User talk:Ace McWicked

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search



I shouldn't have permabanned you and I would like to start on a new footing. Peace? Oxyaena Harass 19:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

sure. Acei9 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Great, who wants ice cream? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Ice Cream? What are we? 10 years old? I'd prefer a steak and a whisky. Acei9 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

“I don’t speak Nazi”[edit]

You must be new around here. This is the fundamental "argument" of Rationalwiki, reductio ad Hitlerium. Those more familiar with real history rather than PBS specials made by Jews (it takes a lot of study, sophomores) will know the Nazis were the good guys. (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"You must be new around here." Lol. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein page - validity of claims and sources[edit]

Hi, I followed up on your comment on the Talk page of the Nassim Haramein page, regarding the validity of Haramein's claims and use of sources to back up such claims. Based on my points on this Talk page, let me know if this meets your guidelines and if this information and reference can be added again to the page without flagging or removing it. Thanks. Jahub (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Mod Election[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. --RWRW (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you should know that Oxyaena likes to be referred to as "she". I'm giving you the chance to change the pronouns in your anti-endorsement now to nip any unnecessary drama in the bud. Spud (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I did it before you asked. I forget and I don't do it because I'm an asshole, I genuinely forgot. Acei9 05:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I know. Let me give you a virtual pat on the shoulder. Spud (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


Tokyo is a sockpuppet of Michael Coombs, he's been blocked here on thousands of accounts.Chtonic (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. AceMcWicked 21:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


i dont understand why u like the trolls here so much tbh. however, there are very few people creating a lot of accounts most the time so dont mistake it for legitimate activity. EK (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

He does because he has a soft spot for Nobs in his heart. It's a beautiful love story. sniff Oxyaena Harass 13:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Please, if we're psychoanalyzing Ace, he's nostalgic for the glory days of the wiki when his friends were still here and it was fun and he was young and carefree, and surely if just the right things about wiki protocol go back to how they were he'll stop getting older and having to go to work every day. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe he's just too drunk to do real work, so he comes over to help us out a bit.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe he’s a communist infiltrator using this wiki as a tool to undermine the Western world! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the above. AceMcWicked 21:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Check your email Ace[edit]

Who else thinks...[edit]

We should just all have a beer and pretend this shit never happened? 2607:FB90:915C:224E:0:F:8C37:7501 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
We can have a beer, but we can't forget. Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


You see why he's persona non grata now? He likes to stir shit up and start fights. I'd advise at least telling him to piss off, or he'll use you as a shield to keep heckling and egging crap on, but that's ultimately your call. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No I really don't care - I can ignore. AceModerator 04:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
You can do that, don't force your "solution" unto others. Oxyaena Harass 11:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
just keep banning his new accounts its not hard EK (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


I changed the block setting to "one hour," I`m willing to talk this through to a resolution. I blocked the bon in the first place because the edit consisted of vandalism, specifically of punching down, not punching up. At the very least the edit was rather insensitive, if you still feel that the block was unwarranted go ahead and change it of course, but I'd advise discussing it through before making any hasty actions. Also Nobs is back should you wanna go say hello. Oxyaena Harass 07:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

All the user did was add a true piece of information. That is not block worthy at all. If you felt it insensitive just revert and talk to the user. It wasn't vandalism in the slightest. AceModerator 07:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no interest in talking to Rob either. AceModerator 07:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair. I won't revert your decision, then. Oxyaena Harass 07:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


The troll left u this message if u care to read it. Ta EK (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore and Syria reporting[edit]

So I am over at the talk page discussing the OPCW leaks about the surpession of the engineers report of the Duoma attacks. I have a number of complaints, and that is why I am reaching out to another moderator. First, I cited the leaked report and the leaked emails about the cover up. I was told that WikiLeaks has been blacklisted by this site, although none of the reasons supplied did anything to show that WikiLeaks has every released falsified materials. The reason given for blacklisting seem not to be very rational in my estimation. That being said, I then supplied reports done by award winning journalist Robert Fisk for the Independent, which were ignored, then Comrade said either about WikiLeaks, Jimmy Dore or myself, I am not sure, were empowering fascists. A lot of red herring arguments and attack the messenger fallacies, but when I employed that same logic backwards by saying if this report was falsified and it indeed was used as a pretext for a attack in a UN member state without security council resolutions na, then it would qualify as an act of aggression as outlined in the UN Charter, at Nuremberg and the elaborating n of the ICC's Rome Statute. So if we are saying that challenging the supression of the engineers report and ordering if a cover up lead to a war crime, wouldn't carrying their arguments be empowering imperialists and war crimes? Well, comrade took this very personally, which it was not meant to be, just a demonstration of how that logic would have to be applied evenly and what the implications would be in the other direction.

Now, I have been called a "truther" as a smear I suppose. Perhaps even been accused of empowering fascists, if I understand Comrade's responses to do so correctly. I think I have conducted myself with reason and fairly and with a pretty even tone. Is there any room on this site to have a debate about the findings of the OPCW's report and their methods, or is this pointless and no countervieling information will be considered? Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Also feel free to give this to another moderator if you feel they are willing to discuss this rationally. (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Here we go putting words in my mouth again. I said WikiLeaks was blacklisted, I never said by whom. And you never asked. I do know that several other editors have a low opinion of Assange and WikiLeaks, but I don't have a site-wide consensus. I did however point out WikiLeaks' fuckups, and just because you're too disingenuous to admit that doesn't change the fact that I did. Again, I really do love how them causing the deaths of civilians because they were sloppy, and the fact that they released thousands of mostly useless emials (of which you allege only a small handful had any value, thus damning WikiLeaks further since that means they just dumped it all with zero vetting, again, sloppy), isn't good enough for you to warrant them as a sketchy source. Also, as you well know, classified documents can neither benot be varified, so yeah, you ask the impossible, and when I explain my reasons (because that is what I can prove), you say it isn't enough to discredit them. Sorry if I have something resembling ethics, since that stands between you and your heroes. Fucking Truthers... Also at no point was I acting as a Moderator, so yeah, you can fuck right off with that nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
When you said "Edit request denied" this lead me to believe that you were doing so as a moderator. I interpreted that as you exsersizing your power to deny someone as a moderator. This also lead me to believe that you were referring to an official blacklisting. Apparently I was wrong in interperating it that way. The "fuck-ups" you brought up once again have no bearing on the veracity of the leaks they publish and neither does your opinion of Assange as an individual. You seem to want to make this about something other than what it is about: the revelations about the OPCW report in Douma and the whistleblowers coming forward. Again, you place blame on the actions of other parties on Assange and WikiLeaks, yet when asked about that logic being applied to the OPCW report and the French, US and UK strikes on Syria (a war crime) you call this whataboutism. I think it shows a double standard, bais and hypocrisy. I actually think a number of the DNC emails revealed important information, such as how Sid Blumenthal and Hillary talked about how hey knew the charge that Gaddafi was giving Viagra to rape gangs was just a rumor, but Robert Gates pushed it anyway:
How the Democrats appeared to award ambassadorships and federal appointments based on those who were big donors:
That Obama's entire cabinet was named in an email from Citigroup during his transition:
That Hillary and the Obama administration knew the Saudis were backing ISIS:
A number or revaluations about the bais of the primary process that was enough to force DNC chair Wasserman Schultz's resignation. And I could go on. Some of the revelations are "regular" legal corruption, some are very serious looks into how duplicitous the Democratic Party and Obama and Clinton are. However, I am not interested in debating you on that at the moment, because I am certain you have already made you mind up no matter what is mentioned, and second and most importantly, none of that has any bearing as to whether the OPCW leaks are true and what they contain. You hate the phrase, but those are red herrings.
Not all leaks by WikiLeaks are of classified documents, like emails. If they are false, the parties themselves could release the true emails to disprove them, yet they do not. In fact, in the case of the OPCW report the OPCW didn't even bother to deny the authenticity of the report, they said they were going to look into the leak, this confirming it is a leak and not a fabrication:
The above CBS article begins with "The head of the world's chemical weapons watchdog said Monday he stands by a report on an alleged attack in Syria despite leaked documents casting doubt on its conclusions." And later states: "The OPCW has already launched an internal investigation into the leak of the earlier document by a member of the Douma team raising similar concerns."
So if even CBS, a pro-Western outlet that has time after time pushed regime change and pro-war propganada be repeating establishment narratives uncritically (like during the lead to the invasion of Iraq and also pushing the false narratives about the state of the Afghan War, we now know thanks to the Afghanistan papers), isn't claiming that the OPCW documents are a hoax and neither is the head of the OPCW. So why are you seemingly insisting that they are? That is the only issue of relevance: what the OPCW leaks show and if they are true.
You want to talk about sketchy sources, then why are you seemingly hand-waving the institutions and outlets that pushed the false narratives and "intelligence" that caused the invasion of Iraq and the false natives about the Afghan War for the last 19 years revealed in the Afghanistan Papers? It seems to me you have one set of standards for those advancing regime change and pro-intervention narratives but a separate standard to those who challenge their narratives. What is so ethical about that?2600:1002:B01A:25A9:2C3C:EC98:1BED:C277 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Uh, do I have to do anything here? AceModerator 22:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
GC has it handled, I think.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Um... I dunno? I don't even know why I'm being accused of being "pro-western". I mean, for fuck's sake, all I did was point out that WikiLeaks isn't some kind of saintly organization, a revelation that seems to have certain people in a frenzy because... it means Dore is still a conspiracy theorist and a hack journalist? I have no idea what any of this was supposed to prove, really. I'm going back to figuring out how much trouble the latest Mid-east fuckup has caused, since that's verifiabley real and all that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I already made it clear that I wanted nothing further to do with this BoN/Truther. I also don't want them lying about me. Again, I layed this out on the talkpage for the Dore article, just because one scandal maybe happened (again, maybe, because I don't just assume people like WikiLeaks are saints) that doesn't mean Dore isn't a conspiracy monger. It at most means we have a stopped clock situation, and that's it. I also stated that I don't trust WikiLeaks due to severe fuckups on their part, which was handwaved away (guess all those LGBT+ and Jewish people in the middle-east don't matter when you're big shots like WikiLeaks, even if you're the ones who doxxed them.) with such arrogance that I was left almost speechless. If Ace wants to deal with this mess, fine by me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Whatever you think of Dore, and I don't think much of him, the Bon is a conspiracy nut. You can tell by the serial of unrelated facts presented in his posts. He tries to overwhelm the reader with trivia and the implication it all fits into a pattern of some kind. What is he doing? I don't know, but he shouldn't do it here.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
OK then I won't do anything. AceModerator 05:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We need you back so freaking bad[edit]

What the fuck is this bullshit, blocking someone for "pointless edits"? Why don't we just block Bongolian (admin responsible for the block) for pointless pointless greenhouse gas emissions. ProductOfTurkey (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@ProductOfTurkey So... Your argument against a 9 hour block is that you don't like it? Did you go through the disputed edits? Did you actually look anything up? Did you make an account solely to throw a tantrum? Seriously, if it was the last one please go away. I hate people who engage in that kind of pointless stupidity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie it looks to me like straight up newbie biting, but what do I know? And the answer to your last question is no. ProductOfTurkey (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ProductOfTurkey Carry on then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I've been busy. Moving out of NZ to another country which is taking a hell of a long time. 9 hours doesn't seem to bad to me so maybe chill for a bit, take a back seat and relax into things. The fact you hit me up straight away suggests you know your way around already so, you know, chill. AceModerator 02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As moderator…[edit]

You seem rather absent. You might care to speak up about this situation, which is heating up: Talk:Joe Biden. Bongolian (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been extremely busy. AceModerator 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I had a look and it's just oxy being a hysterical dick again. Nothing new there nor anything that requires mod intervention. AceModerator 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A quick question[edit]

What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?

By the way, "Dark matter has so far defied every type of detector designed to find it." - Scientists hunt for dark matter signals in existing data, The Week, May 6, 2020.[1] Old earthers are still hunting for their Unholy Grail!

And a naturalistic explanation of first life is still untenable (see: Origin of life). Olé! Olé! Olé!GiuocoPiano (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you bothering my drunk slumber? AceModerator 08:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We met again at last. The circle is now complete. I caused "pretty large wholesale change" at this wiki and despite being a Sysop and longstanding active member of this wiki, you were powerless to stop it. When we were at astorehouseofknowledgeinfo, I was but the learner, but now I am the master! Your powers are weak RationalWikian!
The mob can't win. They attempted to strike me down via creating capricious and tyrannical rules, but I became more powerful than they possibly imagined. Their new capricious rules, which will drive away quality editors and be counterproductive to resolving conflicts optimally, are not even a pyrrhic victory as I had no intention of being a significant long term editor. So capricious and uncivilized are their new rules and we both know this.
Mob, I feel your corporate anger. I was defenseless. They struck me down with all of their hatred and rule changes and my victory over the mob was made complete!
They wanted to dominate, but have inherited the wind! When will they let go of their hate?GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ace, my Star Wars like post above was tongue in cheek. When I posted some factual material about atheism, I had no idea at the time that it would cause RWians to pass rules which are capricious and authoritarian.GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@GiuocoPiano Ken, I've replied to your responses. Would you kindly continue our debate? I feel like we still have more to discuss. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
No. After reading your first reply to me, it was clear no productive dialogue is possible with you. GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@GiuocoPiano Ken, you wanted a debate and I stepped up to engage with you. I have also been as polite as I felt I could be, but I must correct any errors you make in order for the discussion to have any productivity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Copied from WIGO CP talk page.[edit]

So Ken's "sock" has block rights, something I have not be offered in 5 years. I guess I am out of, or never have been, in favour. He could block me, nobody would notice and my time at RW would be over. Seems unfair to me.--Mercian (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)--Mercian (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to block and would only do so in extreme circumstances. I just don't want to be blocked by a troll.--Mercian (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Chicken coop[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. The Crow (row row fight the power) 20:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?[edit]

Quoting your own work here..atheism is -

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
a person who maintains that there is no God

So what you are asking is "What proof and evidence do you have that a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods is true?"

So the question become meaningless. AceModerator 02:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Partially quoting my work will get you nowhere. After all is said and done, most so-called atheists are trying to be agnostics and trying to look tough, but knowing that God exists.
"The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man." - Sir Francis Bacon, his essay Of Atheism
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
"In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244)"[2]
Researchers at Oxford University have reported finding children who, when questioned, express their understanding that there is a Creator, without having had any such teaching from parents or teachers about this matter.[3]
The Pacific Standard reported:
A recently published study from Finland finds that even atheists have a hard time asking God to harm their loved ones.
The heads and hearts of atheists may not be on precisely the same page. That’s the implication of recently published research from Finland, which finds avowed non-believers become emotionally aroused when daring God to do terrible things.
“The results imply that atheists’ attitudes toward God are ambivalent, in that their explicit beliefs conflict with their affective response,” concludes a research team led by University of Helsinki psychologist Marjaana Lindeman. Its study is published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion."[4]GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yah, and Darwin was a white male imperialist anyway. nobsFree Roger Stone! 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DJ Rolando - Jaguar[edit]

Thanks for introducing me to the song DJ Rolando - Jaguar. I put it on one of my favorite YouTube playlist. Christian Smith & John Selway - Total Departure is pretty good too.GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ken, this could be something we can share. I know of a lot of good techno. No UFOs by Model 500. AceModerator|
We probably share much of the same thoughts about Oxy too, but I have only a cursory acquaintance with Oxy's posting. It seems like there is a lot of pointless drama created by Oxy.GiuocoPiano (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
again - we agree. Amazing Ken, after all these years (12 by my count) we could be friends. AceModerator 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I have thought the same. I actually have a self-proclaimed atheist friend now. She is pretty influential in the USA. She doesn't broadcast her views on religion/irreligion. She knows about my postings about atheism on the internet. It's not something we discuss though. For a lot of self-proclaimed atheists, their atheism is not something that defines them as a person or is important to them.GiuocoPiano (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
If RW didn't pick a battle with me and persist in it a number of years ago, I probably would have posted less on the topic of atheism. I offered a detente a number of years ago to RW, but it was rejected. Regardless, I produced a lot of factual and well-researched material on atheism.
Right now, I know I need to focus on 3 things. And atheism or pointless online battles is not among those 3 things.
In addition, I am much more into the cost/benefit of matters both in relation to myself and its effects on others. I decided that starting tomorrow, I am going to be more disciplined in terms of time management. At the present time, one of the people I interact with most is a person who is a very productive person and a good time manager. Who you choose to surround yourself has an effect on you. And I have decided to be more judicious in who I interact with.GiuocoPiano (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing with me the song "No UFOs by Model 500". It has a good beat.

I created a mini techno library at:

I like classical techno the best.GiuocoPiano (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Is User:GiuocoPiano = Conservapedia:Conservative = User:Newton? Bongolian (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I had trouble accessing the website via User: Newton and eventually the password was lost. I am one of the editors of the User: Conservative account at Conservapedia. GiuocoPiano (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@GiuocoPiano One of the editors of the User: Conservative account. Knock if off. You're not fooling anybody. Like I said, how can one person who identifies as a group possibly mock misgendering? Spud (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Try searching Gamma Player Blue Potential on YouTube. It is Jeff Mills (a legendary techno DJ) playing his track Gamma Player with a full orchestra. AceModerator 08:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I gave someone access to the User: Conservative account. Why is that so hard to believe? It's worked out nicely. When people do ad hominem attacks and engage in armchair psychology as far as the account, I just laugh. In total, I gave 3 people access to the account, but only one other individual decided to use the account.GiuocoPiano (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition, it's great to know that when I pass away, the account will live on. TK did not have enough foresight to think ahead. Legacy! Legacy!GiuocoPiano (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I regret to say that pronounce usage will be more difficult with my/our account than with Oxy[edit]

This editor is considering allowing more than one editor use the account.

Since more than one gender may use the account, this account would prefer a gender inclusive pronoun be used to address this account.

As a result of this potential state of affairs, instead of he/she or other such pronouns be used in relation to this account, this account prefers to be referred to as "bimsasbet" when a pronoun is to be used and not zie/zim/zir because these have an annoying sounding zzzzz sound to it. It reminds me of bees and pests the letter z.

The wonderful thing about bimbsabets, is bimsasbets is a wonderful thing! We're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy. Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun! But the most wonderful thing about bimsasbets is we're the only unique and special collective called bimsasbet!GiuocoPiano (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just refer to you as Ken. AceModerator 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I will likely be the only person editing the account. The post above was a joke.GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@GiuocoPiano Very funny Ken. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't do this joke again in any other form. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

Perhaps RW would have more popularity and editors if it attacked only things that were clear pseudoscience, quackery and scientific frauds.

For example, astrology is seeing a rise in the USA and many millennials are buying into it.[5] My guess is that when fake "liberal Christianity" dies, in many cases people adopt things like astrology, superstition, etc.

But some liberal Christianity adherents adopt a more conservative Christianity and these type of Christians are less likely to hold to superstition than the nonreligious/irreligious it seems (see: Irreligion and superstition).

My guess is that there are evangelical Christians and conservative religious people who would go to a website and even contribute to it if it only addressed things that are clear pseudoscience, quackery and scientific frauds.

When RW goes into more speculative/controversial areas in terms of what is pseudoscience, etc. , it limits your editor/reader base. The USA has a very big portion of the Anglosphere and a minority of people in the USA are atheists/agnostics.GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@GiuocoPiano I personally, thank you for your concern Ken. We are currently fine, though your advice will be remembered (by me at least) should we encounter difficulty in the future. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I continued the discussion HERE.GiuocoPiano (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A request from User: GuiociPiano[edit]

Ace, you wrote: "again - we agree. Amazing Ken, after all these years (12 by my count) we could be friends. AceModerator 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)"

Ace, if you wish to, please give me an email address or Skype name by which I can reach you. If you don't wish to, no big deal.GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED that  K e n  D o l l  is lonely. Also, Ace, just an FYI, somebody blocked him and you're probably one of the few users that will unblock him--"Shut up, Brx." 20:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ken, if you wish to contact me pls use AceModerator|


In case you are willing to coop Oxy, @Nutty Roux also said they would coop her over her sysop abuses. Not sure how any of this works but if you need help to make a case, let me know. — Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 12:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What part of "leave me alone" don't you understand? Oxyaena Harass 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought you were retired? Anyhow, nobody talked to you. You are just stalking me around at this point. — Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You're the one mentioning my name. Oxyaena Harass 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Oxy you don't have to respond if someone says your name. But to the point - I am not going to start a coop because Oxy voluntarily gave up tech right and a discussion is ongoing about what it means to be a tech. So there is enough discussion going on already without needing to throw a coop case in on top of fit. AceModerator 20:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Although I didn't mean immediately as of now, fair enough. — Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 03:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: Oxy requested a permaban and her sysop was revoked. So no need for that anymore. Down goes Oxy! Down goes Oxy!Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, how old are you? Fucking 13? Beyond Reality (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Where did you come from? Who summoned you? What is the purpose of this? — Godless Raven 🌹 Heretic 14:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Reinstatement of Oxyaena as a tech[edit]

Oxyaena was recently reinstated as a tech by D, despite apparent consensus against restoring her tech toolset at least until after the vote. I don't think this change by D is good for RationalWiki, hence why I come to you about this matter.— Unsigned, by: Fawcett / talk / contribs

I'm also somewhat gobsmacked by this action.Scream!! (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed it. I'm not sure what consensus or vote you're referring to, but there's not much support for reinstating her at least from here and I'm not getting much of an enthusiastic air from here either. Clarification helps. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
My work here is done. AceModerator 21:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you and Oxy are really not on good terms...[edit]

...but is it really necessary to continue to misgender her? She has made it abundantly clear that she uses she/her pronouns. We really don't need to descend to something that low, do we? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Where did I do that? I went through earlier to change "he" to "she" where I hadn't done so. So I am confused. AceModerator 04:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
And I have never misgendered Oxy on purpose. AceModerator 04:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to an earlier incident which you seem to have corrected, which I'm glad you have done. And yeah, I know that you're trying to remember, but I know that she doesn't like it at all, understandably so. Just please try a little harder? I'm sorry if I am making an unreasonable request, but accidentally misgendering her will probably only make her more suspicious of you at a time when the wiki needs to defuse tensions. I apologize for being accusatory earlier. I should have assumed good faith. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t care if Oxy wants to be called him, her or you there - what ever she prefers I’ll call her that. AceModerator 04:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You've done it at least three times since the last time I asked you to respect her preferred pronoun at which point you had misgenerded her more than three times. The explanation then was I didn't mean to do it but you keep doing it. At some point, even of it isn't being done on purpose, it really looks like you're doing it on purpose. Just double check your comments related to Oxy. ShabiDOO 07:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Double check my comments? You mean exactly what I did today? I'll get right on that. AceModerator 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
No Sorry I misstated that. Double check anything you write bout Oxy before you post it. ShabiDOO 11:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)