Talk:Metapedia/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<0>

, (new)(back)

do we really need to protect this? the wandalism is trivial and easily reverted... human^{be in} 17:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I only made it so IP's couldn't edit the page (I think) as the only one's that have so far are (presumably) the same person. Feel free to unlock it if you want however. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 17:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I guess I can live with that, but it is easy enough to keep an eye on stuff like this, and I'd rather err on the side of freedom than become sterile and incestuous like some certain other sites. -Smyth 17:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. As far as I can tell, it's still protected, and yet JB was able to edit in his pet link. So your "no anons only" protections seems to have worked. human^{be in} 19:22, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

I had never heard of Metapedia. I checked it out. I want to know how to unsee that without going all Budd Dwyer on myself. EVDebs 00:29, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

We apologize for the trauma. Perhaps you have a spiritual mentor, favorite restaurant, or some grain alcohol that will help you unsee it? I have been using all three in conjunction, and I am 3/4 healed now. human^{be in} 01:34, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I have a big-ass Jewish cookbook in front of me at the moment and I'm thinking of making bagels on Friday. Will that help? If not, I have a copy of The Joys of Yiddish and a pretty decent African diaspora cookbook that might help a little more. (BTW, is it true that there's a rule in the Atheist Handbook about using the blood of KKK children to make my artisanal ciabatta? I only upgraded from Agnostic a couple of months ago and haven't gotten my copy yet.) EVDebs 02:39, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I had to bite on this: "big-ass Jewish" Sorry, really sorry. I didn't mean it. I loves me the Jews, and hopes them to find a happy home... human^{be in} 03:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Fat-bottomed maidels, they make this kosher world go oy!

I tried to make bagels once, they're really tough. My attempt turned out...sub-optimal. Better luck with yours. --Kels 06:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I just wanted to interrupt here and say I did in fact make some artisanal ciabatta the other night. No blood of Aryan children, but a nice starter with an Oregon Trail pedigree. The dough was quite evil though -- soft and tenaciously sticky. EVDebs 01:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Question

What did Metapedia ever do to you? None of you are banned as you are at Conservapedia, and I see no reason to hate thim. Freedomforthewhiteman 14:20, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

They came into existence. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Spreading hate, lies, and stupidity is bad for everyone in the long run. So can I offer you a knish? Maybe a mess of collard greens or some chicken mole? EVDebs 14:45, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I could go for some homemade macaroni and cheese. Mmm, macaroni and cheese. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:48, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, man. Macaroni and cheese, mmm...wonder if I should make that tonight. --Kels 14:52, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah, I think that is dinner for me tonight. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but mac and cheese won't offend racist jerkwads... EVDebs 15:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

To hell with that guy! This isn't even about him anymore. I just want some damn mac and cheese! --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 15:05, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

I had bagels and cream cheese this morning, does that count? --Kels 15:19, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

It's not like we're doing much of anything to them. Anyone doing stuff over there is doing it on their own hook, not on behalf of RW, and the worst we're doing is describing them accurately. Pretty mild. --Kels 14:37, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Man, now I wanna go to that awesome Ethiopian restaurant downtown, but I got nobody to go with. --Kels 15:20, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

What has Metapedia done to me? Clogged up the tubes with its evil. Also, they have banned me. Forty-three times, as a matter of fact. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Maybe they banned you, but you were probably vandalizing. Unlie at Conservapedia, where you were banned arbitrarily. 4.152.24.25 21:51, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, Wikinterpreter, you actually created an account there? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:14, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I did, too, and I thought it was a pro-project username, and made some pro-project edits, but by the time Gunther and his goons got a chance to check them out, I got busted, banned, and labelled as an "obvious troll". Stupid white men... human^{be in} 02:04, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Yep, Pinto, I'm pretty much all of the 'vandals' on wheels. And no, Jeb, I wasn't vandalising - they should appreciate having MLK's 'I have a dream' speech copied in font size 5 Impact blue bold onto every single page. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

If Human was "Furze" I think he deserved it. Unlike all the good Nazi heroes who have been banned from CP. 4.152.6.184 16:05, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Wrong guess. And, hey, wikinterp, how come we don't have that glorious MLK speech page here? human^{be in} 16:24, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

deletion

I'm not sure why SusanG deleted this article, so I restored it. human^{be in} 15:50, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

'Twasn't accidental - jeb was getting on my nerves! It stopped him. Only intended it for temporary deletion. Anyway nice to see it back.Susan^{talk to me} 16:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Delete this articel

Useless, worthless, bigoted and stupid. Has nothing to do with the site's mission. 4.152.30.167 21:17, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Nise speling job, dood. Impressive. Actually, it's accurate, clear, concise, and absolutely is on track with our mission. Dumbass. human^{be in} 21:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

This article is a stupid attack page that should be deleted. If you don't delete, I will begin to replace mass numbers of RW articles with A. Wyatt Mann cartoons. Racemixingisgenocide 21:29, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

This article is an honest, accurate depiction of the site concerned, based on visiting it and reading it. Whoa, threats? OMGZ I AM SO SCARED!!!!!11111oneone@!21!@@!! And guess what, dumbass? We won't even block your sorry loser self! human^{be in} 21:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

If this article was meant to be funny...

...then it's not. If it was meant to be serious, it's just stupid. Anyway, I go with deleting it. Southernpovertylawcenterisforfaggotsitdeservestodie 10:18, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but we don't care what you think Jeb. Susan^{talk to me} 10:31, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

You know, we need a new name which describes in an RW way a certain type of person. "Troll" really isn't it. How about "Mouth Foamer"? The initials are incidental.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 11:17, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

How about infantile twat? Susan^{talk to me} 11:24, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

WOMAN!! 4.152.33.111 13:11, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

'Troll' can be good or bad - it just refers to a specific set of tactics in the Internet Warrior's arsenal (should be an article ...). How about 'subHuman ice sock gang'? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Well, as the real Jeb, not some sock, I say the article is perfectly fine the way it is. It shouldn't be changed, at all. All of those socks are probably just Human being silly. So that's it, and this is definitely Jeb, not someone who he gave his account password to.--Jeb Berkeley 13:33, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I think that if he wants to be a racist southern fag, let him. You are just encouraging him with all this talk. and how about instead of troll we use southern fag.The Alien^{Don't tase me, Bro!!!} 14:01, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

For a start, I propose a moratorium on the non-snarky use of the word 'fag'. We're better than that. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

True, lets not be homophobic, how about "southern-whore"? - Icewedge 14:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Meh, whore=prostitute=fault of customers, not practitioners, so that's a bit degrading. We could take a Thomist view - 'and he is that which all men call Jeb'. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

So Troll -> Jebbist? Susan^{talk to me} 14:57, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to Cletus, the Slack-Jawed Yokel, but it's tough to beat a classic. --Kels 15:04, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm still stuck on "mouth foamer". I mean - foaming at the mouth is what these people do.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 15:38, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, except "foamer" already refers to hardcore railfans -- too rich to be hobos, too messed-up to actually work for a rail company. EVDebs 14:29, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Teh feeding of teh parodic troll

Don't do it. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 09:27, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree with linus, it just encourages them to continue to posting the link, it gives their sad pathetic little lives meaning. I mean just because we have a link doesn't mean we support it. All it does is to bring more racist members on to the site.The Alien^{Don't tase me, Bro!!!} 22:25, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Anti-white nonsense picture

This page was bad enogh already, but the picture is an obvious attack on white people. It should be removed. Apartheid 21:17, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

The site which this article is based upon is an obvious attack on all non-white people, you remove the site from existence, I'll take down the picture. Deal? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 21:20, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I can't remove the site from existence, since I'm not the founder. You CAN remove the stupid anti-white picture. Apartheid 21:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

As an almost 100% white person, I don't see how the picture is anti-white. Silly, yes, weird, granted, but anti-white?? (Unless that "Be A Better Person" nasal spray is supposed to be poison??) If anything, the picture of the black person was so close to a stereotype that my initial thought (before really looking at it) was that it was probably an anti-black picture. Researcher 21:57, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Apartheid, that's what we call humour, not racism. If you're offended by that, you're probably the sort of person who thinks Cecil Rhodes was an okay kind of guy. What the hell are you jackboots doing here anyway? Shouldn't you be out lying about Jewish people with better educations than you or something? EVDebs 00:37, 20 October 2007 (EDT)\

Attacks

What's with the attacks against the wiki? It should stop. I request this hater page be deleted. 4.152.6.37 19:15, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

What attacks?--Remarcsd 19:20, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

"If they stop lying about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson. --Gulik 19:57, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Ahhh, those attacks.--Remarcsd 20:19, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

AH article screen shot

I don't think that image does anything one way or another, on the article or on our site. See my comments at [[Image_talk:Metahitler.PNG]]. It's unreadable, and having an article with text doesn't prove anything one way or another - the WP article on Hitler is longer than theirs, does that mean WP loves him even more? Requesting discussion before removal and deletion... human 18:25, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

What They Say

I've put a few choice quote in the article so that people can have some idea of where they are coming from. But I'm not entirely happy about even having these things as quotes on the site. What do we think? --Bob^{bing for apples} 07:49, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Ignoring it won't make it go away, so... better get it out in the open and deal critically with it, I think. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:46, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree with AK- the more lights that are on, the more the roaches are forced back into their holes. PFoster 10:51, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I¡ll put some links in then. Might stimulate some contra-arguments as well.--Bob^{bing for apples} 11:02, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

racialism

I see that we've got a (sic) (and a sickening) after this word, It does, in fact, exist as a word - which was a surprise to me. So the sickening comment may be correct - but the (sic) isn't.--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, the sic is still "correct" - just unnecessary. human 14:16, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Black Panther

Technically, most, if not all of that was accurate. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:18, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Accurate - like the part where BP took out the Holocaust Denial tag? PFoster 23:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I added the Holocaust denial tag. YOU took it out. Black Panther 23:21, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Check the history, it's true. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

My Bad, sorry. PFoster 23:23, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Watchdog article requested

[[What is going on at MP?]] - or something similar. Black Panther 23:27, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I vote against this, as it gives un-needed attention, and links to MP. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:30, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

But if it becomes popular enough, it may become the highest Google result. Black Panther 23:32, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but I personally feel that they vandalize this site enough as it is, however, this is for the community to decide, and not me. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:35, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Personally, while I can laugh at CP, I don't have the stomach to try to look at MW enough to know what's going on there. Researcher 23:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I;ve already started the article. Black Panther 23:41, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

But it didn't make the link blue, so I nowiki'd it for now. human 01:46, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

"But if it becomes popular enough, it may become the highest Google result." Okay, Ken PFoster 23:41, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I have nothing against the idea--but I will do nothing to help with it. I've tried to see what drives the people there multiple times, but I come away with nothing but a real need to vomit every time I try. Researcher 23:55, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't like the idea. Conservapedians tend to be the harmless kind of nuts, so ridicule is appropriate. Metapedia seems to be populated with the dangerous kind of fruit cake, to whom the proper response is psychiatric evaluation followed by medication and/or a lengthy stay in a secure unit. --Jeeves 00:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Attack on Rationalwiki

In response to your pathetic attempts to vandalize the site with liberal bullshit, MP users are coordinating attacks on RationalWiki. At around 15:59 UTC tomorrow, we will begin creating constant vandalbots replacing pages with links to the site and replacing RW articles with MP ones. Knotsey 18:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

...

_{No, wait. That's not right...} --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Oh man that made my day.....the best game eva!11!!1 tmtoulouse ^pester 19:07, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Heh, what a terrifying threat. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:12, 12 November 2007 (EST)

When is 15:59 UTC in EST? I want to get some popcorn and a ringside seat! human 19:27, 12 November 2007 (EST)

EST is -5 UTC. So 10:59 EST. tmtoulouse ^pester 19:30, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Dang, I probably won't be up yet. Can someone tape it for me? human 19:31, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Get your ass out of bed, you souse!!--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 19:41, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Bah, I'll be at work. So my blue-eyed, pale-skinned, German derived (on my dad's side) self won't get the full glory. --Kels 20:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Presumably, however, MediaWiki offers a feature to lock down and snapshot the entire database in case these bozos make good on the threat? It does, right? EVDebs 01:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Oh sure, but its easy to handle I think with a few editors and roll back. I am also working on a software solution that should limit the damage of vandals but should not effect normal use at all. tmtoulouse ^pester 01:59, 13 November 2007 (EST)

(yawn) has anybody here ever vandalized MP? --Ζωροάστρης 02:03, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I've never even looked at MP, honestly. My time is generally spent looking at stuff I like, instead. --Kels 06:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

That was easy! Elassint Throw things at me

Wow, my first sysop duties, and I thwarted a mayjer attakkk. How 'xciting! VirileSterile^yawn! 11:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)

He was tricky, though registering as SteriIe to be confused with Sterile. VirileSterile^yawn! 11:18, 13 November 2007 (EST)

• What happened? Where were the constant vandalbots? We were promised vandalbots! Let me talk to the manager! I want a refund! Master Bra'tac^Kree! 20:02, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Registered

Well, I've done it - I've registered at Metapedia (GASP!). I'm not sure where it will go, and I have no expectations - feel free to watch my journey play out. --Ζωροάστρης 02:18, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I have an account there, and its not dead yet <GASP> Elassint Throw things at me 03:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Personally I'd rather vomit my entrails than look at that site again, but goatspeed to you guys! Totnesmartin 05:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Well - I fixed some stuff in their Canada and Pierre Trudeau articles, and I mentioned that Jesus was a, you know...._Jew in a couple of places. I also cut and paste CP's Homosexuality article into theirs, but it somehow felt wrong, so I took it out. We'll see how long all that lasts. I feel like I need a shower just from spending a half-hour there. Won't be going back, I think...PFoster 19:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I created about 5 accounts along the lines of "••••••••" to spread about some lovely vandalism, but, sadly, they require manual administrative authentication. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 23:57, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Why cant I just put an external link there?

Is it that bad? I've never been there before. 209.17.190.78

Because, as our smart, wise and very good looking sysops said: "RationalWiki does not provide links to racist garbage."PFoster 19:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Attack on this site

What is with the attack on this site? Those of you who are banned from here are banned for wandalism, not for ideology. Prussian1488 16:57, 28 November 2007 (EST)

HACKERS ON STEROIDS. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Because racist garbage is irrational garbage. Beyond that, racism is one of the most destructive forms of irrationality on the web. Researcher 17:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)

We aren't hatin' on youze because "we" were banned - we'ze hatin' on ya for your message, ideas, and content. human 19:35, 28 November 2007 (EST)

cripple-dicked neo-Nazi bedwetters

I see that this (and other insults) is included in the introduction. I note that one of our community standards is Personal "attacks", however justified, are strongly frowned upon. I can't help but feel that this may just fall under the description of "personal attack". I must say that I also personally find this kind of hyperbole rather detracts from the point being made. Any thoughts? --Bob^{bing up} 14:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)

though it pains me to say it, I sortof agree. It might be better to let their own message make themselves look bad without the aid of pointless insults. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 14:48, 4 December 2007 (EST)

I agree. "Neo-Nazi" on its own is enough of an insult, and backed up by the facts on the ground. human 14:57, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Archive

Why are our Neo_N friends so obsessed about archiving this page?--Bob^{bing up} 15:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I'm trying to figure that one out too. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 15:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe it's got something to do with Mr 4.152.?.? above? CЯacke® 15:21, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry for deleting

Clicked the wrong button...-αmεσ (decider) 01:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Since the Prussian Blue article is deleted...

...why not delete this one too? Jeb BerkeIey 11:18, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Is that a request? CЯacke®

Larry Craig. Jeb BerkeIey 11:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

So, how much meth do you have to smoke before all communication attempts are rendered moot? CЯacke®

ATLASIA. Jeb BerkeIey 11:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Prussian Blue was deleted due to the fact that no one really cares about them any more. Researcher 15:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I hope that's true, Researcher.... man can dream :-(-αmεσ (decider) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Ames thats the second time in as many days you have used that phrase. You are certianly a dreamer, aren't you? Bohdan 15:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I still want to be on record saying that someday, those two featherwood larvae are going to need some chiffarobe busting done. The repressed ones always want what they claim to hate the most. EVDebs 15:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)

What the heck is the etymology of "featherwood", anyway? It's sounds like an insult to a man who . . . can't perform. Researcher 15:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

In need of VIAGRA, Researcher? Well, for just your real name, Social Security number, and bank PIN, a FREE thirty-day supply can be YOURS! --That guy who spams your email 16:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I've no idea where it came from. I just know that as far as taking insulting terms and using them yourself, that has got to be one of the most demeaning self-identifications ever, as it plays up the perceived insignificance of femininity along with the stupidity of racism. EVDebs 00:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Banning lynx is Conservapedia style and retarded

Censoring links (or should i say: lynx) to this site is similar to the censoring of godhatesfags links on CP. Are you just like them, only liberal? Straha 10:48, 27 December 2007 (EST)

No we're cooler. And far sexier. And we have goats and long-eared jerboas! PFoster 12:28, 27 December 2007 (EST)

No, as PFoster says, we're awesome. We also tell you how to find Metapedia, so it's not as if we're censoring you. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Sir, I must object. We have never banned any lynxes here. At most a few long-eared jerboas, but they were really asking for it. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)

heh

how am i doing? XD New Gwenson New Gwenson New Gwenson New Gwenson 22:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

not very well. human 22:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor...

Unless someone can show documented evidence of Ed's normally benign racism reaching the depths of Holocaust denial, then I really think it's unfair to put his name in the article...PFoster 15:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Hear! Hear! Don't like personal name calling. SusanG 16:11, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Can we add it Schlafly style (i.e. saying its "probably" true) like we do with the other stuff? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:25, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's a bit too nasty to accuse someone without concrete evidence. SusanG 16:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I prefer the term "undisproved statement". NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:-) SusanG 16:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

IQ note deletion

I think a note on how IQ is actually measured might be reasonable (that's why I put one in!). We all know, but the laypeople may not, and if we expect them to come here for ensmartening, we have to make it easy, and maybe have a bowl of chex mix in the waiting room, y'dig? Wazza 01:26, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Tired old joke

I'm sure this is a tired old story, but:

From Homosexuality: Pedophiles suffer from a similar disease... But I thought the Pope denounced same-sex marriage! :) Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 23:50, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't get it. 97.42.55.246 00:04, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Sign, damn you, sign! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Not too SHahB} 23:57, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

You know, Elassint, I still know it's you whether or not you sign, I hope you aren't just being difficult/snobby... And now:

1. The Pope heads the Catholic Church
2. Ever since The Inquisition Catholics have been involved in pedophilia, don't you remember, when the Pope was here (in the US) he said "...the pedophilia scandals were badly handled". Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 00:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

LOL. now i get it. 97.42.55.246 00:05, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

BON's claim

it's a really good thing I'm having a shower soon, that's all I'm saying. But I couldn't find any direct quotes currently on the site. I did see a pictorial claim that Britney Spears > Asians, which shows just how sick these people are. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 09:32, 26 November 2008 (EST)

I refuse to check the claim myself. And, since it came from a Bo'N, I believe that the burden of proof lies with them. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 09:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Is metapedia even active or complete enough to make that fact significant? They probably don't have much to say on a lot of things, purely because it's hardly the 2 million article strong Wikipedia that they're copying. ^sshole 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll note it's been 8 months since we noticed them. No, they ain't active. They is stoolidge. ħuman 08:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look. They don't have an article on Asians, but they do have one on Mongoloids. Anybody want a quote or two? - π 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's have some. I haven't had a good *head-desk* for a couple of days. ^sshole 09:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we have:

“”German anthropologist Christoph Meiners characterized Caucasians as having "lightness" and "beauty" with the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin". On the other hand, he characterized Mongolians as being "weak in body and spirit, bad, and lacking virtue."

or:

“”Asian Mongoloid are probably the most intelligent race on the world, with average IQ between 105 and 110 (for comparison, European whites have 100). This high level of intelligence led to the great development of the Japanese society which is today one of the largest economic world powers. Asian Mongoloid are in fact the only non-white people who was able to attain economic and life standards comparable to those of Europe and the United States, with the notable exception of China, which has been repressed by its Communist regime for many years.

- π 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, they almost managed to properly compliment another race there. ^sshole 09:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow

They really are neo-nazis.... BigGuy (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope for Conservapedia

As much as i dislike Andy Schlafly and his group of bigots at conservapedia, at least they recognize this site as what it is. Myabe there is some hope for conservapedia after all :/ always try to find the good in people folks!--BenB (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"U can has creepy"?

So who's the redhead? - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was found on one of the right-wing nutter forums. I find her oddly compelling but the white supremacist stuff is a bit of a turn-off. --ConcernedResident ^{Wii for the ladies} 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Research psychologist's edits

A lot of the things he is adding to this article he either added to Metapedia or his actions caused them to be added, either way he is essentially using this article to spread the "hate speech" he was spreading there. I don't think he should be allowed to add to the quotes section as we don't really want this to be a proxy for him to spread racist views. - π 07:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

HA HA HA! You just made a reckless mistake, Pi. Your anger is making you unstable. I love how you try to put a polished covering over it with your wording (e.g. "proxy for him to spread racist views"); it's just so comically pathetic! Anyone can look at the edit histories of all of the metapedia articles in question and see that Pi is a liar; I didn't add any of those ridiculous things to metapedia. What's next Pi- having made such a deliberate deception against me, are you next going to try to assassinate me? Both actions are acts of great anger and deliberate focus. Research psychologist (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not angry, what gave you that impression I am? You did add that stuff about east-Asian only being good at torturing people, I had a look. - π 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was Hu1. However, I still think there is way too much of this crap and I don't want to turn this page into a outlet of this kind of material. - π 07:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

???... Come on, that stuff that I pointed out on metapedia is ridiculous. Who are you afraid is going to believe that crap who doesn't believe it already? An escaped mental patient? ...Besides, if you don't want the page to be used as an outlet for racists, then there are some more believable statements that you should be removing. Research psychologist (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I would like to hear someone besides yours or my opinion on the matter. - π 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the edits some of that stuff was pretty unbelievable.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on how little or how much to include? - π 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The changes are here. No point in including the Wikipedia or V for Vendetta comments since they relate to stuff on talk pages or buried in edit histories rather than in articles. Kitler is a deleted article. Few of these are direct quotes, & they're not really adding much to the article. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What they say, redux

Section is a bit of a mess, with some direct quotes mixed in with our "takes" on what MP says. Can we pick one approach--I prefer the former, let 'em hang themselves with their own entrails--and be consistent? P-Foster (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I will revert RPs edits on sight, however. It has failed the test of endless edits that sucked eel soup. ħuman 05:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer direct quotes with quotation marks, referenced with screenshots if possible. I also think we only need a half dozen or so, enough to get the point across that they are racist bigots, without this becoming a site mirror. Lets be honest what isn't copied straight from Wikipedia is stupid, we don't need to copy it all to show that. - π 05:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the irrational one. ħuman 06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I say we leave in only the wackiest quotes, and take out the more basic moderate stuff that one would expect. That way, it's more of an exposé. Research psychologist (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Be quiet, you. The grown-ups are talking. P-Foster (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! I see you're pissed that a good suggestion came from me! Research psychologist (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a crap suggestion--obviously the "basic moderate stuff" is of little or no interest because we've already established it's copy pasta from WP. and it's really not much of an exposé when the site wears its ideology on its sleeve. now run off willya, kid...P-Foster (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you actually think that that quote on Race came from wikipedia? The site's mission statement only states that it is 'pro-european'. Research psychologist (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say anything about ANY particular quote? And who f=cares what the mission statement says; it should be obvious to anyone who reads at above a fifth-grade level that MP is what it is--I fail to see what sort of a coup one can score with a great exposé. It's pretty damn obvious all the way through. P-Foster (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. We should have a few examples, with direct quotes, & none added to the article by Metapedia editors/supporters. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RePsy's reversion was left in again, so I went ahead and cleared out some of the quotes and reformatted them while I was at it. His edit had a single quote that wasn't his own work, dull, or fake; past that, some older ones were pretty dull and/or long since toned down. Feel free to add any you guys like (if you can find them on the site; screenshot cites would help), I just went with what seemed like the best examples. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Kuposoop. Much better. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

All the quotations need reference links with capture tags, or deletion - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like I've confirmed the foolproof formula for making my opponents weaker: Help an opponent after getting them to hate you, and they will permanently reject one's help and refuse to admit to themself that their opponent was helping them, such that they harm themselves. I likewise got metapedia to permanently reject a ton of racial science material using that method, so now they will forever look like the unscientific bigots that they are. Egotism is such an exploitable weakness. Gya ha ha ha ha! Research psychologist (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the quotes that were written by you two weeks ago, your grammar was bad. Please don't post megalomaniacal soliloquies here. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! I see that I upset you a lot, to make up such things about me. Wanna tissue, Kupochama?

P.S. The only metapedia excerpt that was at all created by me was that quote on Rupert Murdoch, which I later prefaced with "there is an allegation that" when I learned that it was a lie, and then Hu1 changed it back. Research psychologist (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't challenge Research psychologist, he is the genius that control the internet by making people angry. I think he might be the hat guy. - π 03:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My first impression was that you meant this, so I'll never speak ill of Him again. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 05:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I was think more like this. - π 06:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Change section to "What it said"

I changed section name from "What they say" (a stereotype) to "What it said". What the wiki said at one moment could be the work of wandals, or "they" may have changed their mind since. If we linked to Metapedia, reader could see current version but I guess that has privacy implications or something. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, though (since the Wiki is still around) why not go present-tense and title it "What they say"? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound like good idea or no? Who has verified this is what their communEntity said (and not just some wandal) and that it is what they say still? It will always be truth that something is what it (the wiki) said (unless someone make fake screen-shot). This wording is far more accurate. (Side note: I write about discrimination against racists in Wikipedia. Interesting is Chomsky's Jewish wisdom quote written by Trivers.) ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about "What it has said" then? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh you meant it sounds like wiki is no longer around. Yes that is better then. I thought your edit history comment said "How about 'What it has said to Lumenos?'" I misread but look at good reply I write already: With wikiforum rules we would sign the individual "comments". I suppose it is just as well when you have screenshots because you can easily see the source of the screenshot (so long as it is not anon IP address). ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 02:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a better idea: bother to look through the history on Metapedia and see if it really was something said by a regular. Then leave the article heading not being stupid - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Both suggested titles are rubbish. I've changed it to "sample comments" & removed or amended other instances where we've referred to the website as "they". Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you will bother finding the true author, put their name as the source (along with the screenshot. If you put direct link instead, Human may delete. I guess they could change their edit history. To me ideal would seem to be both, but these gentle(wo)men may be more edumacated in the fine art of cyberstalking.) ~ Lumenos 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How to link?

Thanks for tracking down the links Kupochama. However, tinyurl does nothing useful (besides annoying Nx) since the external linking at RW is configured so as not to impact web rankings. If we do link directly to a hate site, we should link to it directly. Alternatively, as suggested in some of the comments above, we could use screenshots instead of direct links, to avoid sending our readers to a hate site. Personally, I could go for either option, but what do others think? Either way, I think we should also tag some or all of the links with some kind of NSFW warning. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. I just went with it because it was apparently the custom at WIGO:4R (elsewhere on the page) to "filter" them that way. I lost track of recent opinions, other than that there's no official restriction...but anyway, I imagine the captures could have their links removed. Alternatively, the links could just be copied into the refs from the captures/meta-links.

As for NSFW, I tacked a little warning on the footnotes before reading this. (That "negroid" edit scared the crap out of me.) A NSFW template could help if someone wants to go measure the racism concentration levels at each one, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I didn't notice that you'd capturebotted it - good thinking. I just added a NSFW warning in the article text as well without noticing yours. So I'll tidy it up some. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to make them not just reference links with the full URL visible as sufficient warning, e.g. as done on European Union Times - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but your YET article was the straw that changed the camel's back. Please stop using it as an "example". ħuman 06:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The substance of your objection is not clear. (Nor what you're talking about with YET, if you're not me.) I suggested it here because I thought it a good idea. What did you consider a bad idea? Etc, etc, etc. Clear, indisputable rationality please - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I agree. Since our links don't seem to boost stuff to #1 on Google, I doubt we're tricking anyone into becoming racist. That said, I'm burned out on wiki-ing, so I'll leave it up to others for now. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The capture pictures do a good job and if Metapedia ever gets sucked down the intertubes, we will still have them. - π 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if readers do want to check out the site, maybe it's better that they can go there with a nofollow link, rather than looking it up themselves on Google, which could boost rankings. So maybe there should be an external link section with a single direct link to the site, with due warnings etc. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah hah! Yes, that way should be. But then they might go now and then get meme in memery bank, then do search later. We need experience sheeple trainer tell us right way. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Coppicing

To me, a stump implies something that has been cut down or hacked off. The bit about trees not regrowing is/was way off the mark. Many species can and do recover vigorously after being cut down; this is a common technique for obtaining copious firewood, etc. - cut the tree down every few years. The reason for the rapid growth is the large existing root system. I once cut down a damaged white birch and the dozen or so new stems grew to 15' and 3-5" thick in three years.

In other words, their choice of words is ignorant. ħuman 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I still like the comparison, since it does imply that the things won't grow (to we uneducated "most/all trees don't do that" folk)...but I dunno how common that perception is. Guess it should be removed in a while, if nobody can reword it to be funny without much ignorance. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 07:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a joke there, but I'm not sure what it is. Or I'd make it. ħuman 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Internet hate site" = a bias newspeak epithet

This website is currently in a category called "internet hate sites". However, regardless of ideological affiliation, this can in no sense be considered a legitimate category. The term is an Orwellian newspeak epithet, associated mostly with Communists and Jewish propagandists, in an attempt to strangle freedom of inquiry and to blacklist any form of free speech which dissents from their totalitarian party line. If anything, Metapedia is an "internet love site", dedicated to the love of European people and culture. - Neutralist (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's quite funny! Well done!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I do love a good internet love site. Ace^X-102 12:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, "internet love site" seems to produce spambot stuff on Google...and Metapedia isn't one of them. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell poked his nose out of the grave and told me to remind you that he was a devout socialist and anyone who might defend Metapedia probably isn't his kind of people. EVDebs (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "hate" is the best description. It is preaching to the choir. Homophobia is another one of those words. Is bigotry always rooted in fear [or hate]?

To call MP "pro-European" also seems to lack accuracy. Wikipedia is probably the most mainstream wiki, run primarily by decedents of Europeans (including Jews). It seems that most with European ancestry, doubt most of MP's unique claims.

MP's uniqueness is not simply racial ("European"). It is sexuality conservative, for example. ~ Lunemouse 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that I'm with neutralist on this one. I think that we should find a way to get the phrase "European love site" in there somehow. It's such a wonderfully inappropriate description of the place.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thy will be done. The intro is getting a little messy, but I like it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a place for "fun" articles BOB! Remember the mission. ~ Lumenos 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, we also have an entire wiki for snark. Plus, the whole "hate" thing isn't actually part of this article anyway, while Metapedia's "love" for "European" people certainly is. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice, after reading this, that is exactly what I was going to suggest. Very good work, and a great way to twist the knife the interlocutor brought back into their own ribcage. ħuman 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lumenos, snark in mainpage articles is on-mission. Be as silly as you wish, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the facts. Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this in the last year or so. EVDebs (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I got Poe's Law'd and was about to call out a Nazi concern troll. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not again...

The formatting for citations is messed up like it was on the OS Wars page a while back, and like that page, it seems to be caused by the Internet template. Citation 1 is supposed to be for a comment I wrote for the disambiguation notice about Meta-Wiki, but instead it goes to a completely unrelated citation from the Swedish Wikipedia. Could someone fix this? I'm worse with wiki syntax than I am with programming and Web development. --GastonRabbit (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... ħuman 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the top of the code, under the bronze template, so that's why it looks better. But putting it in the middle (I don't know why it was there to begin with) screws things up. --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No links....

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but what is the point of not linking? If people are going to read the article, they are going to want to see for themselves, so it is not as if not linking MP actually reduces their traffic in anyway. (Maybe discouraging/banning discussion/mention of them might, but would you want to do that?) External links from here are rel="nofollow", so compliant search engines (including the one everyone cares about, Google) won't increase MP's pagerank due to links from here. So really, what's the point? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because IIRC they can track back site that link to them and we don't want that crap in our lives. Have you read their RW article? --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because they'll see RW as the referrer in the access logs? Yes, if they are watching them. What's the point? They know about RW, they know RW doesn't like them (hey, nothing unique there, not very many people like them, for good reasons)... what difference will it make? I have read their RW article, but please enlighten me as to how it is relevant here... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's been shit with them in the past. We don't want it repeated. The policy is no links to that shit hole. If you want to read them, go ahead. But not via RW. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is this shite of which you speak? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

More than a few trolls in the past. - π 09:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They've been trolling here? Hey, part of me wouldn't mind trolling them... but I got the impression they were happy to roll around in their own shit all day long, like (popular misconceptions of) pigs, rather than trying to spread it elsewhere. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So, uh...I don't recall anyone caring that they can see who referred them. The same could be said of any random site, and it's not really a problem. The only complaint that made much sense was giving them search engine boosts, which is debatable and largely solved by nofollow. Screenshots were just used to avoid arguing about it, really. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 11:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So to summarise... there's actually no rational reason not to link them, and those who say there is a policy otherwise are mistaken. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you were around when we debated this but the "policy" on not linking to naughty sites was removed. (Some time later the link to the Community Standards in the sidebar was removed.)

There are a lot of issues regarding privacy and informed consent on the internet. Now that we have this wicked kewl way of linking YouTube vids on any page, will readers (without Flashblock?) have their IP address, etc sent to the Illumenati when these pages load? There are many times when it is not obvious to ("underage") users what information they are giving anytime they request/click/type. I guess Metapedia trolls might be more dangerous than Google logs but maybe that depends on there being no Zionazi conspiracy or something. ~ Lumenis (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick Comment

"slave army of beast-men of the demiurge" - I was not aware that Metapedia ascribes to some racist version of Gnosticism. I find that ... interesting. Perceptron (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

thought I'd throw this in for the article (and perhaps other uses)

File:RedOpenSource--work in progress.PNG. "When you contribute to Metapedia, you contribute to Nazism."Civic Cat (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not?Civic Cat (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a mess, & pointless. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I worded the heading poorly. If it's done, or a better version is created, then what?Civic Cat (talk)

Then I still wouldn't see the point. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would put a link here to the Metapedia article on Wikipedia, however some posts in this talk page seem to indicate a discomfort with linking to that site. The point is, the Metapedia article includes a version of the RedOpenSource image to discredit Wikipedia and its contributers, who include a number of RationalWikians. Therefore, if we are going to make fun of Metapedia a bit--to add "snark"--then here is my offering: a satire of their satire of RedOpenSource image. The image I have is, I concur, messy, but it might give better artists than I, with better tools than I, an idea on how to make a better image. Such was the purpose of uploading and linking to this talk page.Civic Cat (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The original RedOpenSource is fairly well known & most readers wouldn't associate it with Metapedia. It's a clever satire on OS Wars and red scares. The version at Metapedia is kindof satirical but lacking in irony since they genuinely appear to be saying that Wikipedia is run by communists. Your version is lacking in any subtlety or irony at all. What point is it making? "When you contribute to Metapedia, you contribute to Nazism." No shit. It's not like the site hides its white supremacist credentials. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "RedOpenSource" poster itself is based on a poster mocking anti-piracy adverts: http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.cfm--ZooGuard (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cute ZooGaurd.  :-D  Weaseloid, must it be subtle or ironic to be humourous or permitted in RationalWiki? Is all humour in RationalWiki subtle or ironic? Is even the original RedOpensource subtle?Civic Cat (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you find humourous about it? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(One might ask het men what they find so sexy about women's feet or breasts.  :-D  ). Sounds like you're asking me to give an analysis on my sense of humour.  :-D    Of course, I don't really know what I find humourous about it. It maybe that the humour is gross, i.e. in your face. Neo-nazi shitskinheads are gross. At times I like to be gross in return. "In your fascist face!!" it might be telling them. I'm not even sure if it's humour, but something that is nonetheless as gratifying as most humour.Civic Cat (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid has basically summed it up. It's completely unfunny, because it's just true. It might be funnier if it said something like "When you contribute to RationalWiki, you contribute to Goats", but even then not that funny. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard the expression, "It's funny because it's true." As for this goat thing, I still haven't figured out what that means.Civic Cat (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Such a shame

That such a nice name for a wiki is wasted on a wiki full of neo-Nazi kooks. : / —84.198.53.190 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

End of Metapedia?

The Admin "[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atlantid Atlantid" who added most of the scientific racist content to Metapedia left in December since he has schizophrenia, and even posted he renounced his attachment to the site or their views. I was following this guy, and his debate with the racialist forum Bonesandbehaviours (see talk page). Metapedia now seems to be almost inactive. Saxton (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in the coconut, call me in the mornin'} 22:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Saxton is Atlantid. He is probably the most deranged liar I have ever encountered.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5299104/1/

The world would be a better place if he was not in it. 211.168.4.27 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am obviously not Atlantid dummy, i've exposed who he is with details at the above link (as someone suffering from schizophrenia), along with Henry Stevens another lunatic who believes in Nazi UFO's. I can easily look or add data from Anthroscape, or any other forum. However based on the other thread where there is a population genetics debate, we know 211.167.4.27 is Mikemikev from Metapedia. Mikemikev certainly isn't sane either, he has thousands of sockpuppets and is a compulsive liar. As I posted in the other thread: Mikemikev even lies about his credentials i.e. claiming to have studied genetics at the University of Sussex, when he qualified there with a crappy 2: 2 in ICT (the guy is a pseudo-intellectual). Even from his own link: "I agree sometime editors go too far, writing things like 'blacks behave worse than chimps', which I removed myself." Yet, check Mikemikev's avatar he's been using on forums: [1] What a nutcase. Saxton (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the content was removed. I've got the racialism page again locked - because Mikemikev is socking there again. If it wasn't for me you would have him running around all over this site still. The above accounts are both his. He has multiple online persona and accounts with different personalities, and speaks to himself on these socks. Saxton and Charlie Bass are both users where he is impersonating anti-racists on this site, where he debates himself on race or race & genetics. His sock Bass set up the Anthroscape and other entries as 'hit pages', because Mikemikev has been banned on all these sites. He then joins forums blaming his socks onto innocent people.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CharlieBass http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SaxtonDust77 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, okay? I don't think we've got any problems here. These are both inactive accounts. Ikanreed (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs updating

Sections like "Sample comments" are no longer accurate. UnrealName (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Metapedia's RW article

...suffered a partial rewrite a few days ago, so RW no longer is "a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website".--ZooGuard (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still there in the text: "[it] often promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism." Bicycle^wheel 09:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Now we are controlled by Zionists. I guess they will have to take their place in the queue alongside the CIA, the New World Order and Big Pharma. I can't remember who else has supposedly been calling the shots over the years.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 09:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Satanists were definitely in there as well.--TiaC (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was the snippet that appeared in Google results under the link. Not that it stopped some people from linking to Metapedia in an attempt to discredit RW, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Discredit RW? No way! 203.226.200.153 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I must say that attempting to discredit RW by claiming that we are controlled by radical Jews seems to be a rather difficult way of doing it. I guess that they didn't read any of our stuff which criticizes the old testament god.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading their article again this from the introduction made me laugh. "Since liberals already control the contents of Wikipedia there is little need to present the liberal factual arguments which are already stated in Wikipedia"

Those cursed liberals and their "factual arguments"! We don't need no "factual arguments"! Facts just confuse things!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Read this - [2] to see what happened there. 5 admins were banned, and now there is only 1 admin active there called Upplysning. The 5 admins were banned for being "crazies", but the admin who replaced them is no less a neo-Nazi kook. He's obsessed with Jews, conspiracy theories and far-right hereditarian pseudo-science. If you actually look you will see he removed the only sourced anthropology content on Metapedia: [3] instead replacing it with Neo-Nazi crank sources. Supposedly though he regards himself to not be crazy and a "moderate" on race. lol. A total joke. The site just wouldn't moderate itself enough and scrap all the anti-semiticism or Rushton/Lynn worship & crude racism, which is why it was never going anywhere. 5 neo-Nazi loons might have been banned, but one just as nutty replaced them. Those banned admins then set up their own site called "Rightpedia" which is a Metapedia clone. It even is just a 99% copy & paste job from Metapedia.Dust77 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the extent of your knowledge to be both comprehensive and disturbing. :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be worth noting under the Rightpedia section. (Possibly with an archive.today of that link.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

BNP

'Atlantid' was never a blogger at BNP.org.uk. He sent them an email in late 2012, which wasn't published on their site in 2013. The email that was posted on their website simply pointed out the Wikipedia bias/neutrality dispute on their BNP entry. This has been confirmed multiple times by Wikipedia admin themselves, for example the Wikipedia BNP page has been "failed" as a GA article nominee because "In a few areas, an anti-BNP bias appears to seep through". Gorgonite (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, this isn't an accurate summary of the reason the wp article failed the GA nomination. The linked page has 4 reasons for not meeting the standards, the other three would seem to be more serious problems. In fact, there was another nomination a month later where it got a clean bill of health on the neutrality aspect. Without correlating the date, it's a bit of a fool's errand. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Got in there before I did (I had an edit conflict with you, Queex). Yes, I've removed the claim that Atlantid was a blogger at the website as it cannot be supported by the evidence.
The point of including the BNP section is that Atlantid aimed to provide a positive alternative to Wikipedia, i.e. one that fit more with the propaganda of the BNP, and the BNP saw it fit to promote their entry on this neo-Nazi Wikipedia alternative on their own site. Speaks for itself, really. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 15:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

croatian metapedia

"The Croatian Metapedia was started on May 12, 2008[7] by Andrija‑Željko Lovrić[8], a psychiatric patient[9][10] who tortured animals as a child[11], abused and beat his parents[12][13], tried to kill his mother[14][15], reported his anti-Bolshevik father to the Bolshevik authorities[16] in order to gain his properties, after which the Bolshevik authorities killed his father[17], and threatened the opposing party in a land dispute in front of the Municipal Court in Krk, his biological son, and his sister with death, a former member of the Alliance of the Communist Youth of Yugoslavia[18], and a fabricator who fabricated the native name Mitjẽl Yoshamÿa for his father and the native name Zyelimēr Yoshamÿa for himself[19], has used his fathers' name, his fathers' fabricated native name, and his fabricated native name as sock puppets to make it seem that the several dozen scientific articles and books he fabricated outside of Metapedia were written or co‑written by 4 different authors, and declared that Croats are Aryan[20], all sponsored by the Cultural Centre of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Zagreb[21]."

This section is nonsense written by Andrija‑Željko Lovrić. Yes he comes here to insert his own name and biography on sockpuppets. He's a troll/attention seeker, I mean look at the crap he writes about his family. All his sources are also fake, coming from another forum post (which he probably wrote). SeriousSam (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

another false claim by Lovrić

"According to Andrija‑Željko Lovrić – the founder of the Croatian Metapedia[8], Metapedia is actually sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran".

This claim again is not true. Furthermore if you google search for the story where he says he's a mental patients, tried to kill his family, and even had dead bodies under his floorboards - all trace to his sockpuppets on forums (with very low post counts). He's just invented all this stuff to get attention.SeriousSam (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

troll Aile Dhoo is reverting edits

Some troll called "Aile Dhoo" is reverting the edits I made. If you actually look you will see I cleaned the page with proper sources, but something tells me this guy knows that - he's just reverting for a reaction.SeriousSam (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. You took out a large chunk of text. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes; a lot of text which had been maintained till the recent alterations, especially as it appeared to be the first activities of Sam. A review will need to be conducted of the changes. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A large chunk of text written by Andrija‑Željko Lovrić himself (he owns sockpuppets on this site and added his own fake bio), which links to a forum post (he wrote again, on a sockpuppet). Go read the full story, Lovrić claims he is a mental patient, an axe-murderer who collected dead bodies under his floor boards etc, that is what is linked to. The whole story/his biography was invented. None of it is true. The only source for the story leads back to internet forum posts, which are Lovrić own sockpuppets. And this site is "rational"? *facepalm. Please at least try to check your sources... SeriousSam (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Again; a review will be conducted, though I would advice you avoid invoking the accusing of the site of being irrational, yes you cause the bottles of alcohol to become empty. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Sam. There's a problem with the lack of good editors left on this site. Just look around and you will see most sysops have left this place in the last few months, its now a shit-hole - Rationalwiki now even defends paedophiles (look up what happened on this site recently on the Rationalwiki entry at Encyclopedia Dramatica). "Aile Dhoo" was granted sysop rights recently, despite the fact their history shows virtually no contributions other than reverting people. Their usepage also contains a section with someone else complaining about a revert. This about sums up how crap this place is.Goblin Face Sciborg S Patel (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually though

Are we sourcing claims that he's a murderer to forum posts? <_< FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

rightpedia/atlantid/metapedia

I've rewritten a section that was mostly inaccurate. There's also some more improvements that can be made.Skeptical (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)