Because of your edits to and the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions,
bleat ask away.
We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:
- Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!
Because of your edits to and the wiki,
wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Bongolian (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't Capitalize Section Headings Like This on Article Pages
Capitalize them like this on article pages
Also, the standard layout of an RW page goes See also first, then External links, then Notes and finally References.
Anyway, sincere thanks for single-handedly making several pages ten times bigger than they were before you came along.
- You didn't bloody well listen to me, did you? I had to move your article to Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence because, in case you haven't noticed, that's how we capitalize articles here. And I had to correct the way you wrote all the bloody headings too. Thanks a bloody bunch! Spud (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- It hasn't been deleted. It's just been moved to Essay:Bayes' theorem and jurisprudence. And that wasn't my decision, that was the result of a discussion in which you could have participated. And that has sod all to do with your failure to follow advice on capitalization. Spud (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your edits
They are not good quality despite being substantial. I expect you to write better and also provide better sources, not obscure figures or MRA Youtubers, if not at least properly source your things. Simply placing ref names without creating a proper reference ends up in a blank references and an error in the references section. If you're going to whitewash articles (like this edit which is far from "philosophically correct" as discussed on the talk page subsequently) and make other major contentious changes, discuss it in the talk pages. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It is philosophically correct. Misogyny and sexism are not the same. Misogyny requires knowledge of a speaker's/actor's emotional basis for an action whereas sexism does not as misogyny is defined as hate of women. To define it otherwise is conflation. Moreover things like abortion rights would be more accurately described as a sexist issue as we are talking about what is just, not hate which is what misogyny requires. As for using a MRA on that page, he is the only one who addressed the history of misogyny philosophically that I have seen and what was there before I edited reeked of Islamic apologetics.— Unsigned, by: AndyChrist / talk / contribs