is more qualified to talk about medical studies than someone who has 10 pages of research to his name on pubmed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Campbell%20TC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=29057328. "Burgess has been called out for his stances by saner vegan YouTubers" Not slander? "Burgess is so lacking in empathy [struck out] committed to vegan activism " Not slander? "He took his hatred of children one step further by getting a vasectomy" Not slander? By the way doesn't this go against the wholeidea of this website? Aren't people allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies without "judgmental" comments like that? "has repeatedly threatened — ironically, he claims — to attack and kill people" Not slander? ... Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a killer cyborg from the future or was that a role he played for entertainment?
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. CowHouse (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "has repeatedly threatened — ironically, he claims — to attack and kill people" Not slander? After a quick search, this appears to be true. CowHouse (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I stumbled about this article by accident yesterday. My name was just meant as a joke. I just wanted to draw attention to how biased the article is. I did however not expect to just get blocked and have the page fall back to the original state without any changes. Again, if you want to refute a peer reviewed medical study you need to point to other peer reviewed medical studies. As demonstrated above you can find blog posts to support every bias. The article you linked was written by a retired PRACTICIAN who never carried out any research. Apart form that it is obviously not peer reviewed. Fucksjws (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wanted a username which draws the eye, yet remains relatively uncontroversial, might I suggest one which could be seen in multiple ways, such as mine? To be clear, I am not suggesting that you create a new account, nor even that you need to change your username, just that you are able to request a rename if you so desire. And apologies for my abrasive edges. 14:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename me to whatever you want. I'm giving you permission. However please respond to my arguments. Fucksjws (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already responded, if you want a more in depth response seems more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.  15:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "physician"? As demonstrated above you can find blog posts to support every bias. You mentioned a flat earth blog, which is hardly comparable to the reference I gave (sciencebasedmedicine.org). Correct me if I'm wrong but  is not a study itself. It's a book based on the findings of a study (the ). CowHouse (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Harriet Hall is according to herself a retired physician, yes. That makes her a practician (in contrast to an actual researcher). As far as I'm aware Both Denise Minger and Harriet Hall criticise the actual study rather than the book. sciencebasedmedecine.com might be a "more" credible source than a personal blog, yes, however as there is no peer review they are in no position to refute actual peer reviewed medical studies. Fucksjws (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of them are critiquing the book, not the study. CowHouse (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Harriet Hall wrote 2 sections dedicated to the study alone, titled "The China Study" and "Conflicting data". Denise Minger criticises the one chapter of the book that actually takes data from the actual study. Buy yeah you seem to be right. They actually seem to be focused to refute the book rather than the actual study. But then a citation of vegan gains relying on the actual book rather than the study would be needed.
 * At 4:19 in this video, he says:
 * "There's also this thing called The China Study, the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted, and it found that those following a plant based diet excluding all animal products have the lowest risk of chronic disease. And for those of you who are actually interested in reading it and learning something then I've left a link down in the description where you can download a PDF copy of The China Study for free." The description links to a PDF of the book.
 * I should also mention I won't be able to respond for a while. If you want to continue this discussion please leave a comment on Talk:Vegan Gains since it's a more appropriate place than GrammarCommie's user talk page. Also, don't forget to sign your comments. CowHouse (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "it's a blog post" doesn't really add anything to the argument. What matters more is what's within the blog post. I've cited stuff by David Gorski multiple times mainly because he's very thorough when debunking pseudoscience 1, 2, 3,. Blog posts may not be on the same tier as scholarly articles, but they are acceptable as long as they are good (they cite sources, their reasoning is solid, their writing is fairly easy to follow and understand). The lack of curation of blogs, however, requires us to examine every one and sort through which ones are good or bad. Science-based medicine seems to be overall a good blog site to cite, and I think pushing the "there is no peer review" doesn't seem relevant to their argument. I don't think scholar sources are the optimal place to search when it comes to debunking bad science. Sure, some studies receive some comments, but overall, I don't think scientists have written entire peer-reviewed papers demonstrating why one study was so poorly designed. 17:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I must say that this was definitely a misunderstanding. Since he actually referenced the book rather than the study the criticism may or may not be justified. I'll have to look into myself. Apart from that maybe linking Campbells response would be a good idea? Here it is again: https://nutritionstudies.org/minger-critique/ Fucksjws (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's someone with the energy to look at the post and say that it's good, then why not. Even if it's not a good post, it's still worth documenting in the article, explaining why it's not good. 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong, you know
"(Protection log) . . GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) protected Juche-Capitalism [Create=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) ‎(Bullshit that we will likely never need an article for.)" Really, what do you think will happen to North Korea once it starts trading with the USA? *raises eyebrow* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh... When what happens? You do realize they still have nukes right? And that they're still willing to wave them about right? Assuming that the U.S. will trade with the DPRNK is jumping the shark quite a bit. Besides, even if that did happen (and that's a very big "if") NK would do the exact same thing as China, i.e. keep the current label, bullshit that nothing has really changed, and swap out the meaning. 01:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't then correctly label their form of state capitalism as "Juche-Capitalism". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in polite terms. Juche-Capitalism is literally bullshit that a handful of youtubers made up based on a term that an NK defector said once in an interview. It literally doesn't exist. 01:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing this; just pointing out that it may end up being a useful term at some point in the future. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, it's more likely that in such a scenario we'll end up saying something along the lines of "North Korea adopted capitalism in all but name" or some such. 02:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Juche Tower
why deleting? It was a very nice and rational and informative article about the Juche Tower.
 * Mostly because it wasn't missional, but also partly because it basically a puff piece for North Korean politics. 20:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * shouldn't be our mission to beef up North Korea, now Trump and Kim Jong-Un seems to like each other? USA and North Korea could become powerful allies, of which the world has never seen before. I can imagine join military drills with North Korean Forces. Which country would dare to mess with a USA that is backed by a crazy North Korea? Russia and China and every other country on the planet would crumple immediately.
 * They'd crumple in laughter. The DPRNK is a joke, they just haven't figured it out yet. China is their only real ally and even Bejing is getting tired of NK's stunts. As for an alliance... Keep dreaming. 00:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Not guilty of the charges"
Hey GC! I recently blocked someone who blanked the talk page of the Ben Shapiro article. You then unblocked that person, claiming that they were "not guilty of the charges". I beg to differ. Take a look at this edit he made: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Shapiro&oldid=1992838 LuodiWang (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Check the block log again. You blocked Special:Contributions/73.252.203.121. The real culprit was Special:Contributions/73.240.178.45. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I am so sorry. LuodiWang (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the kinda-drive-by in saloon bar
Yeah, sure they're someone who quite possibly has some variation of a legitimate paranoid disorder with psychotic effects, and yeah, they're directly antagonistic, and yeah, they're caught way up in internet drama that they mostly invent, but I'm still not actually sure why you reverted them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I could see it was Rome Viharo bitching about us for the 30-50-something-th time. I got bored with that crap ages ago and noticed other users just reverting and ignoring it. Since that seemed like sensible idea I began following suit. 18:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I know why. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Replace The Best News on the "Fake News" page
The Best News needs to be on the Fake News page. It's a prime example of bad fake news. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that it is fake news which misbehaves, or perchance that it is a bumbling excuse of a fake news outlet? Or maybe you're being redundant? 01:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a bad fake news site, like all the others. Logicnsuch (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you mentioned that it's "a bad fake news site" in your first post, but didn't really elaborate on what makes it bad, nor how it qualifies as fake news. However, "like all the others"? You realize you're insulting The Onion right? 13:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's bad because it has no line of reasoning. It's an endless stream of illogic and insanity. It's a fake news site like the other ones on the Fake News page, but it's different in pretty much every other regard. Nothing like The Onion. It should be on there. Logicnsuch (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article on Fake News? Because what you're describing isn't so much fake news as much as Haig's law mixed with Timecube law. Unless you can explain who these people are and why I should care, I (to put it bluntly) won't care. That means elaborating on your points rather than merely asserting that the site in question is "bad". 21:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the site: As you can see, it's a load of tripe, with pleading for money, a ridiculous talk page, fluctuating dates, artlces about Spongbob and Obama, and a warnign against 666. can you say this DOESN'T belong on the Fake News page- and, if so, why not? It follows Haig's Law and the Timecube Law to a T. I'd say it's fake news, wouldn't you? Logicnsuch (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fake news consists of "news" that is blatantly false or otherwise distorted in the hopes of getting more clicks by feeding people the headlines they didn't know they wanted, in the hopes knowledge that shamelessly pandering to an agenda often proves sufficient to suspend the readers' disbelief." Thatr's from the very first part of the article on fake news, which is pretty clear cut on the criteria. The site you want added is horrendous to look at to be sure, and if I was able to read it I might find what you are describing, but it wouldn't necessarily be fake news. For example, another off the rails completely insane site is Whale.to, but it isn't on the list either. 22:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so where DOES The Best News fit in, then? Logicnsuch (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea. To be honest it doesn't look all that interesting or noteworthy to me. 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? It must fit in somewhere. It's pretty noteworthy. And weird.
 * It's a site run by a nobody. No one cites them, no one follows them, no one appears to care. And we aren't in the habit of mentioning every moron, crank, truther, woo pusher, fundy clown, garage nazi, two bit creationist, or otherwise random mooks. They simply aren't worth the effort. 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I say, it all depends on the quality of the garbage. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not going to input a Wix site in the Wiki. 20:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter that it's a Wix site? It's horrible nonetheless. Logicnsuch (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice username
It’s interesting... ☭ (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As an fyi, GC is not a communist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, he is not one of us. Gulag will sort that out tho Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Give me a prison and I'll make a kingdom. 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Why was my post reverted
I spent some time correcting false information and non logical ramblings on the page "Liberal Bias" only to have the entire thing be reverted with no reason followed by a lock on the page saying to stop an edit war I had no idea i was taking place in. May I ask why?
 * Put new topics at the bottom, please. Also, sign your posts with ~ Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  03:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comment on the corresponding talk page. Please keep discussion to that, so the discussion doesn't ping pong all over the place. Additionally, it's BS that you have "no idea" you're participating in an edit war, you edit war when you want to fight other users for edits on the page and constantly put edits back up without further discussion, it's not something that occurs by accident. 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will check. I put my comment in the reversion which had no comment to speak of. I did not touch the page after it was reverted again and turned to finding a way to contact someone which I assumed was the way to add to the wiki. I apologize for any inconvenience.

You Sir
Have an excellent taste in music. Here are my favorites. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I still need to listen to the power metal stuff you showed me. I'm a fan of symphonic and just getting in to some death, and Party Cannon music is a fun listen. 18:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just shared my favorite albums from that band, if you want my favorite songs from those albums just ask. 18:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Cool, Powerwolf is related to Rhapsody of Fire and Blind Guardian, both which the style remind me of. Heard about those? I need to expand my palette on metal, I feel my palette is not big enough. 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No but I'm going to check them out, always loved the mix of guitar riffs and operatic vocals. 04:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a metal fan, but I used to listen to this radio show (Firebunker) just to hear Cy Thoth's (the DJ's) impressive voice. You can hear some of the archived shows here: Bongolian (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blind Guardian is really good, I especially like their album "Nightfall In Middle-Earth." Hey, do you listen to Hammerfall at all? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hammerfall sounds more like PowerWolf than Blind Guardian and Rhapsody of Fire in my opinion. This mainly due to the style of the vocals, which have an operatic, choir-like effect. 13:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I should consider listening to Hammerfall, ah. I'm not too deep into metal genres, so if I find something that reminds me of artists, I'll say it. Oh, and I'm not anal on the genres so I do hope you're not that type, lol. By the way, I also have a thing for jazz metal and fusion metal so if you're into that, then that would be great. 05:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Jazz Metal is an actual subgenre and not just something I thought up on a lark? Tell me more. 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's a thing. It's metal that uses jazz and fusion jazz notes and rhythms (I am not a music buff so my terminology and jargon is amateur). Atheist and Cynic are the prime jazz metal bands but I know some other unconventional bands like Fea Jur and Diablo Swing Orchestra and Trioscapes (Trioscapes isn't so metal but it is pretty unconventional by promintent saxophone, but Blackjazz is very metal and that one has a squawking saxophone). I hear jazz elements in prog metal as well such as in Dream Theater, or at least that's what I'm reminded of in several songs. 07:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

What does "Nazi" in "Grammar Nazi" is even supposed to be alluding to?
Is there the lingusitic equivalent to "race" and "ethnicity" and "religion" and subjugation of one while promoting propaganda of another? I don't think being anal with grammar errors is really on the same level of using pseudhistory and a poor understanding of biology to promot killing something. And what about Communism? Wouldn't a GrammarCommie strive for, maybe complete clauses for all sentences and compound sentences and runons should be killed? Equal clause distribution? 07:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It's "promote" not "promot", "pseudohistory" not "pseudhistory", and "linguistic" not "lingusitic". 2) The label of "Grammar Nazi" is basically one of the most blatant examples of Godwin's law, while as far as I'm aware "Grammar Commie" is merely a play on that, with various motivations behind the change in wording. 14:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Nerd (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was typing from mobile. It's much more difficult to detect and correct spelling errors. 20:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was typing from mobile. It's much more difficult to detect and correct spelling errors. 20:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Guru Zeeza is 100% real.
Guru Zeeza is a real guy. I've seen him perform in Arizona for idiots who believe his shtick. If that's not proof enough, here's his website. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the crappiest website I've ever seen. Were you in too much of a hurry to add any text? 01:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please use a sandbox for your drafts. Take a look at the Editor's Guide, it's right there on your left, the link is named Help. If you persist at ignoring the simple guidelines here, you'll be vandalbinned. Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't a draft, I was completely done with it, it was ready to edit. Please stop your reckless vandalism. Logicnsuch (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what the word "vandalism" means... 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I do. I'm not doing vandalism. I just created a page about a guy who doesn't have a page on here yet. Can I replace the page now? Logicnsuch (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of people don't have pages here, ever think that there might be a reason for that? 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except this guy is seriously off the rails. Really weird beliefs. You have an article for Alex Jones- so you should have an article about this guy, and you can add to it as you please. Logicnsuch (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They have to be relevant and there has to be verifiable info beyond a crappy wixsite. Honestly think about it. The penny will drop eventually. 19:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw this guy in Arizona. he was genuinely bonkers. Why isn't his website proof enough? Logicnsuch (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Anecdotal evidence, Credulity. 22:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you expect for an insane weirdo? Notoriety? He's basically homeless. You can go out and look for Data if you want. It's hard to find, but if you won't take my word for it, then go all over until your eyes pop out. He's more obscure than David Liebe Hart. No kidding. His philosophy requires him to refrain from most sorts of Media. I had a photo of him and I gave you his Website. what else can I do? Logicnsuch (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No one agrees to your proposal. So I advise you to drop it. 23:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

But he's absolutely a real nutcase from Arizona... Logicnsuch (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think reading this project page might give some insight into why we don't want an article on Guru Zeeza: RationalWiki:The great Youtube purge. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  23:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But Guru Zeeza isn't a YouTuber. He's just a crazy idiot. Logicnsuch (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The same principle applies. 22:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I've gotta spell it out for you. If we're deleting youtubers with less than 1000 subs for not being notable enough to justify an article, why in the fuck would we allow an article on a random asshole with no internet presence save for a shitty website with no text? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  22:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This just reminded me; can you weigh in on something for me? I have a "friend" named Alex. He believes that Satan created Mars. Even though he doesn't even have a Twitter account, I promise you he's real. So I can make a stub article on him with no sources, right? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano  Make a Reservation  22:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * *years of cold, hard edit wars later*
 * You can put that in essay space. 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can make an article about Alex if you want, provided he's a real person. I won't try to stop you or doubt your authenticity. I'm not a fiend. Go right on ahead. I can understand why he wouldn't have a Twitter account if he was crazy. Go right on ahead. I believe in being able to tell the world about crazy people. I won't make your article, but you can if you want. Go on. He sounds like an interesting nutcase. I can't wait to see that thing! Logicnsuch (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Re:Facts trump feelings
I think it's relevant to the pathos gambit because Trump supporters see bewildered people who are not only upset by Trump's policies but are upset for a reason and I've seen that argument "facts trump feelings" as a comeback. I think it's also used against upset Trump supporters, but I was thinking about that application against, like, people who are furious and upset by global warming denial. This is also in accordance to Trump supporters wearing T-shirts that say "fuck your feelings". Do you see where I'm coming from? 207.233.76.9 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Source it. 01:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Image search of the phrase shows pro-Trump merchandise. I'd imagine those merchandise didn't develop in a vacuum. I haven't found any other relevant results, and I don't feel like parsing through politic internet forums to dig up specific instances of right wingers saying "facts trump feelings". This is also relevant to the phenomenon of right-wingers labeling opponents as "triggered" snowflakes, which I'd imagine is just their response when someone is upset AND provides arguments. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm only LeftyGreenMario. I'm using a school IP and I don't feel like logging in here. Sorry for any confusion. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty good at paying attention to those things
But I totally missed that there were multiple bad edits on black helicopters. My bad, thanks for catching that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Noah
I will tell you here on your page child of Noah, that God flooded and destroyed the world because of the violence and wicledness of mankind in thpse days. But our father Noah and his family remained rightoeus and lived and now the two of us exist through Noah's blood. And God is not a man. He can punish the evils even if it is severely because he is a perfect just God. He has 0 tolernence for violence and blasphemey. And all hate groups ought to repent of their evil 99.203.17.97 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, your deity, who can literally do anything, literally knows everything, and is incapable of causing any harm whatsoever decided the best solution to other people not listening to him was mass murder. And you wonder why I ditched Christianity... Further, stop calling me "child of Noah", that is not the name of my father, nor was Noah a real person. You people really need to get your heads out of you're collective asses and realize that supporting, condoning, and making excuses for this kind of behavior is abhorrent. If your god exists I would rather eat razor blades while someone pulls my intestines out through my anus via a length of barbed wire than so much as give him the time of day. Literally everyone alive today who isn't a fucking psychopath is better than your god will ever be, because that's what you're god is, a psychopath. Get over it. 23:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocking Lydiahodges
What is the 'particular logic' behind blocking the nuisances - elsewhere I block for 'long enough to make them lose interest.'

Can one apply cod-psychology/pseudo-Freudian analysis to such persons - their postings reflect their 'issues'? Anna Livia (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an unthinking automaton, it doesn't have the ability to have "issues". 17:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
I've probably done it myself as well, but you should try to avoid reverting good faith edits without an edit summary or comment on the article's talk page (or user's talk page). CowHouse (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I made that edit from my phone and in a hurry. To be honest I regretted not adding an edit summery almost immediately afterwords. 12:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Evidence for God's existence
You're quite right that it's within our purview (and ability) to conclude that Paul's vision was a hallucination. I just thought that was a place where it might be best to refrain from saying it since it's beside the main point. Peyre (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should revert my revert and re-add the word vision, but with quotation marks to show skepticism? 00:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I'm ok leaving it as is, I guess.  It's not a huge issue one way or another. Peyre (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: our discussion on the Religion page
As I am somewhat worried that our discussion on that page is taking a turn for the hostile that I did not anticipate, I wish to assure you that I have no ill intent for asking what I ask. If it seems like I am simply trying to stir shit up, I am sorry for giving a false impression. --69.138.27.21 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I lack filters, that is to say I speak my mind honestly and without the niceties of most cultures. This tends to make me come off as aggressive and hostile at times, though I will not deny that some of your statements have made me raise an eyebrow in annoyance. 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As do I, although in my case it can make me oblivious to the effect I have on others. Again, my apologies if I sound dense either in the past or the future. (Same editor, different place posting.)--174.205.24.137 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Does RationalWiki Allows for Freedom of Speech?
You have accused Chris Dorsey of being racist without any supporting evidence. Chris Dorsey works closely with people from many different backgrounds including Afro-Americans. Chris Dorsey is not an Anti-Semite, and as he also states - Semitism is language not a description of a race or nationality. Chris Dorsey calls for LAWFUL enforcement of the US Constitution, which no one, including the FBI, as documentet, were not able to challenge. 9/11 according to your website and other sources was carried out by Israel and was an inside job. Chris Dorsey supports exactly the same paradigm. The fact that Jewish bankers sit a top the Federal Reserve can be verified by a simple Google search. Similarly the Jewish Rotschild family is publicly known to own and control the banking system. These are statements of facts not attacks on particular group of people, nation or race. Chris Dorsey calls for freedom of the American people - he is a true and one and only and possibly the last standing humansist on this planet. Not an honest, open minded and rational person can deny and neither challenge what Chris Dorsey says, as rooted in the Law.

Please, do rethink what you stand for here on Rational Wiki. Do you really call for truth and justice or are you just like the rest of the controlled media wanting to obfuscate the truth and mislead the public?

And, please, do not ever accuse anybody without evidence, because as such you wouldn't stand in the court of law.

Iha777 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have stated that this individual is prejudiced against Jews, thus I merely added the correct category. As for the rest of of your little screed, it is hypocritical to on the one hand whine about freedom of speech and on the other tell someone to shut the fuck up. You shut up, you be quite. I have stated that your article is fine within Draftspace, but, given it's rather uncritical tone of things that do indeed deserve criticism, will torched if it touches Mainspace. Now shut up and go back to fawning over your anti-Semitic hero. Your rights end at my nose, as the old saying goes. 13:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, unlike you I have never said to anybody to shut up. I have only politely asked on what grounds i. e. evidence are you calling Chris Dorsey racist. I have not received an answer. I have never stated that Chris Dorsey is anti-semite. I have only said he is a critic of Zionism and Organised Jewry, which is not the same as anti-semitism, because semitism refers to language. Chris Dorsey is a lawful man and not even the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not find him guilty of any wrongdoings. Could you, please, tell me on what grounds, apart from your personal bias, my draft Chris Dorsey could not be published when in fact it is in accordance with what RationalWiki is all about?


 * Also, please, note that I have taken screenshots of this conversation and will publish them in due time to show what RationalWiki is all about.


 * Iha777 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh! No need for screen shots. RW doesn't delete talk page comments unless they're spam or obscene or libellous (should that be slanderous?). Scream!! (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blackmail threats? Really? I've have had people threaten to kill me and I didn't bat an eye, and if that doesn't get to me your threat of a criminal action less severe than murder won't cut it either. Furthermore (Screenshot this you dishonest prick) My views and the community's are not necessarily one and the same. Now sod off, you dishonest dummkopf, you hypocritical sack of shit, you son of a whore and a bastard, you piece of shite puta. 16:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My screenshots are not an act of threat but an act of showing what Rational Wiki is all about and how dishonest you are and to show that you violate freedom of speech. You say that rationalWiki is all about exposing the truth but you defy this by the very fact that you try to hide it. You have not answered any of my questions and neither provided a reasonable evidence for your arguments. You call people names and use offensive language. I have not done any of that. How can you call yourself a lawful man or man of a character? You accuse Chris Dorsey of being a racist etc. but as evidenced in the comment above you behave bellow level of an animal.
 * Please, tell me on what grounds according to your guidelines and policies, not your personal bias, my draft could not be published? Iha777 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "You accuse Chris Dorsey of being a racist etc." Bullshit, I said he was anti-semitic based on "Dorsey is a critic of Zionism and the Israeli government, as he believes that the dual US-Israeli citizens who infiltrated the United States government[45] and are atop the Federal Reserve Banking system such as the Federal Reserve Bank chair Janet Yellen and vice-chair Stanley Fisher, are responsible for lobbying the US government.[11][46]" that you put into the Draft. I have not once said that the subject is racist, only anti-semitic and I will ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. You are free to speak your mind, as evidenced by the fact that your draft has not been torched. However, if what you have to say consists of PRATTs, Fallacies, PIDOOMAs, and Conspiracy mongering, your damn right that I'll call you out on it. 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, it could be published according to our mission under points 3 and 4:




 * However, its content would necessarily be entirely different from the draft and almost certainly would not depict its subject in a flattering light. --Logos (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The paragraf that you have copied does not support your argument that Chris Dorsey is racist. These are mere statements of facts and can be verified by a simple Google search. These are historical facts, not someone's imaginations. Here is evidence of Jewish nationals owning and controlling the banking system: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-reserve-zionist-jewish-private-bankers-virgil-neacsu

Here is evidence of how dual-israeli citizens infiltrated the US government. All names can be verified: https://m.facebook.com/notes/we-are-all-vittorio-arrigoni/list-of-politicians-with-israeli-dual-citizenship-/175479365845092/

Here is evidence of how Israeli Public Affairs Committee lobby the US Government. It says on their own website 'American Pro Israel Lobby': https://www.aipac.org/about/mission

This is against the Law, the US Constitution.

Why is it wrong to criticise and challenge these facts?

Why do you allow articles about 9/11 being carried out by Israel on your website and don't accuse the ones that wrote them of Racism?

Why is it allowed to say that 9/11 was carried out by Israel but not allowed to say that Israel controls and infiltrated, based on verifiable evidence, the whole US Government?

PS: to keep a draft is not a freedom of speech but to publish it i.e. speak publicly is!!!

Iha777 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Which articles are you even talking about? The ones we do have say that they didn't carry it out and that the people who claim otherwise are either lying or have been fooled by other liars. And if lobbying was really "against the US constitution", then it would never have been entrenched for decades before Israel ever existed in its current state.


 * I did, however, find a much more informative article about who Chris Dorsey really is: https://wtvr.com/2013/11/06/holmberg-offbeat-richmond-sheriffs-candidate-draws-10-percent-of-vote/


 * " A lunatic on the wild...the lowest thing in the ocean, and that’s whale crap.” I must say, when comparing Dorsey's own website and what other people outside his decrepit "militia" say about him, it should be more than obvious as to which one is more reliable. Oh, and freedom of speech doesn't translate into freedom from consequences (i.e. being called out for using faulty sources and lying to protect the reputation of someone who neither knows nor cares about your valiant attempts to defend him, assuming you yourself are not Chris Dorsey trying to advertise yourself). --Logos (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Do people write on rationalWiki in order to create drafts that will never be seen or in order to have them published? I belive the latter is true. You are obfuscating the truth. There is nothing less or nothing more to it. No freedom of speech here. The issues that Chris Dorsey is talking about are facts that can and have been verified. Chris Dorsey is a Lawful man. People like you who not only censor the truth but also behave like animals are not even worthy to tie laces on Chris Dorsey's Shoes. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have morally sanked bellow the level of an animal.


 * The only lunatic around here is you. You have proven it by your behavior. You cannot even cannotrol yourself!!! It would be a disgrace to be associated with your website in any way. Thank you for enlightening me and showing me what you are all about!!! Iha777 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't you worry. We'll be sure to publish it, after a few minor tweaks of course. Go ahead and check on it, it looks better already. --Logos (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I have noticed that you are addressing me as him, so let me just let you know that I am a woman. Secondly, I still believe that my draft Chris Dorsey would deserve to be published and would make a great contribution to your website and I do stand for everything I said, but to be fair, I just would like to put something straight.

I am not familiar with the know how of this website and not only that I don't know how to use it properly, I was not aware until this morning that drafts on this web site are public. For this fact alone I do partially apologise for my comment about Freedom of Speech - partially because I still strongly believe, or better said know, that Chris Dorsey only speaks the truth and as such deserves to be not only drafted but also published. On the other hand, I do respect your rules around here and if you do not wish to have my article around here, that's fine. However, I would like to ask you nicely, please, do not defame Chris Dorsey's name because of my attempt to make an article about him on RationalWiki. I have done it in good faith and intention because I believed that RationalWiki was about exposing the truth and about looking at things differently than the general population does. It was never my intention to disturb the RationalWiki community and I apologise once again if I did. Iha777 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

They Definitely do not even if you mention the word that describes the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the national Socialists you get banned for an hourTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
 * You're wrong because Holodomor. You how shitty an argument that is? 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)