Talk:Incel

	This Men's rights movement related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): COI violations need to be cleaned up.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

Definition

'All mouth, no trousers/all talk no action.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe you mean "all mouth and trousers". If you're talking about me, I have no intention to change our definition. I will do work on discussing ideology in the future when I have time, as additions will be rather substantial. If you mean that BoN, any changes he makes will probably just be reverted anyway, poor guy. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Digital rags and some RW articles really need to learn the difference between 'movement', 'subculture', 'ideology', 'group', 'movement' etc. These are all different words which mean different things. Some aren't mutually exclusive but they simply don't all overlap competely. The subculture definition is rare in academia compared to the other definitions they give. Any honest lede attempting to use RS as a basis for the definition would highlight RS do not agree on it except to the extend they use it as an insult to be adjusted at any time for any reason, or a way to criticize r/incels based forums indirectly. 2600:8806:0:C2:CC7A:AA94:1B20:1BD3 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

'incel is a movement' != 'incel is a subculture which has what constitutes a single movement/org' != 'incel is a subculture which has movements/orgs (plural) != 'incel is a movement which has a subculture' != 'incel is a life circumstance which has movements'

And yet one can find all sorts of these incongruent definitions in RS. This reflects in the current page.

none of those things are mutually exclusive and you are dumbfuck if you think they are. you are full of shit. please fuck off until you have something to say that is not patently bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that sources use them as if they are the exact same thing, not that they don't overlap. I don't expect you to engage in any productive manner on the talk page here, considering you haven't applied your reasoning for removing Jake to the rest of the article. If you don't read the article, it's not worth really engaging much more. The article is still just grifting the first writer's stuff while appealing to RS, but then not stating in the lede it is really just used as a generic virgin shaming insult in RS I don't know your exact opinion on incel, but the article as it is is virgin shaming. And virgin shaming is mostly the domain of those even more pathetic than those targeted with the insult. This is seen in how schoolchildren bully each other as well. 2600:8806:0:C2:3984:C6C7:35A3:ACA4 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We can see parallels to how non-self-identified incels (and some self-identifieds) are stigmatized with how the individuals in the gay or black liberation 'movements' were stigmatized. (Alana noted this in her 1997 website btw) If we are to take the dominant academic definition of incel as a 'movement' literally (although I'm not necessarily a believer in that definition). The black liberation movement had violence promoting groups (including violent language and even crimes directed at those who didn't deserve it). There were cultures within individual gay and black advocacy groups, often reflecting broader sub-cultural sentiment at the time. ::One thing is certain though, the common way to stigmatize the black and gay liberation movements was to claim they were not actually who they were. Gays were told they weren't gay. Black people were told they weren't people. Both were told they were deviant. Both were told they were immoral. Both were told to self-correct or isolate by virtue of who they were. Both words were used in mainstream culture as an epithet by 'normals' (a common derogatory term in the 60s), rather than honest discussion of what it entails to be black or gay.. Orgs which repped both the black and gay movements were labeled as and treated as domestic terror organisations by governments. Their complaints about stigmatization were dismissed out of hand. For involuntary celibates they are told they are not involuntary celibates. The word turns into an insult that 'normals' apply however they want rather than honest discussion of what it entails to be involuntarily celibate. I don't buy that separating the term incel from involuntary celibacy is not involuntary celibacy erasing. As the decision on Wikipedia to erase that connection was done on the basis of them claiming involuntary celibacy wasn't real. Their decision was then spearheaded in 2018 by a guy who believed in pick-up-artistry and a Christian drama-queen respectively. 2600:8806:0:C2:3984:C6C7:35A3:ACA4 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

absolute dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you contributed anything meaningful to RW, or are you just here to taunt people and use it like a social media site? There are a lot of issues with this page that other editors agreed with. As I don't want to edit it in fear of being reverted out of hand, I'm trying to get people to at least work through the issues. 2600:8806:0:C2:3984:C6C7:35A3:ACA4 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok I checked your contribs and it's all delitionism, Saloon Bar and dramatically uncivil wikilawyering since 2022. With the exception of about 84 bytes to Matt Walsh. If you aren't here to contribute meaningfully or positively, maybe find an actual social media site? As you are not a contributing editor, I'll have to put you on ignore as my comments are directed at contributing editors. 2600:8806:0:C2:3984:C6C7:35A3:ACA4 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

what have you contributed other than complete dogshit? works both ways. twat. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep arguing the same thing over and over again, but now I know what you really want. Our definition of incel will never extend to include all virgin men who want to have sex. Fuck off with your incel apologia. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It did for 5 years and included women. And absolutely no one had a problem with it until Lamarcus came here and you decided to give into his demands 2600:8806:0:C2:4A7:9298:C46B:53DC (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Both you and Lamarcus of incels.is are obsessed with making incels.is/net mean "incel" mean "incel culture" 2600:8806:0:C2:4A7:9298:C46B:53DC (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

'All mouth, no trousers' is a British-ism with the meaning I give, there being several variants with slightly different meanings, eg 'fur coat and no knickers'. Anna Livia (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition debate

Title

Let's go through the people listed on the main page and if they self-identified with the word 'incel' which Kaurio says is separate from 'involuntary celibay', so we'll see if they used the word 'incel' to self-identify
Sodini => Did not self-identify
Rodger => Self-identified once or twice, however if 'incel' means the "'subculture' of forums at the time which now constitute the culture of r/incels based forums", he said they were 'stupid, disgusting mentally ill people who take pleasure in putting down others'
Minassian => Sort of self-identified, used movement definition, Toronto judge later said he was feigning being influenced by 'incels' and just wanted notoriety
Hussian => Did not self-identify
Rathjen => Did not self-identify
Harper-Mercer => Did not self-identify
Beierle => Did not self-identify
Spa shooter => Did not self-identify
Armando Hernandez Jr. => Did not self-identify
Cole Carini => Did not self-identify, also had a girlfriend at the time according to publicly leaked documents
Tres Genco => Seems to have self-identified if he signed up for a self-identified incel forum, but I haven't combed through the posts people are claiming is his

only 23% of the people listed on the page, at most, self-identified

2600:8806:0:C2:CC7A:AA94:1B20:1BD3 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Edited the section lede, as I agree they were not all incels. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's better in some ways imo, but I don't think that dedicating half the page to "allegedly inspired events" is particularly encyclopedic. 2600:8806:0:C2:4A7:9298:C46B:53DC (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not an encyclopedia... Please see the various guides, about pages, etc... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Gc, unlike myself and Kario, you don't contribute to this place

RE Kaurio though. It seems to be 'incel ideology' is something you are defining as occuring without self-identification? Wilkes, Sodini (and others listed) crimes at the time had no relationship to anything close to self-described incel communities. So like if a husband complains about lack of sex with his wife and then commits a crime against others because of his frustration about his marital abstinence, he's an "incel ideologue?" Given you've said incel ideology is ideological terrorism, this seems to be an extreme attempt at broadening the scope of interpersonal relations, including abhorrent abuse/crimes, beyond established law. Terrorism labels are attempts to make terrorism charges. Marital abuse is already illegal, as it should be, but if an 'incel' means 'criminal sexual entitlement deserving of a terrorist-labeled ideology', sex-related marital abuse would be "terrorism" according to you 2600:8806:0:C2:4A7:9298:C46B:53DC (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You mean I don't hyper-obsess over one subject to the point where I LANCB, return in IP form, act delusional and accuse other users of "knowing" things which it would be impossible to demonstrate that they know, and argue endlessly over niche subjects once more? I'm sure the entire world weeps at my lack of such behavior. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and aside from that I'm sure making sure comments and articles are properly formatted, and that articles are properly and succinctly categorized, contributes nothing to this wiki whatsoever. But please, do tell me how you're better than me on a collaborative project. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

RE Quality over quantity. Self entitled jackass... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and at least I can address issues without create 500 posts within 50 subject headers. That helps too. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I updated the description to be clearer. Now fuck off with your strawmanning, JAQing off, ad nauseum incel apologia. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Kauri0.o - I thought 'not being able to F O #was# the issue here. Anna Livia (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, there's no making fun of virginity allowed here.

(Make) Fun Of incels instead, OK? Kauri0.o (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not reference virgins; I understand there may be a word for 'a quirk' involving ad nauseum, while that involving strawmen (and any other straw constructs) would probably be included in the term for 'using suitable dolls.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Alana, Marjan (Caamib), Lamarcus, and professional definition separation

Added distinctions. Left out Caamib's name as he is known to threaten legal stuff on people using his name.

Also added that WBUR said Uruguay launched a criminal investigation into the founder of incels.is and the topic of the first NYTimes article, in an interview with Megan Twohey https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite

A user keeps reverting the page to the previous rewrite, refuses to come here before doing it and told me to get lost basically when I told him to so I'll do the honors and just see if anyone cares enough about Incels--2friedeggs (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

they have taken to the talkpage over this issue - albeit earlier and concerning the edits of another user. see above. have yoju anything new to add that hasnt been discussed previously? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, and that's the fact that this rewrite is of overall better quality while the previous one is nothing but scorn.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Imagine edit warring to prevent the rollback of Neiltyson1fan's writing on a page about incels. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of edit warring when it is what you're doing? To game the system? You are the one edit warring because you are targeting the edits of specific users. You're just trying to start conflict. You got a problem with me we can take it to Discord. But here I'm not going to entertain hypocritical nonsense like that. Every single time you decide to do it I will revert it back and make a note that you are continuing to edit war until you justify it sufficiently on the incel talk page. On the gnosticism page that was just because you were mad at me and you wanted to start something. You are not subtle. You are not fooling anyone. You are not making those edits in good faith. If you are just here to upset users known to have been in drama in the past then take a hike--2friedeggs (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side against 2fried here. I think the other version is better. 71.208.x.x (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well even though I really, really don't agree because of the hostile nature of the writing I'd stop caring if enough people honestly believe that. I'd still probably rewrite it a little myself though if that happens. At least you're not being annoying and hypocritical about it. Just keep in mind though this guy came on and reverted this right after the rewriter was banned for getting m and two others involved with conflict, and started reverting really old edits of mine after I contested it so I just suspect he's got an axe to grind.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hostile is the nature of this site; it mocks those it disagrees with. It is effectively the Steven Anderson of the "rationalist" movement. If you want fluffy bunnies and safe spaces, I suggest you go elsewhere. 71.208.x.x (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the pre-eggs/Neil version is better.-Flandres (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(The pre-eggs/Neil version was written by Neil just with a few bits changed by Kaurio for framing/tone, same with most of the article, (Kaurio said on their talk page they were trying to preserve Neil's writing). It's just all edit warring over which modified version of Neil's writing to keep. Every revision of this page since 2018 has been mostly Neil's writing 2604:2DC0:200:2AF:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering the fact I suspect Neil is an Incels himself I doubt the original is his writing--2friedeggs (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your position is that Neil didn't come up with the insults. He did... Kaurio just change 'blackpilled incels' to 'incels' https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&type=revision&diff=2266237&oldid=2261249, also for Neil's first draft of which this page still maintains the majority of it's writing (the bottom 2/3rds of the draft), just with large bits deleted by kaurio https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&type=revision&diff=2026229&oldid=1987972 2604:2DC0:200:2AF:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Shows what I know--2friedeggs (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

While the version you wanted is obviously superior, Kaurio's version makes this page rank lower in Google so should probably keep Kaurios 2604:2DC0:200:2AF:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Plus watching a third non-incel get chick coop'd for merely daring to challenge Kaurio's tiny rewrites on this page is amusing 2604:2DC0:200:2AF:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol yeah some people here just have an axe to grind and Kaurio seems to be one of them.--2friedeggs (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

NeitherKaurio nor Neil doesn't own the page though and he's gonna learn that lesson hard eventually anyways even if it's not by me.--2friedeggs (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It remains a fact that most of the writing on main:incel is Neil's, so the so far 17 revisions of edit warring this month and over 50 this year, by multiple editors would be solved if a single person knowledgeable about incels besides Neil actually wrote the page instead of tinkering with his writing 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Incels unfortunately. If you do then maybe you could. Idk if Kaurio does but I don't imagine he likes them seeing as he started this right after Neil was banned. Liking them isn't really a requirement though--2friedeggs (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So why is this an article? No one else added anything substantial since Neil's first drafts in 2018 except expanding the spree shooter section2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good luck getting it deleted if you seriously believe that lol not only do I dislike Incels too most of the site does and has a higher tolerance for hostile garbage on articles than I do--2friedeggs (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"I know nothing about incels" "I dislike incels" This is why ur getting coop'd bruh 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Random acts of opinions do not constitute being rational. At least Kaurio pretends to be knowledgeable on this topic2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"But I thought this was RATIONALwiki" take a shot whoever reads this

Seriously, if you know anything do it yourself and fight Kaurio yourself.--2friedeggs (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The incel thing as a "subculture" is over, no one fucking cares about it anymore. 4chan culture is dead and stale. No media, no wikipedia editors, no nothing who isn't a desperate academic cares about incel as a "subculture". It's just a generic insult now, so a rewrite of this page would state that 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That plus the fact that most of the page is a persona-non-gratas writing, makes this article junk and worthy of deletion. 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be in your best interest to just make edits yourself and bicker with Kaurio on this talk page if any issues come up. Not only are there still Incels but if no one cared about them anymore I wouldn't be in the coop as we speak. If you think the article should be deleted there is a place to request it to be. If you see a near-unianimous vote for "keep" though, don't say I didn't warn you.--2friedeggs (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I said no one cares about incel as a subculture anymore. Not that no one cares about using the term as an insult, or a way to shame 4chan people because they are too afraid to shame the beast itself (4chan). Also it's not true that there's a substantial amount of self-identified incels anymore. In 2018 there was like 50 billion forums with tens of thousands of active members. Now, as the previous lede stated, it's basically only two forums, both of which have threads that get no more than like 250 views each. Both of which are now about the size of a tiny but active Discord room 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Either war with Kaurio and deal with his attempts to retaliate or try get the article deleted. I don't feel like arguing about Incels and their popularity, my point comes across.--2friedeggs (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

スプニさん、僕のブロックを開いでください. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:40 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yea I'm not touching an article that appears to be, for at least 4 years, just 20 layers of pettiness btw editors instead of research and interesting or critical writing. Decisions were made based on who was persona non grata or what drama happened somewhere, nothing to do with building a wiki. Article is cursed, it needs a complete redo or delition 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with that--2friedeggs (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

How many citations in this article were added by someone other than Neil, 2? 1? 0? Someone reformatted his citations, but they appear to all be his 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Look if you're just here to talk smach about the article without intent to change it you're going to find little agreement here. Either you're here to change it, delete it or troll.--2friedeggs (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason it's not gonna be rewritten from Neil's writing is there's only like 5 people on the planet meaningfully knowledgeable about incels outside their own echo chambers: GorillaWarfare (who Neil has a beef with), Neil (who Gorilla has a beef with), Naama Kates (who doesn't edit wikis and Gorilla has a beef with), Alands (who has a beef with everyone) and Tim Squirrel. (who doesn't edit wikis) 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Also whoever writes those nice MoonshotCVE reports is arguably meaningfully knowledgeable about incels 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree this page is horse shite and I really don't care to rewrite it. It is a version of Neil's article without the fluff or sympathy towards incels. In line with RS, this page will take a critical viewpoint of incels, and I will continue to revert any edits that are apologetic. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not your personal opinion article.Neil's version was critical and RW has no real position on Incels and all you've done is demonstrate a hatred strong and paranoid enough that you call anyone who does not share this hate an Incel. Why you care so much about Incels you decide to keep nothing but hate in one place is beyond me but I find it to be really, really sad. At least you explained why you keep reverting good edits though, if you said that drivel earlier it would've saved a lot of my time.--2friedeggs (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I read rhe entire discussion and it's just rant after rant with no suggestion how to improve it besides deleting it (which isn't substantiated either). So many words, nothing gained. Give me those five minutes back. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I told them to either improve it or leave basically. You are not saying this in good faith you are here to shame people you're upset with and I'm telling you to stop this.--2friedeggs (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Kaurio held himself to your own standards, dishonest as he's being so I'm satisfied and will just give him back the page.

LGN though the BoN is upset because he wants more contributors than Kaurio and Neil or the article to be deleted. I told him to do it himself or ask for it to be deleted where he should, which he decided to do neither.--2friedeggs (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Kaurio broke 3RR before you with this revision a few days ago https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&oldid=2471547, so they were edit warring before you. But you are being coop'd and not them. Why? This is a social media site, not a wiki, and people are "defriending" you. 201.150.33.173 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No it's not lol If that's remotely true I would care less, not more. I barely talk to basically anyone on this site. Why are you here instead of in the coop mentioning it? It has nothing to do with the Incels page. I'm just riding it out because Bongolian mentioned I'm unlikely to stay cooped anyway.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You've mentioned the incels page as a reason for LGM hunting you down in the coop itself. Despite the fact that Kaurio 3RR'd before you 201.150.33.173 (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, wikis work by resolving conflicts through collaborative exploration of sources in the talk page, neither you or Kaurio have shown any interest in that. It's not productive behaviour 201.150.33.173 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I attempted that last night, regardless if you actually care about this blatant hypocrisy put it on the coop. I do but not enough to keep beating a dead horse. I'm not entertaining the appeal to pride you said about social media and unfriending because irl interactions are more fulfilling than wiki arguments.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm here to improve a wiki I like, not make friends, and my actions last night reflect that. If Kaurio keeps prodding about sources he's going to realize he has to be careful what he wishes for. and if I get banned because of collective anger I'll get over it from a break and starting afresh. If people wanna snigger and bring up every wrong thing I say or do in the coop they have a sad life in my book--2friedeggs (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"I'm here to improve a wiki I like, not make friends" That's not how Wikipedia or Rationalwiki works on controversial topics. Would recommend Eric Barbour's essays on how Wikipedia functions as a social media site without a formal forum or chatroom 201.150.33.173 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Theres always a way to make it work that way one way or another but your opinion is noted. If you have to be everyone's friend on a wiki none of them would have taken off. Whatever friends I make on here or Wikipedia are a pleasure and a bonus, but not my goal.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't focus on the literal count of reverts but more of general history of this user, whom they edit warring against, look at the talk page, and so on. Kauri0 isn't exactly a paragdim of resolving the dispute but focusing on 3RR leaves out a lot of context I feel. I don't know what point is being made though. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

And who are you anyway? Someone else also compared this to a social media site. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

At the time Kario broke the 3RR, she was edit warring more than eggs, and for weeks. She also refuses to explain her edits on the talk pages using the contents of the sources compared to what else is on offer, or to revise Neil's writing, or revise the page. That's called edit warring at it's most extreme. You and Kaurio said the page was bad. But also won't explain why you want a bad article mostly written by people you claim to not like. Not that the mods here care about basic wiki rules her though, or wiki success. This wiki has been losing traffic steadily since 2018 as well as most active users. Only bongo and luigi can stand editing mainspace here, because everything else here is driven by pettiness and 8 year old behaviour. 92.223.105.164 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Let it go. Ariel made me realize why I'm being singled out anyways. He called me something that involves the last editor I was in a spat with. Edit warring isn't why but I went from "This is rediculous" to "welp, that's how it is" very quick. Don't cross older users, b cause you might actually successfully do so.--2friedeggs (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times in the talk page, fuck off with your incel apologia. Reverting an edit by NeilTyson to the Incel page should be controversial in any way, and the burden of justification is not on me. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Incels apologia" lol get ahold of yourself--2friedeggs (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

By this appropriated definition of incel, of course I don't like incels. But assuming the Kaurio definition of incel is close enough to the Secret Service for Rationalwiki's liking, how exactly are you being a pain in the butt toward incels.is? By calling them names? How is stuff like anti-incel forums/articles et "combatting incels.is". Incels.is is the only meaningfully large incel forum. All that "anti-incel" places do is advertise incels.is' stuff and fail to strike their forum where it hurts every goddam time an opportunity comes up, and now incels.is has been growing in traffic for almost 5 years straight. That's not true of almost any hate site you all try to criticise on here. Maybe choose a different tactic to "combat incels.is" than simple namecalling and stopping progress on wiki articles (although you made good recommendations on the Wikipedia talk). 92.223.105.164 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

LGM, you read my mind. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Like the en:wikipedia article, this article is too Anglo-centric

Nothing on this incel forum dude Алексей Поднебесный, who probably has more articles written about him than any self-identified incel, just he's Russian 2604:2DC0:100:271:0:0:0:0 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The general wiki mantra 'don't complain, write it' (or Benjamin Disraeli's 'When I wish to read a novel I write one') applies. (And, in response to your next comment - if you write something, however brief, on a mission-worthy topic, there will be people happy to develop it.) Anna Livia (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we reset this page

To all the way before the hijacker’s first edit to it? His damage to it seems to go further back than Kaurio’s revision it has been previously reset to. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my experiments} 08:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What hijacker? 😟 …This isn't gonna be like Nathan Larson screwing up the Child pornography page to the point where it had to be deleted, right? --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)