User talk:Christopher/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 July 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>

, (new)(back)

My generic welcome template:

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

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Christopher (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're like some sort of non... giving-up... school guy!

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!

Also, see headline context here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Christopher (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Page deletions

For pages that don't require community discussion to be deleted, such as typos, spam and obvious vandalism, you don't need to go through the Articles for Deletion page. You can just notify someone with an administrator rights (which is pretty much anyone of the regulars).--ZooGuard (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Christopher (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Mop and bucket

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, goat ask away.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nooooooooo! Christopher (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Whataboutism edit

I see you reverted me here. Let me point out, that the same basic point is made in much more concise words here even with the same references and having the same basic thing in the text twice (with the same references to boot) is needless. I think my wording is much more concise and does not level accusations against one side exclusively or bring some weird attempt at justification into it. It says that both sides accuse the other of whataboutism and gives examples. I think we should not go into more detail on this page that is fundamentally not about anything but whataboutism. By the way, the problem with the captcha and the "vandal bin" or whatever it is called seems to persist. Can you check whether you did what you said you'd do or whether something with the software is not working?

"You are unable to edit because you have been placed into the vandal bin. You were put in the vandal bin by Owlman and the reason given was: "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Zionist Goy". The reason given for Zionist Goy's block is: "Blanking page content: It wasn't fun while it lasted, Avenger, don't come again" ". While we hope you had fun, we had to do something, so you can only make one edit every 30 minutes now. If this is a mistake or you have turned a new leaf please alert any sysops. You will be able to edit again in 2 minutes. The block ID is #3126. Please include this in any queries. "

That is the error message. Zionist Goy (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're still in the vandal bin because I definitely removed you and when I tried to do so again it said "this user isn't in the vandal bin", I suggest you discuss the whataboutism thing on the talk page before editing the article again. Christopher (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hope you find what the problem is. Maybe try switching it off and back on again? 77.22.253.32 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Unbinning Zionist Goy

I see you unbinned Zionist Goy, I don't think that was wise. This user is likely AvengeroftheBoN who was banned for constant edit warring over a topic, Zionism and the I/P conflict, they concern troll for after they lost an Internet argument over it. This user has returned several times under new socks like Pizzamesiter, Laurogeita Hamabost, Jagulard, and Worzelpete; based on the fact that Zionist Goy's first edits were to RBP's talkpage and the deletion of sections concerning the I/P conflict, I would say this is yet another sock of this no-life. I leave to you to handle their mess. Good luck.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked through some of the contributions of the socks and it looks like Zionist Goy is yet another sock. Apparently unbinning him didn't work anyway. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was too hasty in assuming Zionist Goy to be a sock. Overall his edits seem to be fine. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

My Edit

Hi, Why was my edit to the Time travel page reverted? It is explicitly stated at the top of that section that space and number, in addition to time, are also thought to constitute fictitious mental constructs by this same idea. Why, then, is it not okay for me to point out that, since movement through space both forward and back (for example) is undeniably possible, even if this view is correct, then, travel both forwards and backwards in time is not necessarily rendered impossible? Troodon Roar (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, on closer inspection of what the edit actually said it's apparent that I misunderstood what you were implying. You're free to put it back (maybe make it a bit clearer what you were saying). Christopher (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, you're good. I was just a little confused, that's all. I'll re-add it, and try to clarify it a little. Thank you for understanding. Troodon Roar (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sig

Hi.

I don't know if you have done something odd to your signature but when you signed your last post I see my name. I don't know if my computer is possessed, old age is finally catching up with or if there is something odd your end. Any thoughts?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

nope, it wasn't anything to do with you :). Christopher (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you haven't caught it, it's just a <span class="myName"> messing around with you, heh. I myself thought it was some if function that some people like to use in their signature as well. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cover blown. Better change it now... Christopher (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen similar ones before, but I didn't think anyone would actually use it in their own signature. Each to their own I suppose.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't DiamondDisc use it? (Allthough in his case it's "Not Anonymous user") or was it CheeseBurgerFace? I think it was cheeseburgerface actually. Christopher (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't there another earlier user who did the same? (Actually, I was looking to ask the same thing as Bob up here, but I found my answer). Ɀexcoiler Kingbolt Noooooooo! ^{There's a roach on my Wall!} 15:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could indicate -- perhaps with a winking smiley -- that your sig isn't authentic. Pretty please. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll do something. Christopher (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

DiamondDisc1 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) has a sig with Not {{USERNAME}}, where I guess the USERNAME part is taken from a random username, but that also uses that myName span class. But yeah, I also agree with FuzzyCatPotato to make things more obvious to people. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've kept it as just the standard signature for now. I know I could just change it in preferences but this way everything is public in the history. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

this ok? Christopher (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand what this is about (a technical issue? a quantum joke?) but it is a bit confusing to see my pseudo on stuff that I didn't write (it seems to happen when someone uses curly braces instead of square brackets). --Cmonk (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's [[User:Christopher|<span class="myName">ASchlafly</span>]] I don't really know why I did it. (I did put ^{Do You Believe That?} after it at least though). Christopher (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ninja

Do you know how to use it? It would be great if you could, cause you're kinda clogging the RC feed at the moment All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have it. Christopher (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've got rid of all of them (except recursion obviously) so it's fine now. Christopher (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to go easy on the sysop tools, friend. There's already moderators on deck, and we're the ones primarily tasked with handling blocks and binnings, especially concerning Mikemikev. I hope this message finds you well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

ok. Are you sure he's Mikemikev though? There are (unfortunately) loads of racists in the world and on the internet. Christopher (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

While I don't wish to openly disclose which exact hermeneutical techniques I may or may not be using in order to determine — to an undisclosed degree of certainty — that it is in fact Mikemikev we're dealing with here, I'll say this much: there is a broader point here.

By which I mean, your basic assumption of good in others is itself very good of you to make. It's what we need. However! It's very important that you also note that the vandal bin does not prevent a user from posting anywhere on the site. It just makes a vandalous spree impossible from the same account.

Further; autopatrolling someone means that whoever autopatrols the user in question is deeming said user to be safe for editing mainspace articles without oversight from any other member of the community. That's clearly not the case with this person.

Now, crucially. Being patrolled doesn't make impossible posting or editing of any kind. Being vandal binned doesn't make impossible posting or editing of any kind. And — let's face it — this user is here to spam a single talkpage. I've already had to clean it up once from this sock alone.

For these reasons, and others, I'm willing to go with my decision as moderator to vandal bin this user at this point in time. And I hope that you will assume good faith not just on his part, but on mine as well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised that even if he wasn't Mikeminev it was a bad idea to autopatrol him, sorry. Christopher (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem! It's why pencils have erasers All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Florida department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

It's a meme that began as a trolling attempt ([RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive99#Beg-A-Thon "not to troll, but..."]) by Conservapedia user and bygone pest DMorris. In other news, the only thing i do here these days is talk about those days. oh well... 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Sophie/Bicycle wheel/about 53 socks) 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I always thought that was a bit odd. Christopher (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

He's lying to you. RMF Board member here... Trust me when I say that 80-90% of what me and FCP do all day is file paperwork destined for the state of Florida. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

What is 'a confirmed mustard jar' (and do you ever 'cut the mustard'?)? 86.191.125.213 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why that's in there. Christopher (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Frank Christoph Schnitzler

Hello Christopher, Why is this article not here? Best regards Moni ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.113.99.12 / talk / contribs}

I deleted it due to being completely irrelevant to rationalwiki's mission. Christopher (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor wiki

If that's your attitude towards this site, why do you bother contributing to it? 172.58.14.205 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Because I agree with its aims. I presume you don't? In which case why do you bother wandalizing it? (I presume you are the Romney vandal, <sarcasm>very original by the way</sarcasm>). Christopher (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm the Grawp vandal, also known as countless other personas (some original, some copycat), and I saw a newbie vandal joining the cause from my ISP. I do it because I *don't* agree with its aims, and children read this nonsense, so the more people I annoy and run away, the less nonsense is affecting young minds. Believe me, I have run PLENTY of people away. 172.58.14.205 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with some of the stuff on this site why not simply debate on the relevant talk page? Christopher (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think I don't do that too? I am known by MANY names. 172.58.14.205 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been a candidate for moderator more than once, and one time it was pretty close... 172.58.14.205 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you've "been candidate for mod and have got pretty close" you must've also been contributing to the wiki (unless you were one of the joke candidates which I wouldn't class as "pretty close"). Christopher (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Now you've got it! Two things RationalWiki doesn't know about fundamentalists: we can find ways to get along with those we disagree with, and we aren't completely boring and dry. 172.58.11.246 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, you should really get rid of JorisEnter. He's an idiot, and he makes wandalism fun. 172.58.11.246 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) oh so you're that kind of crazy. Oh actually know a fundamentalist Christian and they're not all idiots as such. He's quite a nice chap unless you mention teh gays. (He thinks we should stone gays to death).

I can't and wouldn't "get rid of" JorisEnter. May I ask how he makes wandalism fun? Christopher (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not the original Grawp from Wikipedia, but then again, neither is 80% of the Grawp socks over there. Grawp was a 4chan/ED army. 172.58.11.69 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

JorisEnter was stupid enough to hardblock a major state university NAT gateway for infinity because of me. If someone else wouldn't have cleaned up that mess, 15,000 diverse college students wouldn't have been able to edit RationalWiki from campus without a sysop account. That kind of stuff makes it fun. 172.58.11.69 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this IP is sufficiently entertaining to receive a "don't feed the troll" template or not. Nobody knew that health care vandalism could be so complicated.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Another question: is he really a "fundamentalist"? He called himself a fundamentalist and not many of them do that. He also appears to have seen Harry Potter (GRAWP = some minor character, HAGGER = Hagrid HERMIE = Hermione PENCIL COLA = ??? (read his WP thing(allthough he says he isn't the "original")). Christopher (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Pencil Cola = Retarded way of saying Pensacola, which did not appear in the actual Harry Potter series, so the original Grawp, who is a Harry Potter fan in California, never thought of that. Most people just mindlessly copy something without any original thought, that's why most religious debates are just regurgitations of evangelists' and atheistic authors' talking points. The real Herimone from Harry Potter probably isn't the type to sing in choirs or wear knee-length skirts, but hey, I'm autistic, so... Fun With Writing Utensils (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you kind of doxxing Grawp by talking about his Wikipedia page? Isn't that a big no-no here these days? Fun With Writing Utensils (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be a very broad definition of either "doxxing" or "kind of". 94.1.148.11 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but RationalWiki has a weird definition of doxxing. If I were to post the public WHOIS information about an IP address, RW would call that doxxing. I've been blocked for that before, so I would know. Fun With Writing Utensils (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

He's previously had accounts that are variations on "Grawp" blocked and had his page on TOW mentioned and he mentioned it earlier, also, TOW's page doesn't mention any personal information so I think it's fine. Christopher (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: They changed domains

The .se domain is down at the moment, and if you check up-to-date WHOIS records, you can see that the domain's current status is "inactive"; thus, it does not, in fact, redirect to the new .rs domain. --Season03 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I clicked on one of the links and it appeared to work for me, I can see what happened now but it would take three paragraphs for me to explain it in a coherent way. Christopher (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A book William Lane Craig doesn't want you to read

In case you're interested in getting the barebones of actual non-woo EP in place (which is very helpful when distinguishing academically sound EP from online pseudo-EP, btw) I'd advise you to start here.

And don't be alarmed — the more of the legitimate science you get in place (e.g. stuff like this or this), the better equipped by far you will be when faced with arguments from theists, TERFs, racialists, radfem gender essentialists, MRA's, ADHD deniers, PUAs, Lacanian psychoanalysts, manospherians, cdesign proponentsist, and all the rest located in the wide spectrum of bullshitters who either smear or misrepresent EP.

Be they anti-EP (evolution-denialist theists/postmodernists) or promoters of pseudo-EP (e.g. MGTOWs, Radical Lesbian Separatists) all the same.

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Christopher (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this look like MRA propaganda to you?

If it does, you may be a Creationist (or Andrea Dworkin).

If it doesn't — and it rather looks like science — you've just openly endorsed EP (of the non-woo kind). Congratulations if you did!

And while this might sound like a false dilemma, acceptance of EP actually follows by necessity from acceptance of evolutionary theory. I'm not even exaggerating.

Pseudo-EP, however, does NOT follow (from anything — it's anti-feminist pseudoscience).

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It ended with a not as bad as fallacy but nobody's perfect. ("Next time you miss a train remember your ancestors had to kill bears to survive").

If that's the non-woo evo psychology then of course it's true! (Reminds me of discovering the theory of evolution, I found out about it relatively late due to being raised a Christian. My initial reaction was "well that's just common sense, how could anyone think otherwise). Christopher (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Though, considering NABA is a conditional informal fallacy, their use of a humorous analogy to ancient bear wrestling wasn't actually fallacious Not to nitpick, though. Hehe.

Yes, non-woo EP really is common sense (because evolution is common sense, and non-woo EP follows deductively from evolution, thus...).

Example: notice how much excellent social science/archaeology/humanities was in this so-called EP video? Isn't EP supposed to be all... Measuring skulls and women hating?

Spoiler: Jesus, no! That's because non-woo EP simply means "don't DENY evolutionary biology".

This is also why non-woo EP logically follows from accepting the premises of evolution, btw.

It's only crummy pseudo-EP which means "DENY all social influences AND bastardize biology while we're at it"(or anything of the sort).

You can imagine how massively convoluted things can get when (even well-meaning) people confuse academic EP with pseudo-EP and go berzerk at the sight of real science (like they're Ken Ham or something). xD

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

removed my edits

Hi, you removed my edits in men's rights article while I was working on citations. The page is now locked for editing. Please undo^{— Unsigned, by: Kamark488 / talk / contribs}

If you have citations, put them on the talk page and your contributions will be re added if the citations are reliable. Christopher (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to open a new article so I'll leach off of this one, sorry. Ok, I added some stuff to SJW that I've seen from the extremist side (usually making points), and they got deleted. Was it that I was being too redundant? If so, sorry. -149.150.236.80

In case you missed it: I answered your points here (unrelated to the SJW article). Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And no offense, but speaking of fallacies (as you wrote on the SJW page)... What I don't get is; how can you claim that identity politics are fallacious, when you promote identity politics yourself? Am I missing something here? I don't mean to sound flip — I'm really asking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean. I was talking against the MRA in terms of male circumcision, point out that it had medical benefits and those who oppose it (i.e. fringe MRA) are being foolish. Chris changed it so that it's more compact. Also I don't get the ADHD part, other than the ~ ~ ~ ~. For the SJW part I was point out what I mentioned before. I guess I was being redundant. Sorry I created a misunderstanding. (149.150.236.80 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC))

You know what they say...

You should always call it quits while it's still funny.

You got me good with Hegel, though. Had a spook and a snort, well played!

But let's not devolve into unfunnypedians uncyclopedians, allright? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I always take a joke too far. Christopher (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Most importantly, the original joke was funny. But to quote Jerry Seinfeld, "50% of comedy is knowing when to walk off the stage." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW

I'm obviously not claiming mandate about the priority thing. RW's so-called "priority ratings" are of no importance anyways — some priority system, huh? — which is exactly why I think we should scrap them already. Anyways, this discussion should likely be taken up once more. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd vote for scrapping it but I think we should see what the rest of the mob thinks, it appears no consensus was reached previously. Christopher (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll handle this! *telepathically signals Joris to set up a vote in the Saloon bar because I'm lazy* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

General consensus in the past has been for scrapping it, but nobody can be arsed wading through thousands of articles to finish the job. If you really want to, switch to bot mode, drink a bucket of espresso and have at! 85.234.92.172 (talk) (Sophie/Bicycle Wheel/big ol' pile o' socks) 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, upon actually reading more of the comments it appears consensus has been to scrap it. Did anyone have any reasons for keeping it beyond "it would be a hassle to scrap it"? Christopher (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy needs to figure out which specific orders to give his priority-cleaning bot, if nothing else... Considering priority is mentioned via a template on talk pages that also give brainstar rating. The brainstar info template needs to be given on more talkpages than it currently is (afaik), while the mention of priority from the same template(s) needs to be wiped. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding category (not priority)

The edit in question (changing {{crenav}} to {{crenav|1}}) wasn't about priority ratings but about preventing the article from being added to both Category:Creationism and Category:Creationists. Without the "|1", {{crenav}} adds the former category to any page it is used on, which creates a lot of duped categories.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's good to know! Suggestion: could we update the actual navs to make neither version add a category? Seems to me that navs should never add categories on their own. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem then would be suddenly we'd have hardly any articles in Category:Conspiracy theories. I'm adding "|1" to all relevant articles now (and really clogging up recent changes, sorry!) Christopher (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It begins...

I've started removing {{pri}} from every article. I assume nobody will object. Perhaps I should leave it to a ninja though. Christopher (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go!--JorisEnter (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you use it? Something to do with adding "&bot=1" somewhere? Christopher (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You should be able to access your user rights and tick the "bot" box.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get started. Christopher (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed {{pri|1}} from every single high priority page when I could have done it all with one edit. Christopher (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what you get for working hard instead of working smart!

(Read: for having a strong work ethic instead of being a lazy scumbag!)

All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still going to remove the rest so the template can be deleted (or would we put that dead page thing on it?) Christopher (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, boiler room?

I was wondering if you have Steam? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I had to look it up to see what it was so no. Christopher (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Don't you remember seeing it on CNN? I do because I WAS the girl who got shot who was nice to that kid, and as hard as it was to forgive him, I did. I'm like his only friend now, and I still have the scar from being shot in the leg. I didn't want to forgive him, but I became a Southern Baptist and I know Jesus would want me to be forgiving. When it happened I wasn't all that religious, but I said a little prayer under my breath when it was happening, and I peed myself a little when I heard the resource officer shoot him because the kid had his gun aimed right at my head and I thought for a split second I was going to die. I did NOT forget the reason for what happened though, which is those vile, disgusting video games, which come from Satan. Everybody forgets things like this, except the one who will always have that mark in my thigh because of it. I don't just remember that incident, I remember EVERY incident that gets covered in the news because I don't like the memories it brings back. I was a cheerleader at Dallas Baptist University, and some little kid asked me why I had a mark there one time, and it was painful to have to answer that. It must be nice to just casually sit back and watch events like that on TV and not have to live through it like I did. Satan makes the violent video games, and Satan wants you to censor the truth. Empire News (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm British so I've never seen anything on CNN, it shouldn't be too hard to find citations if it was covered in national news. Christopher (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Well, it was called "Sodexho" when I was at PCC, but I guess they changed it now. We used to call Four Winds "The Rot" too. My school here in Lynchburg doesn't outsource, so...^{— Unsigned, by: The Rot / talk / contribs}

Why do you bother with this? Christopher (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The same reason I play video games home girl above despises (if she's even telling the truth). Good way of releasing stress without actually hurting anyone. The Rot (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bit sad isn't it? Christopher (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Life will get better when I get paid and can get some weed. I wonder how the hell you know about Sodexho and Palms Grill? Do you go to PCC? The Rot (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The magic of Google combined with boredom. Christopher (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That was a longgggggggg time ago for me. Parents made me do it, and I didn't like it. Too many goodie-goodies like the bitch above whining about games.. The Rot (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you couldn't tell from my names, I'm fucking hungry, so peace out. Enjoy your shitty little wiki. The Rot (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My friend sent me a screenshot of this. Whoever is doing this, quit acting like you go to or work for PCC. You're probably one of those people who got kicked out because you were breaking the rules, and now you want to make us look bad. The dining service is almost entirely staffed by students, which is how they keep costs down and provide jobs for students, so we can graduate debt free like I did in '15. If you're a student there, which I highly doubt, you are violating Pathways by acting like this. Sorry to soapbox like this, but I don't like it when people act like this on the internet trying to make my school look bad. -2015LadyEagle^{— Unsigned, by: 2015LadyEagle / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I don't think anyone on this site had any reason to believe him, he's mostly just a spammer/vandal. On another note, I'm guessing you don't like our article on your school either. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your article is criticism from an opposing viewpoint. While I disagree with your website's position, comparing it to someone being stupid like "The Rot," as he calls himself, is like comparing an apple to an orange. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (I think I'm doing it right...)

Fair enough (you are signing correctly by the way). It may well be criticism from an opposing viewpoint and all that but it's currently rather poorly sourced criticism. As a former student, are there any blatant factual inaccuracies in the article you could tell us about? Christopher (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the content is accurate, but written in a very biased style. I did see some inaccuracies, like the claim about shaking hands. Shaking hands is a gray area, and no one gets demerits for shaking hands unless they obviously have more than "friendly" intentions, or someone in administration just doesn't like a person, and there's usually a reason administration doesn't like him/her. I've never heard anything about being prohibited from libraries, though I never really had an interest in venturing beyond the Rebekah Horton Library anyway. I glanced at PCC's website to be sure, and I actually found this: http://www.pcci.edu/pathway/gradaddendum/facilitiesservices.aspx. Apparently, grad students can actually go to libraries at neighboring schools for resources unavailable at PCC. If you'd like, I can try to edit out any glaring inaccuracies I see, but if I break something, please try not to be nasty about it. You seem like a nice person, but I've seen people on Wikipedia be outright mean to inexperienced editors for minor mistakes. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone's free to edit nearly all of our articles (unless they're persistently vandalised), thanks in advance for helping us be more accurate. Christopher (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can't edit it. A message states "This page has been locked. You have insufficient permissions to edit." However, I appreciate your desire to rid the article of inaccuracies when so many websites are content with the maintenance of a hatchet job. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it was protected due to someone who's probably the same person as "The Rot" vandalizing it, I'll unprotect it. Christopher (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is almost certainly going to remain highly critical of PCC (like nearly all of our other articles on religious organizations), it'll hopefully though be critical of what PCC actually is, not some made up place where no one's allowed to shake each other's hand. Christopher (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried not to skew the viewpoint. If I made any deeper changes, the article would begin to become pro-PCC, and I assume you would not like that. I'm sure I've missed an inaccuracy somewhere, but at least it's more accurate than it was before. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Some of it is inevitably going to end up going (for instance "though students are taught what evolution is" will probably go, we're very skeptical of creationists claiming to teach what evolution "actually is" when concepts like the Crocoduck exist). Christopher (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What would make your contributions a lot more likely to stay is if you had reliable sources to back your claims up, see Help:References for technical help with sources. Christopher (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I know how to write in APA style with references, but I probably won't be getting deeply involved in this wiki, if only because there is only so much I can contribute without compromising your viewpoint. What I wrote was from personal experience. I hope that doesn't sound harsh or uncaring, but this isn't really what I'm into. If I wanted to voluntarily write about PCC, I would write about it in a forum that appreciates PCC. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that was ever in any doubt, thanks anyway for improving the article. Christopher (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your respect, and I wish more people could work together like this rather than tear each other down. I'm guessing you are an atheist, and while I doubt I am going to change that, you seem like a nice person, and I wish you would consider God's plan of Salvation and accept Christ as your savior, as explained at http://www.campuschurch.com/About/PlanOfSalvation.aspx. 2015LadyEagle (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It used bible verses to convince me to become a Christian, which isn't very convincing if you don't already think the bible is the word of god but thanks for (from your point of view) attempting to save me from eternal torture. Christopher (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

New messages?

Why does it say I have new messages when there's nothing new there? Empire News (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Because a vandal spammed your talk page and was reverted, any edit to your talk page sends that message. Christopher (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I looked at the history, and I'm guessing, based on "post a picture of your scar", that it's greyed out because it was something hurtful and I wouldn't want to know what was said? It's also obvious, based on some of the words used, that it's the same guy above. What are you two talking about? What is "pcc"? Apparently I remind him of "pcc" in some way, is that a bad things? Empire News (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

He's a vandal who spams pages with "HAGGER" and "GRAWP" (copying a Wikipedia vandal) and occasionally posts more abusive things. I was asking him why he wasted his time doing something so pointless. "PCC" (Pensacola Christian College I think?) Is where he claims to work as a chef. He says you remind him of "PCC" because you're a "goodie goodie" (read: not a misogynistic drug addict). Christopher (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have known that, I knew a girl who was a cheerleader at that college. I think he's full of it. I never heard her refer to anything there as slightly resembling "the rot", maybe it's a kitchen worker term. But that company was at Dallas too, and I'm pretty sure you had to take a drug test to work for dining services... He talks down on the college, maybe they fired him or something. Empire News (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, he's probably unemployed (or lying about being a druggie, I doubt you can be a functioning heroin addict). Christopher (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Grawp

Could you give me the tl;dr of the Grawp thing? I must have missed it while I was gone. Thanks. Meh (You) 16:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I gathered, these raids started yesterday. The fucker's trying to copy off of a Wikipedia vandal called Grawp. The living oxymoron (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This guy who claims to work as a chef for PCC is replacing page content with HAGGER???? And putting misogynistic abuse on female users talk pages. See here for the Wikipedia vandal he's copying. See User talk:Christopher/Archive1#Minor wiki and Spelling for my dealings with him (to my knowledge I'm the only one he's communicated with properly instead of just ) (the Archive1 minor wiki link may not be the same person, quite a few people copy the Wikipedia vandal). Christopher (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of this Grawp situation...

I think it might be a good idea to implement a stringent background check process. I'm not sure of how we can go about this, but it's time for this guy to disappear for good. The living oxymoron (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Grawp did have a point. How do we conduct something like that? We can't just do tests on everyone who wants an account here. We're not Conservapedia. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, but these revision wars are going to get way too fucking repetitive. The living oxymoron (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of a shame. I wonder if we could get checkuser installed...RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is hold out until the wandal gets bored. For checkuser, perhaps ask a mod or use your better judgement. This is a test of patience; don't succumb and don't give in to the troll's desires by responding besides reverting and banning. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rational-Wiki used to have checkuser, but certain people were using it to dox people, so they got rid of it. Brake Caliper (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Conservapedia used it to screen new accounts and enforce their insane banning policy, and RationalWiki was formed by ban-ees. Checkuser was disabled in 2007. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I promise that when I'm elected we're going to have extreme vetting. It'll be great, it'll be tremendous, it'll be fantastic, it'll be awesome, it'll be absolutely huge for this community. We will close the boarders and keep out the vandals. When the Internet sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing vandalism. They’re bringing crime. They’re trolls. And some, I assume, are good people. But we're going to build a wall around the Internet. It'll be tremendous, you'll love it. You'll absolutely love it. I promise that we're going to have extreme vetting. We're going to vet to the extreme. It'll be huge. I would tell you how we'd do it but I can't get to technical for the lay-people. I would tell you, I want to tell you, I wish I could tell you, but I said I wouldn't do it. Just trust me, it'll be great. Now, say it with me, we're going to Make RationalWiki Great Again! Meh (You) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Who's gonna pay for it though? Christopher (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We're gonna make Conservapedia pay for it. The living oxymoron (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Meh: Are you going to abruptly hang up on Eliezer Yudkowsky during a phone call too? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Get me out of the vandal bin, please... thx--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(This was initially put on my talk page) You'll be removed from the vandal bin if you can show that we're losing out by having you in the vandal bin. Make good quality edits and make us confident you're not going to page blank again. Christopher (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent "Wandal"

It seems BoN accidently removed removed content and added it back in. I am informing you this because it seems you removed the content again. Because BoN tried to add the content back, I don't think the edit was done in malice.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the content because it was just a duplicate of what was already there, the only net result of the BoN's contributions was this, which I don't think added anything of value. Christopher (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

You're awesome! DanielleD (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're talking about but you're welcome. Christopher (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation?

What, you don't believe it? I go to Community Christian School. Bill Nye is everywhere! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! Bill Nye the Science Guy! They just don't show anything to do with evolution. Teenager (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. The testimony of some random person on the internet isn't enough evidence for me, sorry if it is true. Christopher (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't really use yourself as a citation, you need to provide some verifiable outside source that can verify what you're claiming Nergali (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a wiki, not the final project for a doctorate degree. I can say whatever I want. Teenager (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Christopher, it's wise not to respond to trolls. Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that shortly before hand Grawp registered as Bill Nye the Science Guy, Teenager was probably Grawp. Christopher (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop moving essays to mock the creator

They're in the essay space for a reason. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A similar thing was done with some of Elvis is King's essays. I won't do it again though. Christopher (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Collapse

How do I get everything after the {{Collapse template to stop going into the template?

For instance, let's say I only want to collapse a portion of a debate, and want the rest to be visible outside the box? Vive Liberté! 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. Thanks though. Vive Liberté! 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you include opening an opening "{{" without including closing ones (}}) as well in the section title it makes the section impossible to edit on its own, in future use this template if you're going to mention a template in the section title. Christopher (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

geocentrism

I'd appreciate your opinions on geocentrism essay i created... thx--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was better suited for the forums so I moved it there, I'll comment on it in a second. Christopher (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(For future reference the original title was Essay:Geocentrism and I changed the namespace without changing the title). Christopher (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Helminthophile

Hi Christopher, why have you rolled back all the edits I made today to the Helminthic Therapy page? They were all totally "rational"! 😉 ^{— Unsigned, by: Helminthophile / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you ask me stuff on my user talk page in future? Christopher (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misplacing my stuff, Christopher. As you will have gathered, I'm not used to this format! OK, so can you tell me why you rolled back all the edits that I made to the Helminthic therapy page yesterday? I spent a great deal of time improving that page, but you rolled it all back without even reading what I'd done. Your roll-back was just 4 minutes after my save! Helminthophile (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw a new user making an edit to an article on (what looked like) a crank idea that appeared to make it support said crank idea. If your edit was legitimate (I didn't have time to properly check as I only glanced at it for about 30 seconds) the fact you "spent a great deal of time improving the page" wouldn't matter because every edit to an article is preserved in its edit history (or "fossil record", our name for it). Christopher (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The existing version of the Helminthic Therapy page states correctly that "helminthic therapy is (almost) legitimate medicine, with supporting research published in peer-reviewed journals." It definitely isn't a crank idea, although I can appreciate that anyone not familiar with the treatment might think it a completely mad idea! The therapy is being actively researched in several centres worldwide and there are already over 500 papers on it, with more being published all the time, and over 30 since the beginning of this year. Some labs are working on mining the worm's excretions/secretions in the hope of finding suitable molecules to create new drugs, but the use of live worms is also being pursued. There are now four safe, domesticated helminth species that are commercially available, and are being trialled in the UK for multiple sclerosis, and in Australia for coeliac disease, for example. It's a fascinating development and the work that I did on the Helminthic Therapy page has brought it up to date and improved the accuracy of some of the existing details. I hope, therefore, that you will agree to approve my edits. Helminthophile (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

After a bit of googling it appears to be legitimate, I put your edit back. Christopher (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of tech privileges?

Would the following be an abuse of tech rights in your opinion: making an edit filter that only applies to user:FAMAS, that rejects all edit-texsts that contain "This user"? I mean, it's probably unreasonable, and unfair, but it's not stopping dissent, just noxiousness. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

FAMAS isn't malicious, just really irritating. I'd be tempted to do it if I was a tech but I do think it'd be abuse of tech privileges. Christopher (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My problem too. Probably wrong, but also so great. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean. Christopher (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That I want to do it because it would be satisfying, but deep down I know I shouldn't. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If ever you're wondering whether you should make a filter for something, imagine someone looking through the filters in a year's time and what their reaction to the existence of the filter would be. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So... none of the filters are good then. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think the "Drumpf" one may be a bit extreme, how necessary is it? Christopher (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. I just looked through a few of them and most of them make no sense without the context (there's one specifically to prevent one user from being autoconfirmed, what was that about?) Christopher (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WHY DELETE MY PAGE?

WHY?Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it was just a link to some random flat earther video, you're free to put a link to the video on your userpage. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So WHAT AM I ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO DO HERE?? Cant create essays, debates, fun pages...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fun pages have to be funny. You're free to create essays and debates about anything though. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

And why wasnt it funny? Did you at least watch the video?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I enjoy laughing at cranks as much as the next person but the page itself has to be funny, it can't just be a link to a website/video that's funny. Christopher (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's any help, this whole debacle discussion is pretty funny. You're like the original odd couple! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if the RW community ever started shipping, but this I ship one for sure. Vive Liberté! 23:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Shipping"? Could you please explain the joke? My, uh, friend doesn't get it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Tell your - uh - friend that 'ship' is short for 'relationship' and 'shipping' is what fans do to their favourite characters in shows. Liiikkee.. Oh Natsu and Grey from Fairy Tail. That's a ship but it isn't like, show canon. Fans did that. Oh and Korra x that other girl from the Legend of Korra. That's a ship (but it may be canon now idk). Vive Liberté! 00:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my friend sees now. It's like "relationship", I told him. Would I be right in telling him that, was his new question? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You would indeed be correct. It's a fictional relationship between Christopher and Damian, and now we need a name for this ship.. Vive Liberté! 00:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WHY DON'T WE WRITE IN ALLCAPS MORE OFTEN

COULD ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS PLEASE??? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WHY SO MUCH HATE?Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

LOUD NOISES! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

magic! Christopher (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Afterlife

Life matters! Afterlife is a state WHERE that life will continue... An anti- theist does not like the idea of a God... So his life will continue in a place where there is NO GOD, NO JUSTICE, NO MORALS, NO GOOD, and absolutely no purpose... otherwise called hell....Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But why does being alive on Earth matter? Isn't death about as significant as moving house? Christopher (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Cause this is the place where your future is decided... What's your decision with or without Him?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what I mean, surely it's a good thing if a True Christian™ dies because they'll go to heaven? Christopher (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Help

How do i upload an image ON MY PAGE?Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You go to Special:Upload and follow the instructions, see here and here for more information. Christopher (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The torch passes

I've granted you the power of Tech. See above for an artist's rendition of the appropriate reaction. All the tech, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In the interests of science, I removed my tech to see if it would warn me that I couldn't readd it. Apparently it doesn't. Christopher (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note to self: I need to start chosing my apprentices with greater care. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There should probably be a MediaWiki thing to stop IDiots like me doing this sort of thing. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Jokes aside — I'm glad you're atleast testing things out! And I love idea that, if made king, your first official act would be to see for yourself if a king can renounce his own crown. Haha. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Special:ListGroupRights all techs are moderators, won't that get a bit confusing? Christopher (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah — because Techs always know their place. By which I mean: you don't stay tech for very long if you don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I only meant the question "what can a moderator do" has two possible answers, I wasn't getting ideas above my station. Christopher (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

hey

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Letter_to_RationalWiki Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Bored, eh?

Don't miss this (including subheader). Or this (following all the internal links) and this. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd already seen the Evil is the absence of God one, didn't realise he'd been doing it since 2014 though. Christopher (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. Nevermind; seemingly as his "magic bullet solution" to any unrelated theological issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dox filter

Using added_links instead of added_lines makes it possible for vandals to sneak URLs in by removing http:// or www. Additionally, it's better (for performance reasons) to use one filter with many lists (filter 11) rather than multiple filters for multiple issues. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remember that in future. Christopher (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Archivist has been triggering it so I'm deactivating it for bots, hope I did it right." Yes. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I sort of guessed I did it right after testing it in my sandbox, thanks. Christopher (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

????

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE?????????????????????????????????????????????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

To try and encourage you to make a better page, your last one was way better than that. Because you're a sysop you can see the stuff I deleted at Special:Undelete/David Blaine, I've moved it to your userspace for now where you can get it up to article standard. Christopher (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

hey 2.0

what do you think about this little primate?

--Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Very cute, I'd already seen it on your userpage. Christopher (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

So like us (especially me, considering it's a Swedish chimpanzee)... And that's no surpise, considering humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% of their DNA. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Have a beer!

For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Spud has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!

You've earned it! Cheers! Spud (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Zealandia

In answer to your question, no, though I just don't know what else to put:

Onychoprion (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My question was actually about the third parameter on the {{wpl}} template, interesting video though. Christopher (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies then! -- Onychoprion (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Christopher (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

sources

if you need sources then ill give quite a bit when i have free time, for now i need to go to church. ill post sources when i have free time^{— Unsigned, by: Whoknows / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Templates are nest-able, right? Like, I could do a {{#choose:}} inside of a {{#choose:}}? Because he has tons of tweet formats (I've written down four ATM and I haven't gone back but like,10 days) but if I put all the lines in the same #choose it'll look weird because they won't format right. Also, is it possible to style the generated content like a tweet? Koi "I could really use an animator because I have so many ideas floating around in my head" development 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You can put {{#choose:}}s inside of each other, yes. Formatting it to look like a tweet should be possible but I wouldn't know how. Christopher (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist vs Special:Abusefilter

I had no idea MediaWiki:Titleblacklist existed. The major benefit of Special:AbuseFilter is that it creates logs of every action taken, which is incredibly useful for debugging false positives. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The advantage of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is it stops people from making the account in the first place, is there a way to do that with special:abusefilter? Christopher (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. That's got ups and downs. Ups: Spammers/doxxers create accounts and try to spam, but are rejected on 100% of edits, wasting more of their time. Downs: Newbs create accounts and leave after 100% failed edits. Can you test MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and see what message occurs when you create an account that breaks its rules? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This message appears in red. Christopher (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Another downside of letting them make accounts is that the name sometimes has to be hidden from the logs/they have to be renamed, clogging up recent changes. Christopher (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely more appealing in that it gives users a choice, before investing time and effort into making an account and an edit, to use another name. Maybe we can shift the non-dox terms into there. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it now, it's only filter 11 that's "active", right? Christopher (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just over 5 hours later and I still haven't done it. Christopher (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know why some of them are there, if I add them to the blacklist (which is public) I could accidentally doxx someone. Christopher (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of them we don't need any more. 1d4chanfag is on there and he's now a sysop for instance. Christopher (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll do it. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Shit, I remembered the other reason why spam filter is so damn useful -- it uses ccnorm, which converts letters and accents and numbers to a standard form (hitler, h1tler, and hítler all become H1T1ER) which makes it sooo much harder to evade. MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is probably unnecessary extra work, then. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

a little concern

This discussion was moved to Talk:Jesus#a little concern.

It's always best to comment on the talk page of an article rather than some random user's talk page, it's more likely to be seen. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there Christopher! I wanted to thank you for welcoming me to the site! I'll take a look at the links you provided on your welcome message on my page. Hope all is well! :) --Deepthought (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Christopher (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Debt slavery

Hi Christopher! You might want to explain to Jwood‎ why you protected the debt slavery page. As I explained on Jwood‎'s talk page, I did not have a problem per se with Jwood's changes, just that the removal of references and replacement with a single political reference was problematic. Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to prevent further edit warring, I've let him know on his talk page. Christopher (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt talk page discussion will lead to agreement though, (s)he's already accused us of having an "undisclosed agenda" and suggested we change our name to "biasedanduninformedwiki". Christopher (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting the hong of thangs

RationalWiki doesn't seem to have the same facility for dialogue as Wikipedia, so I am at a loss in knowing where to leave cynical snidery drawn from the sarcastic pits of the 23-armed Sweatmonster of Bodi Le O'Dor, a.k.a. The Golden Skunkspasm of Rectitude V. But thanks for the guidance. I'll gut the hank of thid sooner ro lazer. Jfderry (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC) <-- do I do this here? Or, here? --> Jfderry (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what some of that means but you're welcome. Christopher (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Women's studies

Sorry to bother you, but do you think the Women's Study page I've been working on is ready for main space; I myself think it needs more. [1] X-Factor (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I allowed to edit your sandbox? I spotted a few typos. It could possibly be a mainspace article but it needs an explanation of what woman's studies is at the start. Christopher (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see someone else has already made it a mainspace page. Christopher (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey

join me here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Fornication ^{— Unsigned, by: Kingdamian1 / talk / contribs}

I'll forgive you not signing as you haven't been editing for a few days. Christopher (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Replied

Sorry. Dunno how to do one of those "Somebody has responded to your post" thingies, so I am just letting you know, here. I replied to your note on my talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User page

thanks but just leave it in the talk next time.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Christopher (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Still New

I want to contribute but I'm new to this, perhaps its better to stay in the talk and just scout for trolls and vandals.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I forget to sign at times to.... --Rimuru Tempest (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you editing mainspace, your mainspace edits so far have been good. I consider reverting trolls and vandals to be contributing anyway. Christopher (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

oh, I just saw the one where I reverted that guy.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

glad you agree with me

discuss the matter pertaining to this nonsense with me here please, as i really want the articles on this to be fixed. i am a mental health patient myself, and am tired of encountering this pseudoscience wherever i turn. please revise all articles pertaining to this on rationalwiki as there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the current state of mbsr and it being a "sure thing", psychotherapy-wise. also keep in mind that snake oil salesmen, predominantly of eastern religious affiliation, use this bullshit to prey on the mentally ill. PLEASE REVISE THIS.^{— Unsigned, by: 130.113.111.214 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

sorry, i am new. MBSR, though, does involve prayer-like activities as a component. therefore, will try and find relevant source, but complete exclusion may be overkill. put "citation needed" on the end or something in the interim.

this could be included as it specifically mentions the aforementioned items http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/mind-over-body-or-poor-science-over-truth/^{— Unsigned, by: 130.113.111.214 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.

[edit conflict]I've removed the section for now, I'll search for sources (the two sources given previously didn't appear to be to do with prayer and only measured effects on the brain's structure, not actual real world things like a measurement of stress). Christopher (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

however, even the physiological studies are not credible, as pointed out in an article which i am attempting to unearth. this is a big problem in the psychotherapy community now and rationalwiki should be taking a stand against it. 130.113.111.214 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

and that brings up another point; in terms of the plos blog, see paragraph 3 "Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95%CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03- 0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies).

An accompanying commentary on the review asked:

The modest benefit found in the study by Goyal et al begs the question of why, in the absence of strong scientifically vetted evidence, meditation in particular and complementary measures in general have become so popular, especially among the influential and well educated…What role is being played by commercial interests? Are they taking advantage of the public’s anxieties to promote use of complementary measures that lack a base of scientific evidence? Do we need to require scientific evidence of efficacy and safety for these measures?" 130.113.111.214 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

i am not trent, if you think that i am. i am not sure who trent is, currently at Mcmaster uni at a public talk.^{— Unsigned, by: 130.113.111.214 / talk}

Remember: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.

Trent is the "founder" of RationalWiki, not sure why that person thought you were him. Christopher (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should probably have an article on mindfulness, I'll add it to the to do list. Christopher (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Jews

Perhaps it'd make sense to create two categories for believers in Judaism and ethnic Jews? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A comment you made 2 years ago on Category talk:Jews is pretty much my view on the subject only without "alternatively we should categorize people by race" seeing as race doesn't exist in the first place. Christopher (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My oh my, that talk-page commenter has great arguments and a handsome appearance, if I do say so myself. Sounds like a good idea. Should we create categories for people who have left their religion -- eg, Category:Ex-Jews, Category:Ex-Christians, Category:Ex-Muslims? FuzzyCatPotato of the Queer Ostrich eggs (talk/stalk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if there are enough applicable articles. Christopher (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

{{main|Religion survivors}} Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Omnibenevolence vs Good

Hey Christopher, I started a thread in the "Evil is like Cold" talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving this here, since it is a bit off topic (I am just philosophizing)

You posted: Omnibenevolent=loving everyone, how could an evil person/God love everyone? Christopher (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For specificity, I'd say "omnibenevolence == wanting the good for everybody", rather than "benevolence == loving everybody". I think loving somebody means more than just wanting the best for them. I think it includes an investment into their well-being; tying your own happiness with theirs; driving your decisions around them, etc. --Bertrc (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, I think we evil people can exhibit either trait. We can love everybody; we just love ourselves more than we love other people. We can want good for everybody; we just don't want to let other people's good interfere with our own good stuff. --Bertrc (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You really are being pedantic now, I'm still waiting for how this solves the PoE. Christopher (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

He didn't want the best for amputees, or Holocaust victims. Christopher (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know we were discussing that directly. I was just musing about the nature of and perspectives on evil. Heh, you say "pedantic", I say "precision"! :-D :-P~ ;-) Let's consider 3 flavors of the Problem/paradox of evil:

1) If God created everything and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he created evil or he didn't create everything.

2) If God is present everywhere, and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he is present in this evil situation or he must not be present.

3) If God is all-powerful and omnibenevolent, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or he must not be nice enough to want to stop it.

I think you are concerned with the 3rd flavour, but the "evil is like cold" theodicy really only addresses the first two. I think the "evil is like darkness" argument is also good for understanding the nature of evil. . . . Um, before we get really deep into this, are you an amputee or a holocaust survivor (or in a really bad place for some other reason?) I certainly do not want to trivialize things for you, if you are, by coldly analyzing how suffering could exist. I think the "I know what it ain't" view is the best perspective for confronting or dealing with suffering; however, that view is understandably considered avoiding the question if you just want to debate or shoot the bull. --Bertrc (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Precision"? That's rich — considering you won't even agree that A ⊊ B. And it goes without saying that your false analogy to "heat and cold" is far from multi-applicable; rather, it is not even wrong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC)I'm not in a position that means I don't want to talk about the PoE, no. The "evil is like cold" argument fails for a number of reasons: 1) It fails for religions where their God is omnipresent as nothing can be the "absence of God", 2) It fails for religions where the God is all powerful and all loving/all good/whatever because even if he wasn't everywhere he could choose to be where a homeless person is to prevent suffering. Christopher (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I'll trust you and assume that you are not a holocaust survivor or a double amputee and that you are in a good enough place not to be upset if we smugly and analytically consider suffering while sitting comfortably in our ivory towers. :-) I certainly agree with your second point, which I believe is referencing the third flavor of the PoE I list above; that third flavor of the PoE is better addressed by other theodicies. However, I would disagree with your first point. Let me break those up into two sections. --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Evil is Cold vs a Creator God who is Everywhere

So, I claim the analogy of evil being like cold (and God being like energy) addresses that second flavor of the PoE I listed above (If God is present everywhere, and God is good, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be good if he is present in this evil situation or he must not be present) I think this deals with the nature of evil. Before I state my case, I have to ask you, do you believe energy is present everywhere? Let's put zero degrees Kelvin and outer space aside, for the moment, and just look at the bubble from the Earth's stratosphere down to the earth's center. Within those confines, do you think energy is present everywhere? --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously energy is present everywhere on Earth, and due to vacuum energy isn't it present everywhere? I fail to see how hot and cold are in any way related to the PoE though. Christopher (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it has nothing to do with the classic PoE (third flavor, above) When you say "I fail to see how hot and cold are in any way related to the PoE", are you referring to the non-standard flavors of the PoE that arise when you consider God as the creator of all things or as omnipresent? (first and second flavor I list above) --Bertrc (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Beuller? --Bertrc (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I presume that's a reminder I haven't responded to you, I don't think "evil is like cold" is a solution to any version of the PoE (it could be the solution to one I haven't heard of though). Christopher (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Aw, Dude, have you never seen Ferris Beuller's day Off"? Sheesh, you millenials make me feel old. :-) Okay, the PoE's in this case are:

PoE flavor 1) Question: If God is good and God created everything, why did he create evil? The "Evil is like cold" analogy answers this by saying "God did not create evil any more than energy creates cold." --Bertrc (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

PoE flavor 2) Question: If God is good and God is everywhere, goodness must be everywhere, so how can evil exist anywhere? The "Evil is like cold" analogy answers this by saying "In the same way that energy is everywhere, God is everywhere, however, just as we feel cold if there is not enough energy present so to do we see the evil in a situation if there is not enough of God's presence." --Bertrc (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

So does that explain a bit better how the "Evil is like Cold" analogy can be deployed in response to those two flavors of the PoE and why I feel using "Benevolent" is a strawman, so we should use "Good" in the article? (Ugh, why does auto-correct keep changing my spelling of "flavour"?) --Bertrc (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why God chooses to operate in a way that's completely indistinguishable from there being no God. Christopher (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

. . . Okay . . . I guess we could start a section on that question, but it is a bit of a non-sequitur in this one. Here, we were discussing two flavours of the PoE and how the "Evil is like Cold" analogy can be used to refute the claim that those disprove the possibility of an omnipresent, creator God. So, on topic, Does my previous post explain a bit better how the "Evil is like Cold" analogy can be deployed in response to those two flavors of the PoE and why I feel using "Benevolent" is a strawman, so we should use "Good" in the article? (Ugh, why does auto-correct keep changing my spelling of "flavour"?) --Bertrc (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The existence of suffering vs a benevolent God

Even though you've given me the go-ahead, I'd like to reiterate that suffering is awful and that I think we should lean on "I know what it ain't" when we are in times of crisis. With that being said . . .

So, I feel the "Transformative" theodicy (with a smattering of the vaccination analogy) is the strongest apologetic argument to address the third flavor of the PoE I listed above (If God is all-powerful and omnibenevolent, how can there be evil/suffering? He must not be able to stop it, or he must not be nice enough to want to stop it.) Essentially, the idea is that a God with infinite power and ability could transform and redeem any magnitude of evil/suffering.

My favorite analogy is when I trained for a marathon: There is one incline that I hated; that's no hyperbole; I loathed it. However, sometimes, when I reached that top and started on the straight away, I would realize that the entire run, up to that moment, was awesome. I don't just mean reaching that top; I don't mean that achieving that goal and taking in that view was better because it contrasted to the suffering of that bloody incline; and I don't mean that the suffering of that incline was balanced out because the result was so spectacular. What I mean is that the entire run -- leading up to the incline, running the incline, cruising along the straightway at the top -- was somehow transformed retroactively into an amazing, wonderful experience even though I had been suffering and wanting to give up just moments before.

This transformation and redemption of suffering is reflected by countless other experiences. Trivially: Would you want to have been able to put that jig-saw puzzle together without having gone through the work and, at times, frustration of having had to hunt for each of those friggin' pieces? More strikingly: Do you wish you had never had any of the uncertainty, drama, and trauma you went through wooing your spouse, now that you are together? Is your joy over the process of coming to understand quantum relativity or Green's theorem diminished by the nights of having banged your head against a wall due to some misunderstanding? (So long as the head banging was figurative) I don't have an artistic bone in my body, but I assume that painters/composers/musicians/sculptors/etc. sometimes suffer as they try to get it just right, but feel unable to do so; I'm willing to bet that sometimes, when they finally do succeed in their vision, they do not think: "This would have been so much better if I had just gotten it right immediately from the start."

Now I'm not saying that this transformation happens every time in all these circumstances and I certainly wouldn't say a tearful, heart breaking fight with the love of my life was as painful as what my cousin went through when his mother died of cancer. However, it does happen sometimes, and I would propose that if my minor sufferings can be transformed/redeemed though the natural processes of this world, within my lifetime, then an all-powerful God of infinite ability could ultimately redeem and transform any magnitude of suffering in a similar or analogous manner. --Bertrc (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So God gives people Ebola, but he magically turns Ebola into a Good Thing™ so everything is fine? Surely it's a lot simpler to just say "the Christian Gods (and other similar Gods) don't actually exist"? Christopher (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, nice try. I see what you did there! :-P~ ;-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

First, you said "So God gives people Ebola" but God does not give people ebola. That's a dialogue tree we will probably run into in the "Evil is like Cold" analogy, above, and will have to split out into its own section. --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Second, you asked "Isn't it simpler to say God does not exist" but the transformation theodicy (and theodicy in general) is not meant to prove that God does exists; instead, the purpose of theodicy is simply to debunk the PoE as a means of proving God cannot exist. Whether God does exist is probably yet another section. --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Really nice try, though! :-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the part of your statement that is actually on point, I would counter that it is not magical. Consider the pain during my run up that blasted incline, or the anger trying to find the friggin' correct piece of blue sky in a jig-saw puzzle or the tears during a fight with my spouse or the mind-numbing frustration trying to grasp Green's theorem or the nights of terror thinking I won't be able to provide for my family after being jobless or, heck, even the desire to throw my computer out of the window because I can't figure out how to kill the prismatic dragon with my gnome illusionist. Is it magical that those instances of suffering get transformed and redeemed right now in this natural world? --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bertc What's with you and the making of incomprehensible analogies? Seriously; I could cite your whole last post back to you as example of this. The best part is, you give poor Christopher a nipple twister for allegedly rambling off-point just as you present the following word salad as 'corrective':

Consider the pain during my run up that blasted incline, or the anger trying to find the friggin' correct piece of blue sky in a jig-saw puzzle or the tears during a fight with my spouse or the mind-numbing frustration trying to grasp Green's theorem or the nights of terror thinking I won't be able to provide for my family after being jobless or, heck, even the desire to throw my computer out of the window because I can't figure out how to kill the prismatic dragon with my gnome illusionist. Is it magical that those instances of suffering get transformed and redeemed right now in this natural world?

I rest my case.

@Christopher Bertc's "Gene Ray-isms" aside... Notice the amount of mental contortionism the guy is willing to put in, just to be able to claim the good stuff (e.g. divine guidance in locating the perfect parking spot) as sign of God's loving presence — while at the very same time, billing all the bad stuff (e.g. parasitic flies injecting their worms into the eyeballs of malnourished infants) to a different account?

Ergo; God gets thanks for all the good — and any bad? Why, that's just 'cause it didn't have (enough of) God in it! Amen! Reverend Black Percy (Reverend Black Percy) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Reverend Black Percy, I'm not sure how you consider the Transformative theodicy to mean God is putting things on somebody else's bill, particularly since, according to the theodicy, He actively undoes all the brokenness and evil . . . Did you mean to put that in the "Evil is Cold vs a Creator God who is Everywhere" section? --Bertrc (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Christopher, are you confused as to why I would bring up instances where suffering is transformed/redeemed in our normal (natural) world when I am opposing your claim that I am proposing a "magical" (supernatural) solution to the PoE? --Bertrc (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which post you're replying to, your basic argument seems to be "some bad things "become" good things later on, therefore AIDS, the Holocaust and Ebola become good things in the afterlife", "some things do this, therefore some other things do this" is clearly not a valid argument. Christopher (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, before you moved my responses, my replies were under the posts I was responding to! ;-) Heh, once again, I see what you did, there; nice try, though. I never said "Some things do this, therefore some other things do this." I said "This can be done to some things that are small, therefore it is possible that this can also be done to other things that are immense" and that is clearly a valid argument . eg. I've never been able to generate enough heat to melt steel, but I have been able to melt tin; tin, with a small melting point, can be melted so it is possible that steel, with an immense melting point, can also be melted. In my life, small experiences of suffering (and even many big ones) have been transformed so that they no longer were experiences of suffering. I hold this up as evidence that retroactive transformation of suffering can happen -- eg. I am suffering while running up that hill, but at some point in the future, that experience will no longer have been an experience of suffering (ugh. Tenses get really screwed up when you talk about changing the past! Perhaps "At some point afterwards, that experience no longer was an experience of suffering" is better) -- If this limitted broken world can transform small (and big) experiences of suffering, then it is possible that an Omnipotent God is able to transform immense experiences of suffering. --Bertrc (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Beuller? So, does that explain better how the "Transformative" theodicy addresses the classic PoE flavor. --Bertrc (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)