On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. And don't forget to place new topics at the bottom of a talk page.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Stephen Jay Gould
Hi! I thought this edit of yours, while sadly far too poorly written to be usable, was interesting. Could you find good sources for the the Stephen Jay Gould quotes, the Steven Pinker quotes, and the quotes from Dawkins and Dennett? If so, this could in theory be reshaped into something that might possibly rightfully belong in the article. Thanks in advance. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your redacted autism edit
Reversing a trend
While some of your recent edits (e.g.: , , ) have "just" been cranky (and generally a bit odd), atleast one of your edits - unless intended as a parody - appears to have been blatant vandalism. The edit notice "typos" was also a ruse; satire or not, you clearly were not just "fixing typos", but were instead butchering the original message about feminism and adding something completely different, scathing, and incorrect.
Other edits from you, while seemingly made in good spirit (e.g. ) on the other hand stray far from the way a RationalWiki article is supposed to read, and generally be like. Please read our Manual of Style for hints on how to make edits that are less likely to be reverted due to not grammatically or tonally "fitting in" to articles properly. Also, please take extra care to only make controversial additions backed up by good sources, and make sure you spellcheck/write as fluently as you can.
I'm writing this to you because you have shown me in previous discussion that you can be reasoned with. So, I'm reasoning with you, before things get worse. If you keep making edits like now, where 80-90% or more end up reverted for good reason due to quality problems (or general crankyness), you risk - in the long term - ending up in the vandal bin. Let's not allow things to reach that point. So please, read up closer about what we do here and examine our manual of style more closely. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna leave it to someone else if that edit was okay
But I think you've confused the right-wing hysteria of voter fraud with the occasionally real problem of wp:electoral fraud. One is about fake voters faking their ways into the polls, which is astonishingly uncommon to even be attempted, and the other is a real thing that happens sometimes. Certainly the quote you've included at the top indicates this misunderstanding. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. Of course I don't buy into the scare mongering about individual voters gaming the system. The error would in any case be at the people who do not discard these votes.
- My objections deal with the lax control measures (at least here in Europe) which may allow to get away with small-scale fraud.
- I see little difference in outcome between "irregularities" and outright fraud.
- Voting by mail (e.g. in elderly care homes where people may not even remember their names) is thus on the list of serious problems,
- as are computer votes. Counting of votes could perhaps be filmed to reduce its risks.
220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Don't take it so personally. I wasn't referring to everything. I was discussing things like your insertion that Joseph Kahahawai was black (he wasn't), or your personal opinion that people with children change their opinion about beating them as they grow older, or that Bashar al-Assad is immune to negative impacts because Putin has magic powers, or your misunderstanding of the difference between "electoral fraud" and "voter fraud." Hipocrite (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
For fuck's sake
- 193, I don't understand what's going on. Days ago you were giving a rational critique of my essay, and since then you've vandalized many times on unimportant articles for seemingly no reason. What's going on? Is there some trouble you're having with something we don't know about? PB (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)