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)