User talk:206.255.1.57

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, anonymous editor! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun! While you are free to continue to edit as, and be identified by, your IP address, you might prefer to create an account (they're free!), or log in if you already have one. If you create an account, your IP address will not be displayed and you will face fewer editing restrictions.

Welcome to RationalWiki! I noticed you got blocked by the automated edit filter for "vandalism/trolling" but it looks like that was a false positive, so I went ahead and unblocked you. I recommend signing up for an account as this will (hopefully) prevent such problems in the future. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something is strange in how that filter is working. I have disabled it for now until I find time to fix it. Until then, you have my apologies as well. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate it--206.255.1.57 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Elevatorgate thing

Before making such sweeping changes, maybe opening up the possibility on the talk page (of either the article on Dawkins or Watson) would have been better. Personally, I completely disagree with your changes. Elevatorgate should redirct to Dawkins, not Watson. What made Elevatorgate a big thing was not what happened at that elevator, but all the reactions to Watson writing about it - plenty of the usual misogynistic drivel that comes when a woman dares to complain (see Lewis' Law). And Dawkins was the most "heavy-weight" contributor to that debate. Also, dumping a bunch of text which clearly is about Dawkins into the article on Watson makes no sense. Also, there is no reason to water down the tone of the text about the incident or Dawkin's reaction. Octo8 (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking it was too wordy and off-topic for the Dawkins page - the Rebecca Watson page has virtually no content however and since the incident centers around her, I think it would be better off there. If you disagree that's fair enough--206.255.1.57 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be an own article, but I must admit I don't particularly feel like diving into the archives of several blogs for a "who said what and why that's important", heh. Octo8 (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)