Talk:Main Page/Archive26

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, (new)(back)

Fundraiser[edit]

Can some 'jiggery-pokery' be done - the text says half and the percentage is 2/3+.

And when the goal gets to 100+% change the banner to something appropriate. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The banner is cached. Purge your cache to see the current form.
Any suggestions for post-100%? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Next day - the banner still says half way.

Somewhere between snark and pedant. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Now 79% is half way - moving goal post or 'creative maths'
(or could it read 'over half'?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is the text? 3/4 might be less embarithessing. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Reset) Several days later and it is still 79%. Something stuck? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The green ribbon says 93%; the top text says half way.

One of the Evil Overlord's 5-year old advisers (there are several, to allow for maximum work regulations, schooling and relaxation/holiday time) says that the maths is bad even by 'mad scientist's project standards.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Will nobody donate the $2.69 to get it over last year's figure - it has been stuck for the last few days. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Trent hasn't updated the number since 30 March. It's probably over the threshold by now.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada[edit]

Baptist Ministries of Atlantic Canada is a website that endouvers to help independent Baptist of Atlantic Canada find one another. There common threat is a conservative doctrinal position and balanced attitudes. They are opposed to the KJV Only movement although many of them use the KJV. Some use the New International Version 1984 although almost with exception they oppose the New Internation Version 2011, which was done with a completely different philosophy. They do not hold to a succession of churches of anykind and beleive their only chain is to be chained to Scripture, not man made history.— Unsigned, by: Lesdennis / talk / contribs 18:03, 21 February 2015

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Would [1] be a better place to continue this discussion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What discussion? Scream!! (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How "widespread" is it really?[edit]

"One of the most widespread beliefs that does not reflect reality is that the world is only a few thousand years old."

Just how "widespread" is this belief? I don't deny that there are some, maybe even a lot. But I don't think it's as "widespread" as many belief. I'm Christian and believe that God created the world, but I don't believe in Young Earth. Nearly everyone I've talked to does not believe in a YE. Frankly, I'm not sure I can remember anyone other then that one idiot who debated Bill Nye who professed to believe in a YE.— Unsigned, by: 148.61.47.147 / talk / contribs

40% of Americans, according to one recent poll. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Its been fairly constantly hovering around 40-45% of respondents since 1982, when Gallup started gauging creationist/evolution sentiment in the U.S. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It will depend on location and who you choose to keep company with, as well. We live in a conservative state dominated by the religious-right of the creationist variety, and yet a friend grew up in a liberal church and was surprised when she learned just how crappy the rest of the state is.--Miekal 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it speaks volumes of the human tendency towards tribalism and confirmation bias and reminds me of an anecdote about a (stereo)typical New York liberal complaining over Dubya's re-election in disbelief: "I don't know anyone who voted for him!" - which says more about the social circle of said New Yorker, than about Dubya or the election. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't Dubya's election, that was a (misleading misquote) of Pauline Kael talking about Nixon's election. Her actual quote made the exact opposite point; in reality, she said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them", which is the exact opposite of the smear it was turned into with that popular misquote (that is, in her actual quote, she specifically says that she knows her social circles are atypical; whereas pundits transformed it to make it sound like she was ignorant.) Not that it really changes your point, but I think it's annoying how misquotes like that keep circulating and getting repurposed and re-attributed every few years. --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Has Rational Wiki being usurped by Satanists?[edit]

Well I'm very much a man of science and have never denied evolution. However I feel many social topics especially towards conspiracy theories and alternative social policy viewpoints is extremely hateful in a ironically irrational way. Maybe somehow there is a bad presence on this site, not atheist, not Christian, but possibly occultic and maybe satan worshipping, I understand many here don't believe in any concept of religion, but I feel there is a religiously satanic sect operating here on a grand scale. You can believe in science and nature but you also are allowed to embrace unrelated concepts also. Being a scientist does not make you a bohemian grove baby killer. — Unsigned, by: Tyrasian / talk / contribs

Troll 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

'Being a scientists' requires a better use of grammar.

Do not confuse neutrality/general mocking (in the sense of the medieval monarch and lordly household's fool [2]) with a malign approach.

What is your opinion of David Icke/the Masons? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not Satan but Titivillus who haunts RW (and various other wikis). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hail Satan. \m/ (I really hope that emoji makes it to Unicode 8.0 final.) -Soviet Hologram God (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

One can be a scientist/of a scientific intent and have a religious viewpoint ('it is ethical/religiously good to understand the universe and improve life/be ecologically minded' etc).

But is 'being a scientist/scientifically orientated' compatible with seeing Satan in the shadows of an organization? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And here is Titivillus himself [3]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're allowed to embrace unrelated concepts also but they have to be falsifiable. I'm putting what I originally said back on here. Thanks WellWell (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah. I knew who this was. By the way I wasn't lying about being gay. I'm not an idiot you know. Nor am I a Science major. I just know bullshit when I see it. WellWell (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume this editor has been misled by all the references in favour of Satan which can be found on the site - and by all the athiests who believe that, although God does not exist, the devil does. (Now I think about it some more sarcasm doesn't really come over well in text.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RW is being run by Santa-ists hiding behind a computer auto-correct-misnomer. 86.146.100.4 (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Block log[edit]

It's funny to see joke blocks on my Watchlist from time to time but really, do people do anything other than play around in the blocklog these days? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Main Page layout[edit]

It may be 'a random featured computer glitch' - but the header is 'random featured article' rather than 'showing' the title of the article in question (in this case pseudo science).

Can someone poke the programming' to sort it out.

Reasons why computers will never take over

  • No 53. In their current incarnations they need a power source (sentient Babbage machines and Comptometers are difficult to imagine)
  • No 54. Computers give up on 'one character being wrong'; humans can sort out jmulby up wrods and mmispellt woerds. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That must be why I haven't taken over the world: I need a power source too. 94.5.225.146 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

EvoWiki[edit]

Just wondering, but when are they going to allow people to edit EvoWiki?

Sign/IP and date your comments. 86.153.165.221 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This site is biased[edit]

This site is biased to Christianity. It apologize for bible scientific errors in denial. while focus on Quran scientific errors. I think both have the same mistakes. like the falling of the stars on earth.

It is strange how a christian will wear a secular rational HAT to criticize Quran. Then he will wear an apologist denial HAT to favor his parents inherited Religion at birth. — Unsigned, by: 185.12.172.43 / talk / contribs

Biased to Christanity? I totally agree. The apologetics is amazing, just look at Examples of God personally killing people ! Also, why did you capilatise HAT? Is it an acronym? Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 08:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I Just read and compared the 2 articles. 1- Biblical_scientific_errors"...The Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back:... However, other verses in the book of Revelation clearly use "stars" in a figurative sense (for example, see Rev. 9:1 and Rev. 12:3, 4), so it is possible that the writer did not intend to make a statement about literal celestial bodies..." The above is an apologist stance.
2- Qur'anic_scientific_errors It has an aggressive stance.— Unsigned, by: 185.12.172.43 / talk / contribs
You'd be better off bringing your woes at the respective article's talk pages if you really want to improve them. If you just want to complain, then meh, rationalwiki is neither neutral nor ever claimed to be. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 09:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I find the disrespect toward our lord HAT on this site deeply offensive. 94.5.225.146 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
And why should anyone give a fuck?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"This site is very biased against {Insert Personal belief of poster} which makes RW irrational because everything I believe in is perfectly rational. It is much more friendly to {Insert barely connected subject poster did almost no research on} so I feel like {Insert emotional justification of self righteous anger that is not even close to sane}. Asking me for facts will only get more {Insert vague emotional response that continues to blather on and on}." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone should make a template from that. Is there somewhere a beginner-tutorial for wiki-template-writing?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic Field Decay.[edit]

Can someone please disprove or point me to a page that disproves that since the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, the Earth must be no more than 8,000 years old.— Unsigned, by: Libtard332 / talk / contribs

Direct from wikipedia:
"The rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks (figure on right). ... It has gone up and down in the past for no apparent reason."
More directly, why does decay imply a starting point at any particular point in the past? An increase would imply a starting point from zero, and you could estimate when that was. With a decrease, you can't do that unless you also claim some maximum value. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Beware...[edit]

The autumn equinox. 31.51.113.245 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ... or Halloween, the Calends of November and Bonfire Night. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a article of Gill Broussard and planet 7X?[edit]

http://www.planet7x.com/ http://www.counciloftimefraud.info/the-lie.html The end times pastors love this guy and mike from around the world. Research them both. Oh And make a page about September 23 that is the new apocalypse day.68.148.171.6 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Does the Council meet in a police box?

Would trust [4] further (despite the mention of VCRs). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

CJ Pearson[edit]

Well, is anybody going to talk about him. — Unsigned, by: 71.230.120.192 / talk

He's a hero and a prodigy, what more needs to be said? Out of the mouths of babes and all that jazz. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Who is he? Scream!! (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A lil' 13 year old kid who makes videos where he talks like your average freeper. Hence why he's a hero to our resident lil' freeper. Dendlai (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What's a freeper? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These creepy weirdos. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

People who believe in freedom. Those freaks make me shiver. Do they know what century this is? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rational Wiki, not so rational[edit]

This Wiki is just another incarnation of being submissive to politically created science that suits interests with no acknowledgement of independent thought. There are many examples on this site that demonstrate the lack of real scepticism and only focuses on superficiality without going into important or controversial details. In this case, the scepticism on this site is related more to a kind of pseudo-scepticism that is obedient to mainstream political science and manifests itself as a cult, or semi-religion where outside opinions are dismissed per definition. I suggest you should shut down this site and do something that is appropriate to your talents, like bowing your head to your boss or something.--85.180.184.50 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed the concern troll, either--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point, so that other people here can see it.--92.226.29.215 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your point is that you are a troll? I agree, that point was proven well. — Unsigned, by: EmeraldCityWanderer / talk / contribs 15:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We are 'allowed to be amused' on RationalWiki; and are skeptical about pseuds. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Complains about superficiality of treatment, which might not be wrong... but does so without any specifics given. Truly a masterpiece. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry[edit]

... it is exactly a month till the sales begin.

Is it time for a new archive yet? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Who knows? Not Pibot! WalkerWalkerWalker 16:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Islamophilia[edit]

You know I used to consider RationalWiki a bastion of the anti-Authoritarian Left but more and more I'm getting the impression that that very phrase is becoming a contradiction in terms. Maybe the death of possibly the last anti-Authoritarian Leftist intellectual Christopher Hitchens has something to do with it. Being on the Libertarian, anti-Theocratic right, I've always admired RationalWiki for being an anti-religious, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, pro-free-speech and well, rational website, covering things in a Left-leaning but honest and largely non-partisan manner. Those days are of course gone. Like most individuals on the Left, this site has become so obsessed with the state of Israel and its apparently recalcitrant, insolent refusal to be bombed out of existence by religious savages and has become so devoted to protecting the sensibilities of said Islamic savages, that it has sunk to Conservapedian depths of hypocrisy and ignorance. To whit:

The article on Muhammad (y'know, the sex-crazed, child-marrying, woman-hating, mass-murdering bandit whom 40% of the world look up to as a beacon of light and inspiration) has been rightly added to the category "Batshit crazy" multiple times, each time removed without explanation. Has the controversial writer Ayn Rand been removed from this category? Erm, no. So after I was reverted for adding him to the category for the umpteenth time, on the tenth of October 2015, I added Jesus to the category. Jesus as in Jesus of Nazareth, the rather quirky guy who thought he was the son of God and went around talking shit about love and peace and what-have-you. Jesus of Nazareth remained in this category for the following eight days. On the eighteenth day of October, no, he didn't rise again but I did add Muhammad to the category, pointing out that Jesus was in it. Muhammad was removed within two minutes by some meddling IP who immediately removed Jesus from the category upon realising that if he could be added to the category, then by the same logic, Muhammad could be placed in it too. Showing that I was no hypocrite, I proceeded to add Moses, L. Ron Hubbard and Buddha to the category in question. Following in the Muhammad-defending pattern of reasoning, this pugnacious IP removed both Moses and Buddha respectively from the category although I was pleased to see that he at least had the sense to leave L. Ron Hubbard in it. But why have Hubbard in it and not by the same token, Jesus, Moses, Buddha and Muhammad? Don't tell me you wouldn't have left the other three in it had Muhammad not been added! Are you afraid of getting your heads cut off or are you so politically correct that you consider Islam and Muslims above the same criticism as Christians and Jews? On the subject of Jews, I made some edits to the unbelievably squalid, slanderous and disgusting article on Benjamin Netanyahu. Non-partisan edits that didn't remove any criticisms of him but which cast the article in a fairer and more balanced manner, not wanting to tread on the toes of any Palestinian-supporters and which pointed out some of the crimes committed by Palestinians that were the cause of his retaliatory actions, whether or not you agree that his actions were the correct form of response. For instance, the article on Netanyahu to date, contains no mention of the Israeli teenagers who were slaughtered by three Hamas agents on the twelfth of June. It does however condemn Netanyahu's proposed demilitarization of the entire so-called "state" in the wake of the atrocity without mentioning his reasoning behind it. Apparently for Israel or America to be fully demilitarised is a-okay but Palestine? Fuck no! My edits were reverted, including the bit about the dead Israeli teenagers and I was told that mentioning facts in favour of a person was what's called a "balance fallacy". I am aware that Leftists have a habit of labeling any argument they disagree with as a "fallacy" so I don't suppose it's remotely surprising that "fairness" is now a fallacy. After all, according to Leftist intellectuals (if you believe in oxymorons) reason is a white male construct of oppression. http://www.dailystormer.com/sjw-professor-says-reason-itself-is-a-white-christian-male-construct-of-oppression/
The article on Netanyahu also accuses him of "fear-mongering" by saying that Iran was developing a nuclear arsenal, while in the very next section, it states that Iran are developing a nuclear arsenal and condemns him for daring to criticise the Obama Administration for assisting them. A historian would be fascinated by watching the narrative shift in the article as we go from having always been at war with Eastasia to having always been at Eurasia. I made a satirical edit the page which was only partly reverted, leaving in a bit I added that said that Obama was "quite rightly" engaging in secret negotiations with Iran to help them in their nuclear aspirations, whilst also repudiating Netanyahu for "spying" on these negotiations. Apparently when Obama engages in espionage and subterfuge it's fine but when an Israeli does it, bloody murder!
Further testing my hypothesis that RationalWiki users, like most lefties, were a bunch of antisemitic, Islam-loving, hypocritical nutjobs, I added the category "Jews" to the category "Insufferable assholes" on the sixth of December where it remained for a following two days. On the eighth of December, I added "Muslims" to the category and surprise of surprises, it was removed within twenty five minutes, Jews also being removed as an afterthought.
You know, a lot of my satirical troll edits were made in the hope that they would be reverted because I simply couldn't allow myself to believe that people could be so malicious, ignorant and sorry to keep using the word but, hypocritical. But you know what, like changes I've made to articles on Communpedia and Conservapedia, many of the ones I've made to the article on Netanyahu on this website have actually been kept! It's just about three of the more vituperative sentences I added that have been removed and like The Guardian it seems as though you only removed those to preserve your reputation, not because you disagreed with them; as though like Syme in 1984 I was inadvertently giving the game away with brutal honesty. Like my response to an unbelievably bigoted series of comments on my talkpage, I've been putting this ... long-winded diatribe off for months and I've intermittently made a few edits to non-conspicuous pages but I expect I'll be subsequently de-sysoped and permanently blocked for this comment but really, don't you think it's time you took a look at yourselves? This website was founded to be an antithesis to the lies and partisan obscurantism of Conservapedia who can at least lay claim to not being anti-Semitic or racist, in spite of their many flaws. You ridicule them as do we all but like many critics of Bush you've actually become more ridiculous that the socially accepted target of your scorn!
He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

--Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, they clamor for people, who'd happily rip their heads off given the chance.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I frequently happily rip my. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
cool Daily Stormer link, bro --Ymir (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Fuck me, you used a lot of words to say cock all of any intellectual value. "Further testing my hypothesis that RationalWiki users, like most lefties, were a bunch of antisemitic, Islam-loving, hypocritical nutjobs, I added the category "Jews" to the category "Insufferable assholes" on the sixth of December where it remained for a following two days. On the eight of December, I added "Muslims" to the category and surprise of surprises, it was removed within twenty five minutes, Jews also being removed as an afterthought." Congratulations on failing Statistics 101. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And on failing to understand how basic wiki things like Recent Changes & user watchlists work. Well done on the time travel, though. I'll watch out for that 8th of December edit tomorrow. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I got some of the dates wrong. Points still stand. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
November I meant, not December. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
They fall over rather than stand, because they're garbage. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This is boring and hollow like eating cardboard. SolPyre (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
A website with 'stormer' in its URL is automatically suspect - and what do you mean by 'being at Eurasia' (at least get your quotes right).

And which version of 'lefty' are you using? US flavor? 'First, Second, Third, Three and a half, Fourth', Jeremy Corbyn, Arthur Scargill, Gang of Four (either version), International Brigade...? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate the site not succumbing to islamaphobia, I do feel Islam is treated a lot less harshly and with much less snark than Cristianity. Madattak (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Its hard to do as probably most of us come from Christianity more than anything. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I just say that I am so, so, so very deeply sorry for posting a link to the Neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer. I had no idea what that website stood for. I typed "Militarisation of the police under Obama" into the Google search engine and it was one of the first results that came up. I was in a bit of a temper so I picked the link in a hurry. The moral of the story: check your sources! Nevertheless, I stand by all of the points I raised above. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The fundraising banner[edit]

... is somewhat less intrusive than 'the source of all (mis)information' which occupies half the page unless you sign in. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems stuck - or is it? 109.150.11.154 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's manually updated by editing MediaWiki:Sitenotice (see the history), so maybe Trent just didn't have the time (with the holidays and all). Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Still not updated. (Delays due to switch to Julian calendar?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is related to problems with the server cache. Probably the same as this (it's only outdated on squid2, squid1 is fine). Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy equinox[edit]

...everybody (unless you are watching repeats of a certain TV series which ended on this day). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

equinox was three months ago. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Solstice then (and anyone dancing skyclad round 'some stones'/a Christmas tree/other standing object of choice?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It's at 4:48 am tomorrow, so not me - too bloody cold! I'm only a fair weather pagan, which in Britain puts me at a disadvantage... BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 17:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless one has 'a cat with opinions' :)

The reference is to [5]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It will be Up Helly Aa before you know it. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Soon be Imbolc. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
And it is just over a week to (Russian Orthodox) Christmas (if anyone wants a pub/office/other quiz 'trick' question). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas tomorrow anyone. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, tree's staying up here for Serbian Orthodox Christmas (the older girls' father was Serbian) - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Feasts, festivities, encouragement of arts and helpfulness to each other are among the positive aspects of religion. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed article: Alleged "Roman" sword found in Nova Scotia (#Swordgate)[edit]

Unless I simply entered the wrong search terms, I wasn't able to find an article about this topic yet. For more information, one can simply Google "Roman Sword Oak Island" or check out Andy White's repository page of blog posts, which serves an index. Jason Colavito is another blogger covering the issue.

The sword, allegedly found near a shipwreck off the coast of Nova Scotia and Oak Island, was identified as a relatively-modern reproduction by the only academic who's examined it thus far. Despite numerous lab tests and a sort of "crowd-sourced" study from an archaeologic point-of-view, headed by Andy White, the primary proponent of the sword's authenticity continues to claim it's the real thing. This person is J. Hutton Pulitzer, a layman treasure hunter who has a substantial following on Facebook and other social media.

There's just too much for me to explain in this post, so please check out the link to Andy White's blog for more info. I'm just trying to ascertain if an article on this subject would be warranted. I'd be willing to help write it, as well. I'm new here although I've been a casual Wikipedia editor for years. Let me know if there are any questions about the topic I can attempt to answer. I doubt this issue will ever make it to Wikipedia because of the simple fact that the sword is not an authentic artifact, yet I believe it's important to provide potential Google searchers with a few rational places to visit. Right now proponents of the theory are running wild with speculation and accusations of conspiracy from academia, the History Channel and anyone else who doesn't agree with them. Abrasax (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It probably warrants a section in Oak Island Money Pit. I'm not sure how relevant it will be in the long run for a separate article.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a 'select group of persons' who acquire 'actual historical objects' etc and plant them in various unlikely places: their previous outlets included The Daily Sport (UK) - Statue of Elvis found on Mars, London Bus in the Antarctic etc. Famous members include the Princes in the Tower, Kasper Hauser, Amelia Earhart and others who have mysteriously vanished or appeared. 31.51.113.199 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Search function broken[edit]

See e.g. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Penn&fulltext=Search&profile=default&redirs=0 which finds no results --93.223.32.238 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"There is a page named "Penn" on this wiki", it sez here. Pippa (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this yesterday & meant to flag it up but must have forgotten. I'll post it in Tech support. David G usually fixes it pretty quick. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

RW apparently on par with HuffPost[edit]

This discussion was moved to talk:Bradlee Dean. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Unprofessionnal insults[edit]

I really think this wiki would be taken a lot more seriously if most of the pages didn't contain more subjective insults than actual facts. Who thought it was a good idea to openly mock organizations, people and views all the time? I mean, I mostly agree, but I wouldn't call someone I hate an asshole in an official paper, I'd write facts, even probably be biased, but I'd let the reader figure out the man or woman is an asshole from some actual contents. That's not very professional, most of the time I can't even figure out what this person did wrong because it's just insults...— Unsigned, by: 65.93.181.162 / talk / contribs

It's a wiki written by volunteers with wildly varying degrees of knowledge, experience and writing ability, so there's bound to be plenty of shit articles. Have a look here for some of the better stuff, and please feel free to create an account if there's anything you'd like to improve or create.
For the record, I much prefer fact-based mockery to flat-out insults. In a civilised society, ridicule and laughter are usually far more potent weapons against the cranks and the crazies than any amount of anger or bile. Robledo (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
An an anonymous user who sometimes reads RationalWiki articles, this is my main issue I have with this wiki. Listen, I get that if you're scientifically literate it's frustrating to see people spreading scientifically false information, but you shouldn't let that frustration affect the tone of your writing. Many articles here are written in a tone that can sometimes come through as immature and undignified, which makes the reader question the integrity of the writer (and ultimately, the wiki). I hope that some day RationalWiki will have a style guide suggestion that would encourage articles to be more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --78.10.245.254 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there such things as professionnnal - or even professional - insults? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Snark" here gets defended so aggressively that its existence is really justified merely by identifying it as snarK with no need for a critical look at what the point of having articles with shitty, hateful, and unfunny tones is. Years ago I tried getting experts in a few relevant fields to take a look at out of date science articles and the general consensus was that here was too much amateur hour poo flinging and the community was too fractious and distracting to bother with. I think this has something to do with why there aren't any obvious experts with relevant educations our work experience here anyone. There used to be, even in the relatively recent past, but the site has become a haven for toxic internet tough guys and SJWs who managed to alienate legit skeptics and left leaning allies. Conscience (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And yet, 4 sections down there's someone complaining that the site doesn't have any snark any more. It's almost as if you shouldn't pay any mind to the complaints of random people off the internet (edible weaklings or otherwise). Annquin (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. You can read better than that, can't you? Conscience (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Beware[edit]

... the summer solstice.

How will RW/RWians celebrate? 86.191.127.68 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a change on the purpose section[edit]

Howdy,

I do not think that antiscience is a movement, I just had one and I should know! It is an intro page so I hestiate even a minor edit without talk

How about "phenomenon" ?

Purebreadwho? 03:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I second this motion. PBfreespace (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So do we get a sysop involved to actually change it? How? Purebread who? 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I will change this, but I need the RW path to the Welcome section of the Main page. Purebread who? 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Should one be emotional? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Also, before anyone here gets any wild ideas about altering the main page or the mission statement without having won mob support in an official vote to change it - don't do that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How about "hysteria"? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, though I'm new here, I wonder is RationalWiki skeptical at all about science itself? Or at least, bad science. We all know there's good science and bad science. There are so many ways to have a bad premise, set up a bad experiment, be corrupted by corporate motives, selectively release studies that either promote your agenda or publish sensational or nonreproduceable material (that gets stuck in people's minds), education institution sell outs, work for the Nazis, etc. I think Oscar Wilde said, "Everything in moderation, even moderation." I say, "Be skeptical of everything, even skepticism." ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you go to Category:Science and Category:Pseudoscience, you will see plenty of what you're looking for. WIGO:World and WIGO:Blogs frequently feature stuff about bad scientific practice - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks. I wonder if the term "pseudoscience" is too kind a term and obfuscates when harsher terms might be more appropriate like "faked-science", "corrupted-science", "perverted-science", "sold-out-science", "science-for-sale", or "corporate-science-that-is-ruining-our-minds-and-subverting-our-educational-institutions-and-ability-to-speak-truth-to-power-and-flushing-the-world-down-the-toxic-toilet". But not "mad-science" cause mad doesn't even begin to describe how angry I am. Also, "pseudeoscience" brings to mind blatant fantasy-related stuff (astrology, etc), where-as I want a strong harsh SHAME TERM to label far more dangerous, serious, and threatening professional(?) scientists who are evil, have sold out, or are coerced into publishing and promoting "SELL-OUT-BUNK-SCIENCE". Mini-rant over. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but we don't have a good collective term for "shitty science". I did start pseudojournal and Category:Pseudojournals. Perhaps it's time for some really convincing neologisms ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote for that! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Internal link in the mission statement[edit]

Could we make the word "refute" link to Debunk? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Debunk is itself a redirect to skepticism - not entirely sure if that is needed.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's needed! Debunking something is nothing but an act of skepticism; the verb form, in a way. So that redirect is absolutely fine in my view. Further, I will argue that in the context of the mission statement, "refute" is synonymous to "debunk". So, could we bluelink "refute" as "debunk"? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Debunk = get out of the upper half of a bunk bed. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Funding[edit]

Why give the percentage to three decimal figures? 109.150.11.213 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Some argue that it's to make up for our general lack of accuracy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's funny, but I'd also support a version of code that automatically rounds to the lowest digit (e.g. 12.9% becomes 12%). Changes are wished for! PB (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it works as an amusing piece of overspecified scientism - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Any chance we could get some more decimals in there? Increase the scienceism of the whole production? Just what we need! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps also in hexadecimal (to upstage the duodecimalists). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Where have all the decimals gone? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the banner could now become a countdown.

Why not have a 'church restorations fund thermometer' design banner another time? 86.191.145.57 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the funding banner stuck or have people started panic buying Christmas gifts instead? 86.191.145.104 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't changed in several days - is there a problem? 86.134.53.123 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What happened to this wiki?[edit]

I used to frequent this site years ago and it seems to have deteriorated. The articles on Christianity and Islam used to be full of snark and mockery which is now gone. What happened? Did some PC idiot whitewash the Islam article and then people felt the same had to be done to the Christianity one? I'm inclined to think so because a large part of the Richard Dawkins article is taken up condemning him for being mean to Muslims. I mean, what the fuck? This is coming from a site that was once a bastion of secularism and rationalism. This and other things I've seen make it seem like parts of rationalwiki have been overtaken by some particularly nutty leftists (of the kind often called social justice warriors, though that term doesn't seem to have much meaning) who think, among other things that reactionary theocratic muslims should be defended because they're an "oppressed group" (so oppressed that in many parts of the world questioning Islam is punishable by death). Cornucopia (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

RW was taken over by SJW beta mangina cucks. This happened in 2008 or so, so you must have been a very early reader. Since you have nearly a decade's experience then, I'm sure you can back up your concerns by presenting some examples of this past excellence from the article histories that particularly struck your fancy - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I can't really be bothered doing much of that, but just compare the introduction of Islam to how it was back in 2011. Much more mockery back then. I already mentioned the Richard Dawkins article: the "islamophobia" section there is cringe-inducing, and on a supposedly secularist wiki. Cornucopia (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
And any such critique is met by such an insinuation such as the one above by David, who apparently puts any critique of the RW in the reactionary ("SJW"), MRA ("beta", "mangina") or alt-right ("cuck") corner. Or they post this stupid template.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like "is actually decently written" and doesn't violate "be funny and not just stupid". Sorry you can't play in poop any more - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Except you're not funny and the SJW articles are hateful and poorly written. Sneering at your ideological enemies isn't funny. In fact, I imagine it's pretty hard to say anything funny through clenched teeth. Na, you guys thrive on negative energy and groupthink, not humor or scholarship. Conscience (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the template, I think it's a way to be passive aggressive and insensitive more than anything. Also, I tend to avoid articles for real people because, more often than not, it becomes a slam page. In my honest opinion, pages on living people shouldn't exist on this wiki, but it doesn't really matter what I think, does it?—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There's been a war over the regressive left article which the SJWs only pushed ahead in because one editor edit warred constantly against three others and ended up allowing themselves to be vandal binned for the cause. It's crazy out there. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Only...[edit]

... 38 days to the first adverts for Easter eggs.

Entry added to allow talk page archiving. 86.191.145.91 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The Corbett Report[edit]

I thought it fair to bring this to your attention, since it peripherally involves an article on this site, James Corbett, and I've documented a brief history on the talk page summarizing recent events. Regardless of whether you care about or even agree with "fake news" or not, it might be interesting to see what traffic differences, if any, occur due to whatever attention this may or may not get. I am posting this on Main Page talk page and the Saloon Bar because I'm not sure which is appropriate. Feel free to delete one of them if necessary. In JC I trust (but verify), ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

RW hats[edit]

When Christmas hat goes, can we have some other decorations? (After all the first Valentine's Day cards are out.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a fez, but then I found out the Nazis wore them. Now I don't know what to believe anymore. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hats are not just for Christmas (nor are most pets). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
But could it really follow that most pets are ultimately hats? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to get up and do something, your cat will decide that it is a very good hat :) (and passing mention of a certain book applies).
Perhaps if the brackets are reversed we could have the RW spider crawling around? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
...There's an RW spider? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thusly ]](brain)[[ (you can see a version in action here [6]).

Perhaps an Uncle Sam hat for July 4, a Marianne Phrygian cap for July 14, a Leprechaun hat for St Patrick's day... All good clean fun :) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hat comes down January 6th, as is proper (unless someone takes it down before then) - David Gerard (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No Nazi fez, in other words? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be a funspace 'decorated RW logo' page to which people could post their artworks.

The only drawback to logo-hats might be occasional accusations of [7]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So what could we have next? A little red heart for Valentine's Day? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How artistic are you feeling? - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I remove content from my talk page?[edit]

? CheeseburgerFace has locked my talk page because I removed some comments I put there. Where is it written that I cannot do this? And what are the rules vis-a-vis delete someone else's comments in the Saloon, because CheeseburgerFace deleted mine yesterday? Levi Ackerman (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Realised you were in breach of the rules, did you, CheeseburgerFace? Lol.Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
TrollBait-low quality.jpegチーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note, it was CheeseburgerFace who moved this topic to this page. I was originally posted in the Saloon. So I find odd that he would move it to a more serious page and then try to convince people not to participate in discussion. :/ Also. — Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs 07:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is a user (with the relevant rights) allowed to lock another user's talk page and do so indefinitely?[edit]

CheeseburgerFace appears to be doing so currently to Levi Ackerman.Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't have the right to remove discussion from talk pages, even your own, because the whole point of this site is constructive dialogue. Diacelium (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Generally, you're only allowed to remove outright trolling from your user talk page, but you can archive old threads. The tradition of not being allowed to scrub your user talk page is well-established at RW. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
{ping|CheeseburgerFace}} you hear that assface, I mean, CheeseburgerFace, "You don't have the right to remove discussion from talk pages". Levi Ackerman (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"CheeseburgerFace locked my talk page because I deleted some comments" "I don't have the right to remove comments, take that CheeseburgerFace !" Wow. Diacelium (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that he now seems to be veering into naked trolling, I think that Levi either misses or deliberately ignores that moving a debate from a user talk page to a more relevant talk page while leaving a redirect is not the same as simply deleting content from a user talk page (i.e. scrubbing), but is similar to archiving old threads: Neither approach involves simply wiping the information. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Funspace article on 'naked trolling v. clothed trolling' (and any other varieties) anyone? 86.191.125.167 (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Quotation question[edit]

To what extent can RW be described in part as 'describing those who subtract from the sum of human knowledge'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In my personal view, coming at this from the angle of the history of ideasWikipedia's W.svg?
Certainly RW is "describing those who subtract from the sum of human knowledge" to the extent of something like 80-90% (of "what we do").
Note that that number is ignoring the ol' conservative-liberal clash on topics of politics, a "battle" admittedly being "fought" across many pages.
And really, that very high figure includes documenting, describing, referencing and debunking — and in "those who subtract from human knowledge", I'm bunching everything from ISIS and David Icke to Ken Ham and Time Cube.
But it's a great question, regardless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it - and based upon the quotation from Thomas Brackett Reed.
And what proportion can be said as 'describing which of the patterns that can be set up on the V-Cube 7 [8] describing the particular topic are most appropriate to the situation (a mixed metaphor I know).
'If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?' and 'There seems little point in wasting time on such an explanation since you would be incapable of understanding it.'/'Don't be insolent!/'A statement of fact cannot be insolent...' might also apply on occasion. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean at all... Come again, please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Some of the areas on RW not covered by 'subtracting from the sum of human knowledge' are 'these are the different possible explanations/viewpoints' (the jumped up Rubik's cube) and summing up the attitudes of 'the subtractors' and many RW-ians attitudes towards them. (Quotes by Orac). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Victory in the Battle for France[edit]

I am beyond relived that the French people used their brains and elected Macron over that fascist La Pen.

At least France's political system isn't as screwed up as our own here in America. We just have to hope that the British public see sense and remove Theresa May's right-wing nationalist government and then all we will have to deal with is Trump and his coming impeachment and removal from office.

I thought this was supposed to be rational, not pushing political agendas.Userius (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Drink (champagne perhaps?) Anna Livia (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

William Shakespeare[edit]

seems to occur rather frequently on the Main Page (every few days in fact): can 'the usual somebodies' improve enough articles so there can be more varieties. 31.49.51.55 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We're definitely trying. Feel free to help us get some articles to Main worthy. In particular, I want you to help with bottled water. Vive Liberté! 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

In an earlier discussion, I provided a link to The Daily Stormer, unaware of what sort of a website it was. I have already apologised beneath the discussion in question but it has been archived so I wasn't sure that everyone had seen it so just for clarification, let me again say that I am so, so sorry. I had no idea what that website stood for. I typed "Militarisation of the police under Obama" into the Google search engine and it was one of the first results that came up. I picked the link in a hurry. The moral of the story: check your sources! That's all. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Tall Armenian Tale".[edit]

I have been reading this denial site of the Armenian genocide. It seems to be a Turkish propaganda site. This site should not be included in the "Webshites" list? [9] — Unsigned, by: 190.174.100.135 / talk / contribs 01:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. CowHouse (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I promise that when I have time I will do the article. — Unsigned, by: 190.174.100.135 / talk / contribs 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Holistic medicine[edit]

The holistic medicine link on the main page is a redirect. Maybe it should be deleted?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Christopher (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspect website.[edit]

Does anyone know this website? It has an entry in Metapedia. http://modernhistoryproject.org/ — Unsigned, by: 190.174.52.178 / talk 22:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Usernames[edit]

The daft/unpleasant usernames being created make Rationalwiki look unprofessional. Even Uncyclopedia has a better class of username - and fewer vandal-blocks (unless the unfunny vandals are fed to Sophia the potato). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, this problem is currently being dealt with by our top troll hunter and janitor, i.e. me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
For those who do not know of her Sophia is the presiding spirit of Uncyclopedia. She is currently not at war with Goat. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Those wikis which are open to all (as some are not) cannot avoid the wikisplatterers and other nuisances - and RW will always be a 'nuisance-attractor' - but 'This is supposed to be RW' and too much negativity will deter useful contributors and 'the right sort of goats (whether or not cashmere).' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian propaganda.[edit]

I found another source of Russian propaganda: "Global Independent Analytics". Link: https://gianalytics.org/

Much of the work on the site is to blame NATO for immigration in Europe.


Edit: I found another, "Russia Insider: https://russia-insider.com

The site is publicly anti-Semitic, having articles on Jewish conspiracy and citing Richard Spencer as a source.

"Global Independent Analytics". Those Russians are so inconspicuous. Ambition of Truth (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey fellow black asian hispanic vegan islamic strong and independent trans attack helicopter lesbian womxyn![edit]

Just sayin'... you can live in your pipe world all you want, where cis white males are the cause of all problems. But no worries, we humans (that's right, MAN) with common sense will overpower you loons anyday. Your cute little buzzwords "Nazi" "Sexist" "Racist" "Cis white male" are like dirt to our shoes. You - me - understand? Black - asian - hispanic - vegan - islamic - strong and independent - trans - attack helicopter ? Lesbian?
You need professional help.
Signed, a human with common sense — Unsigned, by: 89.0.105.241 / talk 10:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You are rather ignorant - you missed out atheist, vegetarian, humanist, socialist, (proper) liberal, left-handed, polyamorist, non-American, flying bedstead, vampire loving.... and more words than are in your vocabulary.
Get a pen name, and get a life. Anna Livia (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right conspiracy site[edit]

I found a alt-right conspiracy site focused on showbussines: http://fakeologist.com/forums/topic/egi-elite-gender-inversion/page/12/

To no one's surprise, the site is racist / homophobic / transphobic / xenophobic / etc ... the hate list is long.

PS: The "list" of female celebrities suspected of being transsexual is memorable. — Unsigned, by: 190.174.118.167 / talk

If you think its a conspiracy look up patent number US_6506148_B2 and it says in depth Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields through monitors. I have more dod patents that you would never believe about teleportation and taking human matter and moving it as invincible and being able to read targets thoughts while in the invincible matter state and all personnel can communicate with one another in this state. Im talking some sci fi for real. Its in the department of defense patents. Dont undermine energy and it's possibilities. And do your research before commenting on things real wiki knows squat about. Look it up then delete it .

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en — Unsigned, by: 107.77.221.186 / talk / contribs

Looks like we have a facho troll. Some mod can block this idiot? Thanks. — Unsigned, by: 190.174.22.18 / talk / contribs

'DoD' or 'dud'? Count the number of grammatical and formatting errors and place your bets. Anna Livia (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Cosmo Landesman[edit]

Does anyone know this idiot? One of his opinion pieces was published by Breitbart, entitled "Right-wing women are sexier". Looking for information about him, I found he is a columnist in The Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/author/cosmo-landesman/

Several of his articles are highly sexist and homophobic. He has an article calling transgender people sick and one insulting bisexuals, in addition to a long list of articles against feminism and in favour of traditional gender roles.--190.174.29.167 (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Cosmo, No one can control what another person thinks and for what reason. It is not worth your or there time to consider these things Jesus was sent as a sign of God's new covenant with man. The New Testament so Jesus replaced most of the things you are worried about. Jesus Loves each of us the same 45 sexual 25 sexual ABCDE. For Jesus it is always about love, acceptance, and placing other before your self. So 2000 years ago God said this is the new covenant I have with man? Why go find pervious words older than the pyramids to confirm your point. 3 weeks from now everything you know will be confined to this website. Small we are "Yoda"
I do not mean to seem condescending or know it all in any way. I would say give your self a break God created you and he obviously loves you but its not going to be easy. I think you listen to people to much. You know who God created you to be and Jesus is here to support you. So jerk walks up and steps on your toe. Well that shit happens to everyone everyday get over yourself. I set out to spread love I cannot provide they type love we all need "creator / savior" love the New Testament sets a self reliant standard that newer mentions sexual orentation but examples of Christ's teachings which in solve intro section first, reacting only from sincerity and love. I have no idea why the LBTQY community expects everyone to paint them a yellow brick road. Hate me and Love our Jesus we can hold hands friend — Unsigned, by: Humblefriend / talk / contribs
Bullshit. Your near incoherent drivel proves nothing when we can pull out a Bible and cite passages to prove you wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

White nationalists promote Anglish for being more Germanic[edit]

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/blue-eyed-english

These people are ruining what was once a fun linguistic entertainment. — Unsigned, by: 190.174.22.18 / talk / contribs

The second line of
Svmer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu
seems apt in this context. Anna Livia (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)