User talk:Antares

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Destiny[edit]

I see that you removed my edit on Destiny's page for "whataboutism." I didn't mean the edit regarding Luna Oi as whataboutism, I was attempting to note the irony of Destiny's own denialism of war crimes given Luna Oi's similar behavior. I don't like Destiny at all. — Unsigned, by: PersonWithEyes / talk / contribs

I see your intention, but your writing doesn't do a very good job of conveying that. It just looks like an appeal to hypocrisy. Maybe a less... ambiguous phrasing would be "Destiny is in good company, however, as Luna Oi is a Vietnamese nationalist who denies North Vietnamese crimes against humanity." Carthage (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

About earlier[edit]

Hello. I'm the guy from the Shoe0nHead talk page, and I just want to apologize if I made you uncomfortable, or if you found me annoying, because none of this was my intention. It is not in my nature to troll, harass, annoy, or to otherwise be a nuisance, and I will recognize this encounter as a stain in my online tenure. I tried to follow the rules. Also, I couldn't seem to be able to reach you through your main. I hope this message finds you well. Dimpossibl (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@CarthageDimpossibl (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
OK. Carthage (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

How To Upgrade The Articles Into Bronze/Silver/Gold? Can It Be Done Unilaterally, Or Does It Require Consensus!?[edit]

How To Upgrade The Articles Into Bronze/Silver/Gold? Can It Be Done Unilaterally, Or Does It Require Consensus!? Ānvīkṣikī (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You can unilaterally upgrade (local lingo is "demote") articles to bronze. Silver and gold require consensus. Details as to how to start that process can be found here. Carthage (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Request Not To Blindly Rollback My Last (& Also The Upcoming) Edits In Sanskrit![edit]

Hey There! As I Would Request You Not To Make Rollbacks & Reverts, For Those Edits Are Mostly About Adding Wiki Links (To Provide More Context & Info.), Tidying-Up, & Also Adding "See the Wikipedia article on Sanskrit." In See Also Section (BTW, Should I Place This "See the Wikipedia article on Sanskrit." Template On The Top Of The Article?), etc... Hope You Shall Not Revert The Edits! Ānvīkṣikī (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sock?[edit]

What's the difference between editing with a main account vs a sock? —— LunaAHHHHH 07:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The difference is for all intents and purposes none, other than that I can't use this sock to rig votes. As to why I'm currently using a sock, I lost the password to my main account, but I'm still logged in on one device of mine. I got a new device, however, and that's when I realized I forgot my password. Hence the need for a sock account. Carthage (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It may sound dumb, but have you tried to use the "forgot password" option or contact wiki administration? — Unsigned, by: Kabanamu / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation request[edit]

Could you in relation to the Autism Speaks article provide a citation (or at least the information about) what is the punishment for suing children, since you claim it is illegal to do so. — Unsigned, by: Kabanamu / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, my bad. I took that as you removing obvious sarcasm. On second thought, it's probably not. So I reverted my revert. Carthage (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

sun frequency[edit]

Hi,

You said I recreated something you deleted, I didn't, it was simply that you deleted it whilst it was still being working on so when I hit save it put it back again. Back ache (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleted a WIGO entry of yours[edit]

Just to let you know, I deleted a WIGO entry you made about Navarro being released from prison. I did so because the article is from July 2024. Daev (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Demoting users[edit]

Could you wait a little longer before making users autopatrolled or sysops? I've seen a couple of accounts you've demoted with only a handful of edits. Christopher (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

How was the Holocaust distortion controversy on Wikipedia article plagiarism and do you have the proof to back that up? A somebody. (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding[edit]

I apologise for what happened when you blocked me when I posted the Pam the bird article. But to be truthful, Pam the bird is actually a graffiti tag in Melbourne, Australia. GypsyRats (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Rolling stone ...[edit]

... is paywalled. Scream!! (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that problem's been fixed. Antares (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Cheers! Scream!! (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Source removal[edit]

Why did you remove the source I added to the Donald Trump article? It was perfectly fine and relevant. Euria (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The Worker is a Maoist rag. And there are already sources from more reputable outlets on there explaining how Trump is a fascist. Antares (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, it is an anti-fascist and left-wing news outlet, the kind RationalWiki usually cites. The more, the better. Euria (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
You can just bother to peruse their theory section. Antares (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Fire Bomber[edit]

Hey, not trying to start any drama here (I literally don't have that kinda time on my hands), but I was just wondering why you permabanned User:Fire Bomber when only edit (which you also reverted) seemed to be pretty benign. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the block log (unacceptable username: disruptive). To be more specific, my impression is that the username is fedbait. (C'mon, "fire bomber," seriously?) I'm not gonna dispute unblocking them, though. I'm not interested in any drama either. Antares (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that part (my brain only read "disruptive"). I will go ahead and re-block them, then, as I agree with that reasoning. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Why roll back my edit[edit]

This is the edit I made to the page "God hates shrimp"

"Lev 11:10-12 actually counts as scientific foreknowledge, if ever there was such a thing. Today's science shows that shrimp and dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals, and even many atheists acknowledge that it is immoral to eat them. The same goes for the pig (Lev 11:7)."

Why delete this. It is a scientific fact that pigs, shrimp and dolphins are some of the most intelligent animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/do-shrimp-have-feelings/ I have seen many atheistic utilitarians like Alex O'Connor argue against eating pork, shrimp etc. on this basis. There is no factual error in this content, so why delete it. — Unsigned, by: 131.242.30.34 / talk / contribs

Because you're attempting to retroactively justify a premodern dietary prohibition with modern ethical principles. Leviticus 11:10-12 does not count as an example of "scientific foreknowledge" because the authors of Leviticus obviously did not have in mind the intellect of "shrimp, pigs, and dolphins" when writing the dietary prohibitions therein. Antares (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Begging the question. "They obviously didn't have that meaning in mind." Why? "Because they couldn't possibly have known that." Why? "Because they didn't have scientific foreknowledge." Why? "Because they obviously didn't have that meaning in mind." The prohibition only becomes principled (not just an appeal to divine command theory) with said modern scientific knowledge in mind. If you are a christian or jew, it makes no sense that divine commands would be purely arbitrary, even if the reason for them may not be apparent at the time. If you are not, then it still makes no sense why the author would make up something that would seem arbitrary to him. You have to picture a cabal of ancient israelite rabbis meeting in a dimly lit room, plotting how to troll jews living thousands of years in the future. I will not try to insert this into the article, because I realize now this wiki is not really the place for this sort of stuff, but I am interested to see what the conservative explanation is for this. — Unsigned, by: 131.242.30.52 / talk / contribs

What evidence do you have that these commandments are even divine? Antares (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps 131 would say that because it represents 'scientific foreknowledge' it would have to be divine, which would be begging the question. Anyway I question the claim that shrimp are one of 'some of the most intelligent animals'. There is some relatively recent scientific inquiry that suggests that shrimp are more intelligent than previously thought, as it was previously thought that they were less intelligent than insects, but now it has been established that they probably are as intelligent as insects. That hardly qualifies them to be included in the category of 'some of the most intelligent animals' and almost all insects are not kosher anyway. As for pigs and dolphins, they are both mammals which automatically means they're 'some of the most intelligent animals'. And 'some of the most intelligent animals' is an ambiguous statement that is not exclusionary, so 131's claim is incoherent.2001:569:5968:4900:EA84:BE04:B155:5248 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)