User talk:4153mary

Prepare for a world of hurt

You have criticized what St. Mona stands for! Prepare for pain and suffering and a quick banning from this wiki. Now the only thing left for you is top apologize and praise Hamas and denounce the evils of Zionism and recognise Jewish Apartheid^{— Unsigned, by: 95.90.213.64 / talk / contribs}

--

Reply - - it would be biased and racist for Rational Wiki not to acknowledge that the magic carpet fallacy is also used by Islamists against progressive Muslims and non-Muslims to achieve their political goals.

I would not seek to silence the other people posting their explanations of the magical carpet fallacy - but they should at least include the other side of the story.

Eh, ignore the troll who made that original post. Also:

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, 4153mary! 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!

Old guard (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

-- Reply -- many thanks, you are wonderful. Thank you I will read your guidelines now.

Sign

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 also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

BIG THANKS to comrade fuzzy potato above for the knowledge to sign properly also 4153mary (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't revert at the Flying Carpet page

Three different editors have rejected and reverted your edits. You do not have consensus or even any support for your edits on that page. Until you have made a case on the article's talk page that enough editors find persuasive, please accept the majority's decision. Perhaps you should look around RW to see what other articles you could meaningfully edit.---Mona- (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

4153mary (talk) I would be happy to use the talk page there but I have looked and I cannot find that function. When I click on the talk link at the top of the page, all I find is this chain of comments, which I have replied to.

I would say, stop censoring an edit that respectfully gives new information which is the other side of the argument, which does not impede in any way the original text but simply corrects the bias by showing that flying carpet fallacy is actually being used by Islamists to oppress progressive muslims within Western societies, a fact which this rational wiki is reinforcing.

Thanks 4153mary (talk)

You have already posted on the article talk page. Here: Talk:Flying_carpet_fallacy. And nothing is being censored. Rather, as explained on that talk page I think you have misunderstood the nature of the fallacy. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You can find the explanations for why your edits were reverted at Talk:Flying carpet fallacy, i.e. the talk page of the article itself. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

TRWP: Just FYI, she didn't actually post on the Flying Carpet talk page. The conversation took place here, at her talk page. I then moved it there, and while I said so in the edit summary, I should have noted the move at the FC talk page itself. My bad.---Mona- (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)