From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

19th century prediction[edit]

Forget where I came across this (paraphrasing).

A 'slightly deranged priest' tells the then Pope that the Antichrist has been born.

  • 'How old is the child?'
  • 'Three Your Holiness.'
  • 'Then I will leave the problem to my successor.' (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentions in Paul's letters?[edit]

Using a text search of the esv and kjv I can find no mentions of the antichrist or antichrists in anything other than 1 and 2 John. Should our page be changed or do they occur in other versions?DarkAngelCryo (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Antichrist phone home[edit]

Was alerted to [1]. Anna Livia (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


John Paul II was Otto von Habsburg's subject (if KuK-land had survived) so the Archduke had to intervene. Anna Livia (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Article "antichrist" major update with correction and documentation, rolled back by user Bongolian without reasons given[edit]

Article "antichrist" major update with correction and documentation, rolled back by user Bongolian without reasons given, and now I cannot simply re-roll the major re-write back as it flags the entire content as spam (which it most certainly is not). A lot of time, research and effort went into the major re-write.

Consider the major re-write (ignoring some of the formatting that was still to be edited in future before the rollback) please in the Revision history. Thank you for consideration.Its Adventageous (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion: page blanking, truly horrendous formatting, encyclopedicism (RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?). Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1. Your "reasons" (read 'ignorance') were given "after the fact". Originally, there was "0" (zero, nada, nothing, zip, zilch, big fat goose egg) "reasons" provided for roll back, and there was no discussion about any needful changes. Who can trust you, by having done such a thing? Certaintly not I.
2. Your "reasons" (read 'asininity') which are 3, are seriously flawed in logic (are you OK? seriously? Did you roll back the page because you were mentally incapacitated, or handicapped?):
2a. "page blanking" is defined as "editing a page and removing its content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content." The very opposite of that was done. The notations, left by myself on several occasions, stated clearly, that the article was undergoing a major re-write, to eliminate the sheer stupidity and lack of understanding on the topic that therein existed as scribbled by a previous moron (someone of low level intelligence or mental faculty), and instead of "blanking" the "page", multitudinous documented facts were provided in evidence with their proper citations and links to proper and respected (as authortiative in the particular fields of expertise) sources. Even in re-writing the article, the entirety of the page was not ever "blanked". Not once. The evidence to this fact is clearly documented in the revision history, to which I will simply refer you, or anyone, to. This is irrefutable.
2b. "truly horrendous formatting" is entirely subjective, and you did not provide any examples to substantiate your vapid claim. To do so, now, after the fact, meaning after this reply, it will again be too late (which seems to be a pattern with yourself). I even made specific notation in my original "Talk" reply, that anyone considering the material was to be "ignoring some of the formatting that was still to be edited in future before the rollback". You seemed to have entirely overlooked this stated fact. I was actually in the process of doing those formatting edits (and on the edit page itself just beginning to make the necessary changes, piece at at time, having spent so much time slowly putting up the article do to rational wiki limitations), when you rolled the entire article back to the original position of stinking dunghill. Even the other authors made note that the article needed to be fixed, re-written, etc. I agreed, and even signed up, to do just that.
2c. "encyclopedism" is not what was provided at all. Documentation, even if seemingly quite a bit, is not "encyclopedism". What it actually is, falls under the actual (not imaginary) statements of Rational Wiki itself, wherein it very clearly states,
" ... Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism; ...
... RationalWiki articles should uncompromisingly explain what is bullshit, what is not, and (most importantly) why. ...
... This means that collection and synthesis of sources into new ideas is actively encouraged. While references are always desired, writers should feel free to draw conclusions not clearly stated in a source, and feel free to synthesize multiple sources into a new pattern — although others may then argue. ..."
However, you did not argue against anything presented, just simply "blanked" the documented evidences by rolling the article back to the state of retardation. There was provided multiple views on each level of the article, both Catholic, Protestant, Scholar, Historian, Scientific, Linguistic, Etymologic, &c. There was also provided brief snippets of personal text, which explained why such ideas were good, positive, bad, or negative, or simply false and made up.
3. Even if I were to grant you the three "reasons" (I do not grant you automatically any such thing, nor do I actually consider them actually "reasons", lest I make myself a boob or numbskull in like fashion), instead of rolling back the hours of work and research put into the complicated re-write, why not simply make the minor edits (such as helping with formatting, which would have taken me several more hours; or with the citations into a more presentable polish, etc.), or approach me by Talk, or other location and ask for my input on what was to be intended as the finished product, and their logical reasons as to why they were being presented as they were. You asked for nothing; "Ass"-umed all, and like a petulant child, simply undid all the loving labour and time of a real scholar and researcher (someone who actually cares about facts, evidence, documentation). Then, following this self-congratulations of yours, deemed it necessary to add insult to injury by attempting to justify your proclivity to ineptitude and "dark ages" thinking by replying to my Talk input. Pin a medal on you. All hands to clapping. I salute you, as chief nincompoop extraordinaire. Here's your prize. DERP. Brainfart. Yuck yuck. That's all folks.Its Adventageous (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you need a snickers? Carthage (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)