User talk:Chillpilled

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

--Hastur! (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

From now on, all your edits shall be marked as "patrolled"!

Because of your edits to and time on 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 POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 23:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Note

Because of your edits to and time on 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. Judge Dredd (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Award

		Tireless Worker Award
		Particularly for your article on The BMJ

Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Request

Can I ask you to keep an eye on Keir Starmer? Unfortunately it looks like what happened at JKR isn't going to be a one-time event. AMassiveGuy has admitted on the talk page he intends to scrub mentions of transphobia from the article. Nope Rocket (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist, don't know what he's gonna change but found some of his talk page comments about it inaccurate. Chillpilled (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

May suggest taking it to the mods or something rather than me if you have an issue with another editor though. But currently he hasn't changed a lot that I see anyway. Chillpilled (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to throw this at you. But there doesn't seem to be many people active in this area. Yacob01 has been pushing back on the Starmer article. But they're new and might need some support if AMG digs in his heels. I'm not really sure I'm up for round two. And if I'm being honest the mod intervention in the JKR discussion left a lot to be desired from my end. I'm going to focus on working on the KJK draft, mainly because I want to finish what I started. Nope Rocket (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems somebody else went ahead and took him to the coop, as fate would have it. Was not expecting that to happen so fast. I may wait some time before commenting there, myself, see how it plays out first, but I suppose any more relevant discussion should take place there instead. Chillpilled (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly unexpected. I'm not sure I would've escalated it at this stage. But I do have the sense that this is a continuation of a pattern of behaviour that started last weekend on the JKR article. The way that AMG has repeatedly asserted that the Starmer article is "bullshit" and a "hit piece" without detailing how is reminiscent of the way he opposed negative descriptions of JKR in spite of all evidence presented. It appears to me that AMG has a personal axe to grind. Specifically, that he wants sanitise coverage of unpopular UK political figures. I'm just not sure how to tackle systemic transphobia on RW when the Saloon Bar is a home to a bunch of "debate me!" clowns parroting anti-LGBT talking points. Nope Rocket (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

....and they're already moving to close the coop case. Nothing changes. I'll finish the KJK article, but that's it for me, I guess. Nope Rocket (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Transgender

I took a peek in your sandbox. The book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl is perhaps currently the definitive source for different sexualities and genders in mammals and birds. I cited it in a few pages.[1] Bongolian (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Egad. Have you been spying? What a coincidence if not. I was just about to ask you for general feedback on the overall restructuring. I thought about taking it to the saloon bar, but had enough confidence in it that I only wanted one more opinion. It was practically a mental coin-flip between you and Cosmik. In any case thanks for the source. Chillpilled (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Spinster

Thanks for your excellent work so far on this article. Just wanted to let you know how appreciated your contributions are. :) Nope Rocket (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, although I need to be going somewhere shortly, so I can't edit consecutively for much longer. The list of shitty posts Gleason has made is long, perhaps too long to bother including in that article (lest it just become about him). So there's plenty where that came from. Previously the Gab-Spinster link had only been noted at RationalWiki:Webshites/Gender, and I'm happy to have been granted the opportunity to dump such receipts on a mainspace page instead. Chillpilled (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine if the Spinster article serves as a hatrack for covering some of Gleason's and Fain's other doings. There's certainly a precedent for that e.g. the LGB Alliance article that's doing double duty in covering "GC" figures who aren't independently notable enough to warrant their own articles (though I think Maya Forstater at least probably deserves an article). I'm probably going to be parting ways with RW due to this situation. If you want to stick it out, know that your work is vital. And very good. Take care. Nope Rocket (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Google translate

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

If you're going to work on translations, work on it yourself rather than letting Google translate do the work for you. The fact that you didn't spend much time on it as well as the fact that the majority of your sentences were identical to what happens when I put the English article in Google translate made it obvious, and it probably would be even more obvious if I could actually speak German. Don't do it again. Plutocow (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Plutocow, that I "didn't spend much time on it" is just wrong, at least in the LGB Alliance deutsch translation I actually had that tab open for like three or four days (the other two are rather short pages). I opted to create it all at once because the ref names would be screwed up if I did any otherwise (there's frequent re-use of citations between sections).

You were right that I was using machine translation as an assistant but wrong about my exact set-up: I used a cross between ChatGPT (mainly), Google Translate to double check it, and my own intense scrutiny towards each line to have certain idioms and other English sayings translated well enough (because of the nature of ChatGPT I can enter a dialogue with it about these cases; in a handful there was no good German translation so it had to be rephrased.)

(Also in translation of one term -- the German equivalent of the term "Global Flood" -- ChatGPT suggested "globalen Flut", and Google Translate thought it was fine but I had a hunch there could be a better term and sure enough I find that Sintflut is the best term).

I also had a native German speaker look over the pages, who told me the LGB Alliance translation: "turned out quite well. while reading it, i was thinking about how this is better than whatever google translate would produce[,] since anything beyond single words or short phrases is usually turned into gibberish by google translate". They did also say there were a few grammatical mistakes here and there, but this isn't anything that's absent in the typical English article.

However it's why I opted for articles not dealing with matters requiring very precise language (unfortunately I don't think I could have done germ theory denialism because the wording in the terrain section is intentionally very exact) and especially medical articles, at least where there needs to be precise medical wording (the ROGD and conversion therapy section in the LGB Alliance page is pretty straightforward unlike say acupuncture or something). Machine translation of such articles is completely routine on e.g. Wikipedia so I'm surprised you cared enough to nuke the articles. I mean what's the harm, given the above? Versus the benefit, of drawing in people who only speak German. Chillpilled (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We actually have standards for translations, and RW:Languages says:

All translations added to RationalWiki should be entirely the work of the users who add them. So if you want to translate a RationalWiki article out of English into another language, you should be proficient in reading and writing both English and the other language. It is, of course, OK to refer to online translation tools from time to time if you don't have a good dictionary or grammar book handy. However, pages that rely entirely or mostly on machine translations are not acceptable and will be deleted as soon as they are identified.

A good translation takes time and effort. Do not feel like you have to rush it. That's why it is a good idea to create the page as a draft. You can then take as long as you like to work on the translation and move it to mainspace when it is completed.

If you can only translate using machines like ChatGPT and Google Translate, you shouldn't be doing this. It's okay to practice in draftspace or your userspace, but for mainspace we have higher standards. Plutocow (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Suppose I missed that, although I would point out it was only ever added in 2019 by Spud. Chillpilled (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It was there since before you were here, and you had to have read the article since you edited it. That's on you for not doing your due diligence. Plutocow (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Promise I've been lurking around here since before that. And yeah I get it although I should add that I only ever edited that after creating the pages, after seeing it in the recent changes but just to add the new entries, not to read the whole thing. Chillpilled (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Board nomination

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ninja

Gave you rw:ninja rights so you can add links to many pages. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, incidentally that forced me to figure out again how to change user rights. Note to self, the button is on the contribs page... Chillpilled (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Mod notice

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

Carthage (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been an internet mod before. It's not all too pleasant. But on the other hand I've been editing here a decent amount. But I like the feeling I can up and disappear suddenly from editing here. Not something a mod can do, wouldn't be good form anyway. Chillpilled (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

Please use the rollback function when reverting large-scale vandals; patrolling all their edits is annoying. Thanks. Plutocow (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind. Chillpilled (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Meltzer

That's funny you would add information on Meltzer to the Atomwaffen Division article the same time I was added information on him to the Satanism article. Carthage (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

For your outstanding contributions to countless articles

		Chillpilled is awarded the Smite 'em with facts award
		For contributions to innumerable articles over the past few days!

--Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs a psychiatrist

I just saw what you had to put up with this morning. Jesus. --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the someone in need of a psychiatrist is the BoN VPN-monkey who's been spamming the wiki to attack your sexual orientation. Not you. A person with a healthy mind doesn't waste their time on name calling for "sport". --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Out of anyone on this site, such a thing is probably going to impact me the least of all. I've been around the Internet a little bit (I think my generation are called "digital natives" in the business/academic world). Also I've never mentioned my sexual orientation on this site, that was their idea. Chillpilled (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If I may

What got you interested in transgender issues in the first place? I'm more interested in geopolitics and political violence, personally. Carthage (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What say, that I might know some people impacted.

I'll probably edit on topics about Jews and antisemitism more now too, though, especially after seeing that Holocaust denial poll recently. Actually I have an edit up right now for one such a page. Chillpilled (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent vandal spam

I protected your talk page for a couple of days, that should stop it so we don't have to keep playing whack a mole with the IP. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Spam? I thought they were flirting with me. Chillpilled (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you support PinkNews?

PinkNews is quite bland, and left-wing?

It doesn't seem to be too controversial and rarely harbours news.

Regards,

Stephen StephenJames (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Many British news outlets inflame anti-LGBT prejudice, and they're a rare exception to it. Chillpilled (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I mostly read theGuardian (online), would you say that Paper is anti-LGBT, anti-Trans, or neither? ^{— Unsigned, by: StephenJames / talk / contribs}

They're not that far off from the rest, though they at least may platform perspectives critical of prejudiced narratives (something very basic I don't see conservative papers really doing much if at all). Still for many years they were host to e.g. Julie Bindel claiming lesbianism was a choice and insulting bisexual or trans people. More recently, I found PinkNews more apt at surfacing reports of the excesses of the anti-trans movement, where The Guardian rarely did (though if I think about it, certainly more often than other major papers except maybe The Independent). Chillpilled (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I should add for the record, the sites listed there aren't necessarily my "favorite sites" or something, just ones I like that I would like to boost. The Associated Press is a fine source, but it's well known. Chillpilled (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article about me

Hi, could you please take a look at this edit? The previous time this issue was discussed, the conclusion of the discussion was that the opinions of people on the Wikipediocracy forum aren't an adequate source for this statement, and as far as I'm aware nothing has changed about the situation in the time since then. It isn't clear why Johns is deciding to add this material again, but the most likely reason is that earlier today I reported one of Smith's ipsocks to Bongolian, causing it to be blocked. [2] The timing of Johns' change makes it look a lot like an attempt at retaliation, which doesn't seem like appropriate behavior here. Tetrapteryx (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the retaliation stuff but looking at the talk page + deletion discussion I can see more people (even Johns before) seemed to be against including it than for so I removed it on principle, though my initial reaction was just to try to make it clearer it's a rumor. Chillpilled (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Aside from consensus apparently being against this material, my main objection to it is that I think content about a living person needs a better source than a post on a forum. A lot of RationalWiki's BLP articles have had similar problems with citations to low-quality sources, although I appreciate that you've made some efforts to improve that situation, especially in the Emily Willoughby article.

With respect to the issue of retaliation, I recommend looking at the discussion here. There have been several past examples of Johns acting oddly cozy with Smith, and Techpriest commented there that "The connection between Johns and Smith was never particularly a secret," but nobody seems to know the exact nature of the connection. Another example not mentioned in that discussion is Johns' post here, where he said that Smith had emailed him to deny having used the "Boar" account, and Johns modified the account's block summary in response.

Aside from my reporting one of Smith's ipsocks to Bongolian, I haven't done anything to attract attention at RationalWiki since January. Set against this background, it doesn't seem like a coincidence that Johns added this material to the article about me only a few hours after I caused one of Smith's IPs to be blocked. But I don't think it's necessary to pursue this issue further, as long as Johns doesn't keep trying to restore the material. Tetrapteryx (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are not Smith's socks. All of those were mine. I have been harassed by the usual suspects even with death threats so in regard to some of the race stuff I use some VPNs to make it more confusing for your white supremacist friends to track editing on here. I am going to being creating articles on here weekly for the next few months. We are going to have a lot of articles on all of the Aporia lot and other hereditarians. Feel free to pass that on to Kirkegaard, Karlin or Abd Lomax's ghost. I will never leave this website and the more abuse I receive the more I will edit here. Thanks! Johns (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to get too tied up in you all's business at the moment (maybe some later time) for various reasons. If Johns is dedicated to mention the pseudonym in the article, since Tezuka has apparently been actively posting more and more articles, it doesn't strike me as mere wiki drama which was a reason it was removed from Kane's article. The claim they're the same person has to be treated with a lot of skepticism despite whatever details may align, because wild coincidences do happen. (Just take a look at this.) But current consensus was to exclude, so. Chillpilled (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience about all this. I have a feeling the issue will come up again eventually, but I have one more question before I leave it alone for now.

My question is: how did Smith go about initiating an investigation into the parody accounts here? I know he had been claiming off-Wiki that CBH was a parody account, and that eventually you investigated the issue and determined he was correct, but I don't know what happened between those two steps. It would be helpful if I could know what the proper channel is for requesting an investigation into a complex behavioral/ban-evasion issue. I'm being intentionally vague so as to avoid causing drama, but perhaps you can figure out why I'm asking. Tetrapteryx (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for mentions of RationalWiki in academic papers, so I could update RationalWiki#Scope and statistics. He published his thing about it in ResearchGate which caused it to come up as though it was an academic paper. Chillpilled (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well, I hope you'll have time to look into the other issue eventually, because it sounds like otherwise it won't be looked into at all. I suppose there's not a hurry, though. Tetrapteryx (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fuentes

Hey. Regarding the note mentioning that Wikipedia didn’t categorize him as a neo-nazi, I added that in a while back before they gave him that category. I previously asked them to categorize him as a neo-nazi but they initially refused. Glad to see they came to their senses. Rational Dude (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually it looks like they're still wrestling about it over there! When I removed the note, their page did say he was one. You'd think it'd be pretty simple given the guy has straight up supported Hitler on a number of occasions, but as written currently their page says he was merely "described as a neo-Nazi by various sources". I compiled a lot of sources for his ideology on RW's page, and part of the reason I did that may have been in the hopes that some WP editor would stumble across it and makes use of what a range of sources there are for that. Maybe we have to wait for him to shave his hair off and get a swastika tattoo. Chillpilled (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I experienced their refusal to label him as such firsthand. It’s obvious that he’s literally a nazi. In any case, should we add back that note in the event that they remove the category? Rational Dude (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think they do well enough to the point the note wouldn't be necessary on our own page. Their version is changing too fast to bother keeping up with and anyone who reads the current version is probably going to come away with the impression he's a Nazi anyway. Chillpilled (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rational Dude (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Huh, that's weird

You got a Board nomination. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate claims on circumcision page

Hello Chillpilled. As a doctor on Canada, the claims on the circumcision article are not in line with those of professional medical organizations, and are almost always entirely from heavily biased sources such as Morris (pro-circ) and Milos (anti-circ). There is significant debate about whether routine prophylactic circumcision in developed nations is justified. (My view: I don't think it is.) However, the article then proceeds to claim that consensual adult circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa has little to no-evidence supporting it, despite almost all European medical associations favoring it as an important method (alongside others) in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS. (Which has near-universal consensus)

It treats these four types of circumcision completely similarly:

• Non-religious, English-speaking prophylactic circumcision in developed nations. (United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.)
• Religious circumcision (Judaism and Islam)
• Infant circumcision in Sub-Saharian Africa. (HIV/AIDS)
• Adult and teenage circumcision in Sub-Saharian Africa. (HIV/AIDS)

Without any context or explanation. I think many of the editors here are simply associating circumcision with Islam, Judaism, and the United States, without any knowledge of where the literature is at. Brian Morris, Marilyn Milos, Morris Sorrells, and others are pro/anti-circumcision activists, and their conclusions heavily contradict those of major medical organizations. We should be turning to major medical associations to build the article. Not cherry-picked studies from activists. The most outrageous example of this is in regards to sexual pleasure and function, when the WHO policy statement states that: "there are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure. Others think that circumcision will cure impotence. Let me assure you that none of these is true". There's no good evidence that circumcision increases (Morris) or reduces (Milos) pleasure. A lot of the article needs improved upon. DocRyan (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@DocRyan I've not ignored you. It's not a topic I'm very drawn to edit on though so I guess I haven't been leaping to read about it (not that I find this unimportant, just there's a lot of pages with their own other problems). Didn't want your edits to be completely reverted though so partly re-instated some aspects on the circumcision page already. But it does remind me somewhat about something else I edited here, on prostitution, where similarly the World Health Organization recommended a policy to reduce HIV infections. There, though, there was an explained mechanism for why decriminalizing prostitution would reduce HIV transmission. I'm not sure I understand why circumcision would do the same, though earlier I looked it up and apparently there are some papers at least theorizing (I saw one say something about post-intercourse dryness). I added the quote you mentioned from that 2009 manual to the section on sexual pleasure effects. Chillpilled (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I should preface my comment here by saying it's been well over a decade since I was versed on this issue. But if memory serves there were some studies in the late 1990s and early 2000s that found a link between circumcision and reduced HIV transmission. I believe the proposed mechanism was that the foreskin can "trap" biohazardous debris in persons with poor or inadequate hygiene. Condoms were obviously superior as a prophylactic, and if I remember, adequate hygiene was also effective. So I believe that medical organisations only recommended circumcision for preventing HIV transmission in places without reliable access to condoms and clean water. Burnt Toast (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Mod

Nominated you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)