User talk:Christopher/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 10 August 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)(back)

You're alive?!

Welcome back to RW! --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Can’t say I remember you, you joined after I’d mostly stopped editing. Not sure how long I’ll stick around, I’m unlikely to be quite as active as I was, but I was curious to see what you’d done with the place. Christopher (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually I joined back in late 2018, and had my name changed to what you see in January 2019. It's just that up until last fall I was a mostly obscure editor. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 22:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet AFD

Can your create the AFD page for sockpuppet? Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who seems to think it should be deleted. Surely you can create it yourself. If you need help in figuring out how to do it, look at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rushin for instance as an example. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 08:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need to copy it off another AfD, there’s a link at sockpuppet which does it all for you. Christopher (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that Hancock is a pseudoscientist.

Although he is far out there, he never claims to be a scientist. A pseudoscientist can be defined as "a person who falsely or mistakenly claims to be a scientist." Rationalwiki should aim for clarity and precision, not straw-manning and misinterpretations.^{— Unsigned, by: 129.241.230.236 / talk}

Timestamp for archiving purposes. Continued at User talk:129.241.230.236. Christopher (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Renaming me

You could rename me ImGoogleableIfYouWantToStalkMe. That's a joke I've made elsewhere (where I use my real name). I've edited on Wikipedia extensively in the distant past (i.e. over a decade ago), but I generally don't like way Wiki cultures work (as opposed to more structured open-source development). I didn't sign my comment on goat because the comment above mine was also unsigned. I don't particularly feel like being memorable on here. TMqWQfNP9zx2FbrA (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I can put ImGoogleableIfYouWantToStalkMe as a nickname/signature. ImGoogleableIfYouWantToStalkMe (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That’ll probably be enough. As ikanreed said, people probably won’t assume you’re a spambot or something. Most of the time if you need to type someone’s name it’ll autofill it, the only problem would be pinging you but there’s always copy/paste. If you become more active, you’ll end up being known as TMq or something, if you don’t then it isn’t a problem. Christopher (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right

You're right about it either being one or the other. It was definitely intended as a draft then, that is, a draft of an essay. I wanted to make it clear that this was by no means a finished product.Leucippus 21:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we remove the category "Centrist Stupidity" from Nancy Pelosi's paper and join the Talk?

Isn't it an implicit rule of Wiki to remove controversial categories or descriptions, go through Talk, and then restore them?--Umaru16 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not this wiki. Christopher (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Lancb

Could you create a "Semi-retired" template for those, who want to have a break from Rationalwiki, but don't Lancb? Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar Template:semiretired already exists, although it isn’t well-used. I’ve seen a different message used somewhere, but it was just a copy-paste of the retired template wikitext onto a userpage directly with some words changed, not something in templatespace; if it’s just for personal use, you could do the same yourself. Christopher (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD votes

May you please keep them up a little longer? Sure, some results seem obvious or mounting, but I like to give these votes a window of a few days in case anyone can give an interesting argument. Even if there is an overwhelming consensus, it's still fine to leave that up for a few days anyhow. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is overwhelming consensus, I don’t really see the point of leaving it up; it’s obvious what the result will end up being. Looking at the 2021 archives and seeing that the last 8 edits are by me, I do appreciate your point, but I don’t see an issue with any of the individual AfDs (I’ll admit I was a little biased towards deleting ActuallyAutistic, but I did leave that up a while, all the others were overwhelming). Christopher (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh sure, I understand that a consensus seems obvious, and the result will likely end up as predicted, but it can happen that someone who doesn't attend to the wiki regularly might have a point to add, an unpopular opinion, after support amasses and might cause some people to think twice. I think we're in no rush to speedy delete unless contents are harmful to the upkeep of the wiki (e.g. libel, pedophilia endorsement). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You do have a point, as long as there aren’t multiple AfDs competing for attention I’ll let them run a bit longer. If I check the page and there are more than three I’ll probably still deal with at least one of them, but it seems like that probably won’t happen anyway. Christopher (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ironman block

3 days are too much for only one comment.Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 09:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar That’s your opinion. I personally don’t particularly care, it’s not like IRonMan was a pillar of the community, but a mod has made a decision. You’ve changed blocks before and been asked to stop before, try not to get on everyone’s nerves. Also please acknowledge the message I left on your talk page, you must’ve seen it. Christopher (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

But I didn't change blocks before, I only put him in ineligible in the AFD, cause I thought he's too new. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar You have changed blocks before, you let RobSmith edit his talkpage, unblocked GR-2020 and Arisboch. You thought he was too new, and you were wrong, there’s no such thing. Christopher (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RobSmith wanted to post a final stamement. I didn't know that GR-2020 and Arisboch were permabanned, since they didn't have a banned template. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The permanent ban on their account should’ve probably clued you in, and you don’t get to make these decisions. Don’t feel the need to reply if you haven’t got anything else to say; like I said, try not to get on everyone’s nerves. Christopher (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ninja and tech rights

Would they been taken away if somebody is too long inactive? Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 10:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech: apparently they’re now removed after two years of inactivity for security purposes, restored upon request. If it wasn’t for my few brief editing session in 2019 that would’ve been me.

Ninja: have a look at the list of ninjas, there are people who haven’t edited since 2015 on there.

Are you asking about your own ninja rights? You’ve never used them. I’d advise against thinking of user rights as things you should have for their own sake, they’re tools. Christopher (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Award

		Tireless Worker Award
		We, the unseen cabal (there isn't one) at RationalWiki, hereby recognize Christopher for removing useless content from the wiki.

--Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Christopher (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RPM

Thanks for cleaning up my edits over at RPM. Especially that link thing. UninspiringNickname (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@UninspiringNickname No problem. I came across the article myself a while back and was going to axe most of the stuff you did, but never got round to it.

You seem to be familiar with the topic, do you think it might be worth merging our articles on RPM and facilitated communication? I saw how much overlap the two topics had and considered proposing it at RW:MERGE, but no one ever checks there. Christopher (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm FAR from an expert on the subject; however, I do agree that might be preferable to keeping them separate, RPM does look kind of stubby. Maybe we could also ping @RationalWikiman2718, if he's still around, I think his opinion would be valuable. UninspiringNickname (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems @RationalWikiman2718 isn't checking in. I've just messed with the FC article. I'll be happy to back your proposal for a merger, and will continue to expand the article(s), even if at a slow pace! UninspiringNickname (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@UninspiringNickname That’s not a big surprise, he hasn’t edited since August 2020 (if you go on someone’s user page you’ll see a link to their user contributions at the bottom of the sidebar on the left). If you could think of a good name for an article that covers both techniques I’m sure you could merge the pages without having to go through RW:MERGE, it’s just pointless bureaucracy. Christopher (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said I don’t know anything about it, I’ve seen the idea before but stumbling across the RW page was the first time I heard the name. Seems like RPM is an attempted rebranding of FC, so you could have RPM as a subsection of FC. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Filter

Isn't User:Edit filter a bot? (Look at his user rights) Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Edit filter is a bot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should have the bot user right. Ninjas are human beings and can make themselves bots. All the bot user right does is hide your contributions from recent changes (and allow you to do a few other things like skip captcha, all of which are covered by the sysop right).

As the edit filter only blocks a few people at random points in the day, I didn’t think hiding its activistes from recent changes was necessary. It probably isn’t necessary to show them either, but there we are. Christopher (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting all my edits

This discussion was moved to Talk:Xenogender.

Timestamp. Christopher (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

HAES

Thank you for the very much needed reversion! I think the article warrants expansion, and I can go on quite a bit regarding this topic. UninspiringNickname (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Elements

Thanks for that :) Avida Dollars^{her again} 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I wanted them gone as well. Christopher (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule against having multiple active coops

no text-Hastur! (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RW is under huge stress right now and I don't think people will have patience to analyze any other problem on RW:CC. I think it should be on RW:ATIM first. GeeJayK (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

[EC]I shouldn’t have removed it without moving it anywhere (other than a user talk page), but as GeeJayK said I think it’s better at ATiM. USHistoryAnalyzer (a relatively new user) is probably only aware of the coop and not ATiM because he’s seen it in RC. Christopher (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite strange that either of you feels comfortable unilaterally deciding how much stress the wiki ought to be under and where an when complaints should be allowed-Hastur! (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You edited a post of mine for circular reasoning, I am genuinely interested in your issue with my edit

I'm trying to learn how to post here, and I thought I was making good contributions to the collective knowledge. Instead, I keep getting blocked, and my comments undone. Some edits have succeeded, but it's not clear why or why not for many edits.

If you have any thoughts you'd like to share with me, I'm asking.

Thanks,^{— Unsigned, by: Mytechtoday / talk / contribs}

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Christopher (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to be open minded!

Well, the real reason I am posting is to say thanks for the kind words. :-D

re. She/He, I was trying to preempt an editor who sometimes needles me by changing the "He's" to "She's" in my God posts. I decided to start with "She" from the beginning as a joke to throw them off-balance and to show that I honestly don't feel one way or the other about genderizing God (I actually recognize the patriarchal problems that people often try to enforce using the masculine pronoun) The editor is not a troll; just somebody having fun. Oof, my edits are so spaced out in time that I can't actually recall who it was . . . wait . . . was it you?

Anyhoo, like I said, this was really to say thanks for the nice encouraging words in your comment. I really appreciate them and what you contribute to the neighborhood, here! :-) --Bertrc (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I choose who and who not to converse with on my talk page

You do not have a say and in no way do you have the right to change my protection levels. This is not Conservapedia.--Mercian (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, it was Spud who protected the page, I reduced the protection from sysop to autoconfirmed^{— Unsigned, by: Christopher / talk / contribs}

We have had fun blocking each other

I am a long standing user of good standing. Now lets draw a line under this before it gets out of hand.--Mercian (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mercian Have you still not figured out that it wasn’t me who protected your talk page? I blocked you, knowing you could unblock yourself, purely as a method of communicating that fact. Christopher (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't back down on the Health at every size article

Be sure you don't back down an inch on the improvement of the Health at every size article. RW can't have an article filled with pseudoscience that justifies unhealthy behavior that medical science knows is unhealthy. It would be a black eye to the website.Yakikako (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Good News and Bad News?

"The usual “seems sane” isn’t appropriate, but he’s kept his insanity out of mainspace for years."

That's a shame, my therapist told me I've been making good progress.

Anyway, thanks I guess for the promotion. I hope you've enjoyed my non-mainspace material RockyRob97 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it's a demotion, not a promotion. You'll understand it when the time comes. GeeJayK (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I haven’t read much of it. I just noticed someone who’s been here for years hadn’t been demoted yet. Christopher (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, it must be my insanity, but I'm reading "Christopher changed group membership for RockyRob97 from Autopatrolled to Autopatrolled and Sysop. Getting a second title alongside your first means you're demoted?

I have been here, granted I've stuck to mostly talk pages,my userpage, and writing essays, but I have been here RockyRob97 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind I think I get it now RockyRob97 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The “Aiko Danuja” accounts

I just now saw them. I can’t even see the edits they made to my talk page. This guy has made death threats, rape threats, SWAT threats, doxxing threats, and just now called me a “salty crybaby Mormon” over a video game, specifically referencing an incident that occurred in 2019. This guy faked the IRL death of a very well known player to take control of a dead alliance in said game. I quit the game in August 2020. He’s forced minors into sexual role play before, and claimed to have raped someone and kidnapped them. He’s pissed because I have all the evidence showing this, and also that he’s alt right IRL. So please ban those accounts on sight. They will not act in good faith. Sievert 81 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sievert 81 I suppressed their edits as, although I didn’t understand them, they looked like doxing. If they appear again I’ll definitely ban on sight. Christopher (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem determined to pick a fight with me

What is your problem?--Mercian (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Accidental rollback that I immediately corrected. I understand it’s slightly annoying to get a useless notification but you’re being paranoid. Christopher (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Renamed 5932 back to Oxyaena

She's requested to be blocked again. This time there's a public log of it on my talkpage. Thought I'd let you know I renamed the dummy back to Oxyaena to prevent squatting again (so that you're not confused why the login doesn't work under the old name). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 13:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw, I never planned on logging into that account in the first place (don’t think I saved the password and I definitely didn’t remember it). As you pointed out on discord the account wasn’t needed in the first place, if this is an attempt at concealing that fact I think everyone’s figured that out already. Christopher (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock, you must not be a Wikipedia user with that sort of behavior. Fuck Jimbo. TomiFanboy (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No proof

What do you want, a flashing neon sign with his signature saying "THIS IS ME"? Judge Dredd (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know enough about this situation to really comment, but you didn’t explain yourself very well and other editors I trust didn’t suspect anything. I’m aware there’s some history between you and whoever you think this is, which causes you to lose your tech rights. Christopher (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The history is simple enough, I banned Smith from this site, after his editing in connection with a lawsuit was deemed disruptive. Smith proceeded to dox me, dox several members of my family, and ban evade several hundred times. When he edits it's always to the same largely fabricated articles he's written on his online enemies, as this account did. I lost Tech rights in connection to this, since I may have been using a Tech only tool to confirm Smith sock bans with IP addresses. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I emailed Judge Dredd and that is why he showed up from months of inactivity. He only logs in on this website to block that antifa troll. We need to get rid of that anti fascist troll. Why are you banning me? I tipped off Judge Dredd on discord. I should be rewarded. I have not been cooped like him or abd. Stop blocking me you Marxists. Lightman (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you? I was indeed informed on Discord... by a member of Antifa. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

JudgeDredd and Mikemikev can you please go on the treehouse discord. I know of other socks we can get blocked. I wouldn't usually comment here because I am banned but I have limited access to websites right now - Abd Rahman (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki business should be carried out on the wiki.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

wtf dude

You and Mario should stop acting like fucking kids, I swear, is this RationalWiki or a nursery? You both are fighting each other because you two think the other is out to get you. You both think the other has a grudge and wants to be seen as "the better kid". 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:F59D:4FAA:510E:4F1D (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

well said! (Profile) - (Spoke!) 12:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocks

Blocks can be modified and 'weak talk page puns' can be deleted as appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No need, 3.14 weeks is more than enough for a throwaway account. Christopher (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

As you do a fair amount of the deleting - and sometimes there is a particular logic for certain ban lengths (other than 'offensive on various grounds').

Is it a case of 'all mouth np trousers' or 'incapability'? Anna Livia (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Christopher (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I was questioning/commenting upon the capacities of those who just create 'instant delete-able accounts' rather than actually doing things on RW. Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For all the childish bickering with MS77

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.

And P.S. I don't care who "started it". --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 18:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note on "Essay:A Very Effective Essay"

I think it was satirizing homeopathy (thus intentionally empty). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re probably right, I’ve restored it. Christopher (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollbacks by accident

Have I caused rollbacks by accident? If so, I was unaware. I would like to know: How I’m causing them (I don’t mean to, I swear) How I can find the ones I’ve caused and undo them

• How to tell if I’ve caused one, so people don’t have to message me

^{— Unsigned, by: Allgoodusernamesweretaken / talk / contribs} 00:38, 22 April 2021

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.

@Allgoodusernamesweretaken: Here’s a Wikipedia page on the rollback feature. There are some differences with how we implement it, but the basic idea is the same. Everyone accidentally rollbacks occasionally and it isn’t a big deal, but you do it a lot (I’m guessing you edit from a phone?) and don’t correct it (as you don’t know how). When you rollback an edit you go to a new page that tells you what you’ve done, it’s hard to miss. All you need to do is click rollback again on your own edit, or use the “undo” button.

All the previous ones have already been undone. Christopher (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you create a page deletion

Can you create a new page deletion for Anatoly Karlin and then I write why it should be deleted. It doesn't seem to work when I try to make the page deletions. Oenophyta (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s more difficult if the page has already been created. I don’t have much motivation to I’m afraid, according to Bongolian it’s already been nominated twice and the vote was an overwhelming keep (the most recent time at least). Still a bit suspicious of anyone who comes here just to talk about Smith, if you are a legitimate user I apologise but I hope you can see.

If someone else does it for you or you figure it out, don’t add 900 characters of explanation; should be a brief summary with more detail on the page itself. Christopher (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm only here to remove some of Smith's articles he wrote based on people he was in feuds with. These aren't appropriate for the wiki; the Cofnas article was deletd, but there's still Anatoly Karlin, Lance Welton, Sean Last and Jonathan Anomaly (there also might be more).Oenophyta (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oenophyta Try one of those that hasn’t been nominated for deletion, mentioning the others and asking people to give their opinions on all of them. Make sure to add the template before doing anything else and it should work fine. Christopher (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Main template usage in Clinton body count article

Hey mate, I was trying mirror the format used in the rest of the article (the sections on Vince Foster and Seth Rich). Are those uses also improper? I'm less familiar with RW's policies and more familiar with Wikipedia's usage where fitting the general format of the page to make it look tidy is more important than the actual template used. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Enux150 As I said most of the uses of the template on the wiki are improper. The section was on whether Epstein was killed by the Clintons, but the linked article was just on Epstein, it wasn’t the “main article” on the topic of whether he was killed by the Clintons (probably has less detail on that). An example of proper usage would be Creationism#Young Earth creationism. If it’s used in the sections then feel free to revert me, as far as I know I’m the only person who gets this pedantic about it. Christopher (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Req.

If you could, please restore the page protection(s) I set, and block this account citing self-request. Thanks. Judge Dredd (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ll block the account, but I don’t see a reason to protect your talkpage. If you’re not here no one will edit it. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

One country, two systems

Sorry, I was in a hurry and forgot to finish the sentence. I fixed it. --Gale5050 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it happens to everyone. There’s rarely a need to hurry editing a wiki, and it’s a good idea to click show preview before submitting (or at least check the page once the edit has been saved). Christopher (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Stupid Extensions

Apologies, I had no idea it would do that. Sorry in advance if I'm replying wrong, by the way, I've never done more than grammar checks on a Wiki before. I disabled it for now. But given that all of my edits, including the ones unaffected by my extension, were undone, I gather you'd prefer me to leave that page alone?^{— Unsigned, by: The Guilty Pillow / 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 didn’t really look at your edits beyond noticing all the Drumpfs, reverting all of the ones with Drumpf in them whilst keeping the others would’ve taken forever. If you want to add your changes back in go ahead. Christopher (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's see... like this? (I hope.) And thank you very much. I hope there is a faster way to fix them rather than going through and retyping them all. I'll hunt that down if I can. --The Guilty Pillow (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You can look through the page’s fossil record (near the edit button) and copy/paste it. Christopher (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I give up, mate. I reinstated them all and was editing the whole page to fix them all in one go to ensure I didn't miss any. I just went through fixed every single one by hand and lost it all because of what I can only assume was a lack of patience. Why the hell would I have left them all in like that if I were at all serious about making a meaningful contribution to the page?^{— Unsigned, by: The Guilty Pillow / talk / contribs}

Sorry about that, I should’ve given you more of a chance to fix it. I might do it myself later. Christopher (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dubious sources asserted as being scientific

I've noticed a trend between certain articles (HAES, Intuitive Eating, etc.) and Splainer's defence of said articles: Splainer claims that her improvements demonstrate that these articles have a scientific, non-fringe, status; and she argued this by primarily referring to research published by the National Institute of Health (NIH) — as if this ensured its scientific respectability. I, however, remain sceptical about the credibility of Splainer's sources.
Incidentally, I recently came across this article "Post-Materialist" Science? A Smokescreen for Woo by Sandri Hassani, wherein he provides a study Nurturing Non-science (Mielczarek, Eugenie V., and Brian D. Engler. "Nurturing non-science." Skeptical Inquirer 37.3 (2013): 32-39.), which Hassani reports provides evidence that "acupuncture, Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, qigong, and Vedic medicine, are funded generously by the NIH". Clearly, this doesn't imply that all NIH research is pseudoscientific (including the research for HAES or Intuitive Eating), but it does demonstrate that there is probably a significant quantity that is, due to its being "generously funded".

Consequently, we shouldn't take references to supposedly "scientific" institutes at face value—as automatically conferring credibility to a given subject. Splainer's attempts to improve these articles, though admirable, involves research that (I believe) has been viewed uncritically.

I'm presenting this here, to you, because: (a) you have been a central figure in providing sceptical criticism and moderation towards the devlopment of these articles, and (b) I think it would be prudent for all users to exercise a stronger measure of scepticism towards articles that draw on research from NIH or other suspect publishing bodies.—Leucippus^Talk 18:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s definitely worth noting. I’ll read it when I get the chance and mention on the HAES talkpage. I admit I’d largely given up arguing over it, as Splainer et all were far more invested in it than I was. Christopher (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

NB: The majority of the article concerns the titular "post-materialist neuroscience", it was purely by coincidence that I found the evidence concerning "NIH and pseudoscience". As an aside, you seem to have the bones of a moderator —have you considered running? or to put it another way: the question isn't why should you become a mod? The question is why shouldn't you?—Leucippus^Talk 18:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks interesting regardless. I was elected before when I was beginning to drift away from the site in 2018, resigned due to inactivity, and continued drifting away until I returned February this year. I’ve considered running in the next elections, having all of the user rights of a mod (as a tech) but not being able to use them when they’re needed is frustrating, but it seems there’s now an expectation that mods always act “professionally”, which I would resent. Plus my past record would probably hurt my chances, who’s to say I won’t disappear again. Christopher (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

True, true, some of your talents would be wasted in that arena. Nevertheless, it is refreshing to have a technician with a moderator's temperament: decorum and intellectual maturity; but combined with a meticulous work ethic—for which moderators' are found wanting. Disappearing into the aether, again? I shall not dissuade you from your repose ... so long as you return.—Leucippus^Talk 20:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems I can count on at least one vote if I do decide to run. Christopher (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Name filter

Can you not block Oliver Smith's name on the word filter for new account creations? Coombs is creating them almost everyday (view the block log) 2A06:1700:0:12:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs/RationalWiki#Oliver_D._Smith_(2016_-_present) 2A06:1700:0:12:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

His name is already blocked, the weird fonts are to get around that. Anyone who puts a bit of effort in can evade the filter. Christopher (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Was I out of line?

I made a comment on the Count Dankula talk page but it was taken down. Did I violate a rule in making that comment? Thanks. --78.17.78.45 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasn’t taken down, I just moved it to the bottom where new sections are meant to go. I agree the page is shit; it was nominated for deletion a while back and barely survived, might nominate it again soon. Christopher (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that :) Thanks again. --78.17.78.45 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ronin MacBeth trustee

Could you link me the page where FCP says he's included due to an error? Kevs ^Ping! 11:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar It’s in the fossil record of Template:Board talk header. Christopher (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Biblical scientific errors

I agree. I have made no new changes, I'm just removing the content that was added without first being argued from the talk page. ^{— Unsigned, by: Keyboarder / talk / contribs}

@Keyboarder 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.

Say that on the article’s talkpage, not here. This isn’t difficult. Christopher (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad, was in a rush sorry about that.

The talk page isn't really needed just to explain why new content is removed if it's baseless, that what the change summary is for. I'm not against using the talk page, but it needs to be used first by the person attempting to add a claim, not the person clearing it up.--Keyboarder (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

When an unregistered user removes 3000 bytes of content from a page without a good explanation, they’re reverted. When they keep trying to remove the content with explanation, they’ll be reverted again. No amount of arguing that you shouldn’t have to use the talkpage will convince people the content should be removed, all you’re doing is annoying everyone. Christopher (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

All I'm doing is cleaning up what is clearly a big mess. This content has gone back and forth from several users for over a month without anyone using the talk page. Just reading over the content being remove makes it fairly obvious it shouldn't have been added in the first place. In fact, the talk page already ready mention one on the point being removed is in fact inaccurate. Until someone actually uses that talk page to argue for their inclusion, these points are going to get removed.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You should argue over these points on the talk page, not here. Usually (but not always) silence is enough support to make this kind of change. GeeJayK (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. If you wish to have these points added please make you case in the talk page. For now I will remove them.--Keyboarder (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection

I missed your change and borked the timer, can you please change it back? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

If they're dead, then why there are still two bureaucrats? Kevs ^Ping! 12:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kevlarstar Not anymore we don't. I just stripped them both of their bureaucrat rights. Spud (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spud and Kevlarstar They’re both users on the Russian wiki, they share the same user rights as the main wiki. Rudivabot never edited (presumably a bot that was never used) and PieOfInsanity hasn’t edited since 2017, so stripping their rights shouldn’t be an issue. Christopher (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. I wouldn't have done it if it would have been. Spud (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please let me back on the RW Discord server!!!!!!!!!!

Why did I get kicked out of there???? Unclescrooge (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you kept comparing RW to 1984s Ingsoc society, were asking (rather ineptly) to get support to get another editor banned in that coop you tried to start and in general were rather spammy. You had been muted for the latter before. Give me a motivation to let you back in because I'd rather not have someone spam up the place with inept melodramatic rage. Techpriest (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

[EC]You got kicked for being annoying, you don’t get let back in just because you asked. Christopher (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

How was I being annoying????? Unclescrooge (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

See Sirius’ comment. Christopher (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Using all these question and exclamation marks is indeed annoying and something you shouldn't do. GeeJayK (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Unclescrooge Calimiaus informed me that you tried to seek his support to ban me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well comrade, don't you think vote fraud is bannable offense???? Unclescrooge (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruption, just drop the stick. Please. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In spite of all our disagreements...

If you ran for mod this November I'd still endorse you. :O}) --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn’t planning on running, but you’re the second person to say that so I might. Christopher (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Creationism, debunking, frustration, and an apology

I'm sorry for being aggressively dismissive about creationism, it's just that I get frustrated with the way that particular subject gets so repetitive. It's as if most of the people making the claims never stopped to consider that the claims they think are so clever might have already been addressed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I wasn’t offended on creationism’s behalf or anything. I agree that particular “rebuttal” wasn’t worth mentioning on the page, ceationist arguments are often so self-evidently wrong it can feel like an insult to the reader’s intelligence to “debunk” them. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Prpht mhmd

It's kinda fency to tell if it is Ken. I'm not gonna unblock, though. I am not Ken, though I won't argue with you that he is Ken. --Gale5050 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

However, User:Survivor is Ken and I failed to detect that, which is why I just want to know more. --Gale5050 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gale5050 Ken’s style is hard to describe (aside from the obvious stuff like overusing the word “gentlemen”), but very easy to spot once you’re familiar with it. I’d just leave suspected Ken accounts alone for now. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks

for afding count dankula. ive been meaning to but ive been a little too high a little too often, and when ever ive done it someone ends up having to fix it anyhow. but yeh, cheers AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully we can be rid of it this time. Christopher (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

TERF List Deletion

Completely agree that having that is inappropriate for mainspace, but I think you should probably drop a quick note on Charlotte's talkpage as well letting them know it was deleted too. I know that's only strictly policy for AfDs, but given that page wasn't an obvious troll and you mention "If the creator disagrees she can resurrect the page and I’ll afd it properly," I think it at least warrants a heads up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re probably right, shame I didn’t see this until the next day. My thinking was she’d get a notification when I undid her link adding edit. Christopher (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

signature

how can I sign with this? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Monet/sig

help:wikisig Christopher (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Award

		Tireless Worker Award
		We, the unseen godless cabal at RationalWiki (there isn't one), hereby recognize Christopher for helping us remove shitty content from the wiki.

--Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call section blanking tireless work, but thanks. If you’d waited a few minutes you’d have had another diff to include, when all of her articles are gone I’ll take a proper look through her remaining contributions. Christopher (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat dumb question

Hi Christopher,

I was wondering, what is the recent deal with many pages centered around trans-exclusionary groups and/or persons being deleted? I've noticed that many of the articles were written and/or highly modified by CharlotteTakveis too, and that alone has been used as a reason to justify deletion. Is it non-notability, or is there another overarching reason I'm failing to see?

Thanks, Celeste (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not Christopher, but this is relevant. Notability is an issue, but there are other concerns as well. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fullest Nelson and User:Fuller Nelson

Probable socking (see usernames and edits). --Gale5050 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gale5050 While I'll admit their poorly disguisded victim-blaming regarding atheophobia and unironic use of the badly-defined "nEw aThEiSm" snarl word is definitely sus and indeed, their trying to back this up with an article that didn't even justify the uncharitable position that they wanted it to justify makes me suspect that they might be Kenny, I'm not gonna make that assumption without further evidence. Also, thus far their activity doesn't seem to make much of a headache at the moment, other than trying to justify atheophobia on the SB in just one thread. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 06:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, banned for ban evasion. FYI, templated signatures don't send pings properly. --Gale5050 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dutchbag

Malicious slander?” I have no sympathy for this bullshit. Multiple individuals have been charged, and deservedly so.Leucippus^Talk 17:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Argue with him about it if you want, but that’s not a justification for removing the vote. Christopher (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Dutchbag’s statement is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Over 532 people have been charged https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1 sure, it appears that the majority are not being charged explicitly with “insurrection”—but this is just being pedantic over technicalities which arose due to the sheer idiocy of the trump mob. If they were bright enough to commit a successful insurrection, they would have. Labelling the article as “malicious slander” is just apologia that vanquishes my confidence in this individuals capacity for voting on serious matters. Leucippus^Talk 17:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

charged but not convicted ie innocent until they so convicted AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to them on the AfD page. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

UT

ad-AMG:True. Also Dutchbag does have a point about “slander” considering these are living persons who are unconvicted. Leucippus^Talk 17:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ceiling Cat Template.png

Ceiling Cat is very displeased that you deleted his template. ^{— Unsigned, by: Viril.Feline.Wyyzrd / talk / contribs} 17:36, 1 July 2021 (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.

Bongolian (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and preventing an edit war. I really needed a third party in this mess. That said I have concerns about this behavior.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem, things seem to have died down now. Christopher (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if died down is the correct term. Now we have a deletion proposal for the article whose timing (literally 16 minutes after your reply) is IMHO a little too convenient.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And now he is using all caps (yelling at me) on the deletion page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. But to be safe I did provide the information he requested and the first post got "multinational company's fucking PR statement" response. I have concerns and there is no way I am telling this guy what my Discord handle is as I want a written record of his behavior.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Heads up

Going over its history I noticed you edited Critics of the historicity of Jesus a while back and we have had something about it being on mission and a submission for deletion going to be filed. Just wanted you go have a heads up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A fresh, new talk page? For moi? Well, since it's here I guess I'll just post pictures of my cock!

Impressive, no? I bet you're even a bit jealous of me right now. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh also, the BoN, I KNOW you are probably right man, but... I don't know, sometimes I feel the need for a wall of text. So I inflicted it on the BoN! Mwahahahahah (Very evil me, I know...). Anyway, au revoir. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Fucking agelast

Still waiting on that funny bone transplant, I see? Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 19:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was great, but you shouldn't edit other people's comments on talkpages without their permission. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 19:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I know it’s against policy to edit other people’s comments (and rightly so). Also the section heading was intended, if not apparent, to be purely tongue-in-cheek. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 21:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise, no harm done. Christopher (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As a slightly tangential aside: if you try to disappear from this website again, remember, we’re all here for you.

Could you bring back my page on Whippomorpha please?

@Christopher I have worked really hard on that article and would love if all of my hard work hasn't gone to moot. SixtyNine (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Copy-pasting from Wikipedia is not hard work. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

B U R N ! !^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs}

I based my article on Wikipedia but I made several changes to style. I'd like the cladogram as well and wanted to keep it. SixtyNine (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I HAVE DELETED YOU, SCREAM!! B U R N !!!! SixtyNine (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You Can Easily Reduce Weight Faster Feel Energetic And Also Possess Fantastic Peace Of Mind By Taking Effective Weight Loss Supplements.

Please delete as it appears to be a blatant spam attempt. Not sure if its ban evasion, though. --Gale5050 (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I got it. I think. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Darkmatter2525

I think Plutocow believes that this user is impersonating the public figure, though in my view we ought to check before we block them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, I hadn’t heard of him. I agree we should check if the account actually makes an edit, otherwise just let it gather dust. Christopher (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that plan. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my change for no apparent reason

Why? Because it isn't very conventional? It feels extreme? Those are not reasons to delete. My change is clearly on topic. Deletion of clearly on-topic additions is not consistent with RationalWiki's aim of promoting "constructive dialogue". Based on internal articles describing what kind of place RationalWiki is, my change seems highly appropriate. In particular, RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, and RationalWiki is not neutral. My change is well within the stated purpose of RationalWiki: to criticize anti-science (e.g. covid deniers). Let me further quote from RationalWiki's internal documentation: "it encourages [...] opinion formation", "This focus on discussion captures the essence of Internet forums" (deleting is not discussion), and "we openly avoid any pretentions [sic] to neutrality on controversial subjects". If you want to criticize what I wrote, fine. I welcome that over summarily reverting on-topic changes.

Not the slav king (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rules lawyering, how quaint. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Three facsist admins that need to be banned

There are three horrible admins who have been abusing their power, bullying me and need to be permabanned:

1. LongStylus, who collapsed a post just because it came from a Conservapedian, proving he is just a bigot and has no place as an admin. 2. Plutocow, not only did he collapse the thread again but he BANNED an innocent user for the "crime" of disagreeing with him! 3. PanGalacticGargleBlaster, this nincompoop assumed I was a TROLL for no good reason, and placed me in the "vandal bin"! He clearly cannot engage in good faith!

If these three athiestic inbeciles are banned, it would be a good first step to make this comunity great. ^{— Unsigned, by: RationalConservapedian / talk / contribs}

Yeah, you tell 'em! This website unfairly bans people like poor Scrooge for no reason! We need to rise up and join the resistance to put an end to this fascist site! Mickey M. Mouse (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Now we should also add Knight Commander to the list of evil fascist admins that need to be banned!!! 65.49.2.195 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for moderator

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

Bongolian (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How you doin kid? It’s time! Don’t forget to “shoot your cuffs”.

Paulie Walnuts (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

hi

thanks bro152.22.44.26 (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me

Thanks fr welcoming me, I do feel vary welcome so you decided if I stay here of not because my grammar changes ar not acceptable and I may have made someone angry with those grammar changes Wik ₁₀ 23:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blaming a man for the death of his own kids due to illness isn't vandalism?

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Don't know what world you're living in but that seems like vandalism to me. Vee (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

not an unusual claim vis a vis marx. He did not work and thus could not provide, chris was preventing mod abuse 2600:4040:403C:F300:9C12:8E49:F2E8:C108 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that basically poor shaming? Not everyone can work. The idle rich certainly don't, but they have enough money due to their trust funds their kids can live easy and comfortably. Vee (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(EC)I'm pretty sure Marx worked and earned money as a journalist, but Christopher's talk page is not the place for that. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I take umbrage with Christopher reverting the block. OSD's block was warranted. Vee (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

his journalism career was short lived. He sponged off his friend. He also called for legally forcing everyone to work,(marxists are unfair authoritarians in practice) which various marxist gvmts implemented. He was also a raging antisemite 2600:4040:403C:F300:9C12:8E49:F2E8:C108 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all extremely loaded language and not quite accurate either of biographies of Marx I had read. It's not so much "sponged" as he was financially supported by Engels so that he would produce the writings Engels wanted. How is that really all that much different then contract work? It's not as if the first two volumes of Capital did not involve tremendous labour and research to produce. Also his children died in ways typical of the time, and was not at all uncommon in the Victorian Era. To baselessly claim that it was entirely his fault is kind of harsh, though definitely not historically supported. Mentions of his bigotry is already present in the article. That isn't an excuse to spread historical misinformation. It should also be said that his antisemitism is heavily contested even among Jewish scholars. The criticism mostly comes from those on the political right. I take no issue in calling Marx bigoted though, he was. That doesn't give us the go ahead to state any negative thing we want about him regardless of it's factual basis. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC).

Could you take this to Talk:Karl Marx? Christopher (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm blocked from editing the page due to a trigger happy mod, which is why this is a mod dispute. Content disputes should not be done via blocking, also onlysortadumb I assume u r trolling. Marx's antisemitism is extreme and obvious https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

We don’t need to rehash these tired accusations on my talkpage. You’re blocked from editing here as much as you are from Talk:Karl Marx (ie evidently not at all). Christopher (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

not contributing to a place with such petty gross mods who cant make up their minds or abide by their own rules, no thx. Not editing a talk page I'm unfairly barred from editing. Also the antisemitism thing is ot an accusation, it's in plain English for anyone to read 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb I looked at the block log, and it's a different IP address that's blocked. Apparently this guy swapped routers. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not swap routers to avoid a ban from an atheist wiki boy 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

[EC] He didn’t need to swap routers. Single target IPv6 blocks are essentially symbolic, which is why I shouldn’t have bothered unblocking this annoying BoN. Christopher (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

a world where rw mods learn /64 blocks 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That happened in September 2021. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not using a vpn or proxy boy 2600:4040:403C:F300:D5CA:1F44:A6A5:C908 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wisconcom

Heya, just letting you know that the user once known as Wisconcom has requested to be renamed back to that username (see RationalWiki:Requests to change username). You apparently registered an account under that name to test a mediawiki feature. Since the user technically was actually using that name and yours is technically squatting it (not maliciously I presume ;) ), I've renamed the account to ChristopherTestUser. Thought I'd let you know. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Kasunex

I would just like to say that Plutocow is lying. This is the actual sequence of events:

- I write a civil description of my issues with the Jefferson page on the talk.

- Only Sort of Dumb responds dismissively. We argue for a bit. He also calls me disgusting.

- Vee intervenes to put my section under the troll blocker. Nothing about my post was a troll. I initially think it's OSOD putting me under the troll and putting it under him in turn, but once I realize it's Vee, I start putting it on her.

- Plutocow enters, calls me dumb, says I'm trying to defend bestiality, and bans me for uncivility/moving the troll.

- I began making sock-puppets.

I don't know how on Earth any of this behavior is in any way in keeping with this wiki's stated principles. I brought up a reasoned critique of the article and was insulted, declared a troll, and banned. You don't have to agree with what I said but any plain-faced reading of the situation is damning. Every single thing I said was in good faith and with the intent of making this wiki better, yet I was scorned for it because my opinion was unpopular. If you truly believe in this wiki's vision, you should not stand for it.

Also, for the record, I'm telling the truth about historian's takes on the Jefferson-Hemmings situation, and should not have been slandered for it.

"In all the venues I have visited, from Houston to Stockholm, one question always arises: Did they love each other?" The question brings up many thorny issues in the context of a master-slave relationship. "Rape and the threat of it blighted the lives of countless enslaved women," she notes. "At the same time, some black women and white men did form bonds quite different in character than from those resulting from sexual coercion." - Gordon-Reed, the main historian on the matter. ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.225.28.46 / talk / contribs} 21:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page comments from banned users

Per CS, they are supposed to be removed. I won't edit war with you over it though. Plutocow (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Per rw:blocking policy, users shouldn't be blocked from editing their own talk pages. Christopher (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly spamming their talkpage with alt accounts can be considered abuse of TPA. Plutocow (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Four edits total (less, probably zero, when TPA was first revoked) is not "spamming". TPA is revoked by default these days. Christopher (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ken may or may not be back again

@Plutocow, Cosmikdebris, Rabbitseatcarrots, LeftyGreenMario, Christopher, and Vee I just temp-blocked two fresh accounts, LarryKhoo and Mgiganteus, for making remarks on the Saloon Bar that sound vaguely like something that Ken would say. However, I'm not familiar enough with his nonsense to be sure whether or not I made the right call, so could someone with more experience than me on the bastard please double-check? Thanks. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck: it's a fucking (swearing for emphasis) duck. It has all the tells of Ken (once you pay attention it's really easy to notice). Same bullshit about fundie birth rates, same shit about Putin and the Ukraine... block evading (something Ken does in spades). Vee (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

All right, he's officially smacked down again. (As an aside, it's hilarious that he thinks that high fundie birth rates will make more fundies; that factor is counterbalanced by fundies being terrible parents whose penchant for abuse drives their children to want as little to do with them as possible, including in terms of ideology.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Luigifan18 Why is this on my talk page? Why did you ping so many people? It’s not that important.

If you don’t know whether an account is Ken/some other banned user, don’t block it temporarily, just wait until you can be sure and then block permanently. Same with spambots. Your insistence on temp blocking or vandal binning accounts because you have a hunch is completely irrational. Try to consider the consequences of your actions in the case where your hunch is right, and the case where it is wrong.

Plutocow is right about not feeding the troll with block messages. Once again, you seem to enjoy using your sysop powers too much, and forget that they’re just tools. Christopher (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add proper citations

You added a section on casual racism on the page for Murray Bookchin without giving a proper link or source. If you are going to paste entire quotes it's best to use a quote box template as well. It helps people find the source you reference and look at the context and reliability of the source itself. As of now it looks awkwardly pasted into the article. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it wasn't actually my edit. I'll just remove the section. Christopher (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

oh my bad. I don't know if it's necessary to remove it. I can try to locate the source and create the citation. My inattentive ADHD got the best of me again. My apologies. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk).

I should've paid more attention to the quality of the edit when I added it a year ago, it was still my responsibility. I don't think it's worth including, although I won't stop you adding it back if you want to. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"JCMLuis" is a probable ban evader

Hence why I deleted the user page. I was following @Plutocow's example. Vee (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vee You shouldn't block "probable ban evaders". Best case scenario you're right, Ken creates a new account and you've accomplished nothing (which seems to have happened here), worst case scenario you've scared away a new user. This site is far too hostile to new users.

If you insist on doing so, blocking them from editing the saloon bar only (as LGM sometimes does) is a lot better than a complete block with talkpage access revoked. Generally, talkpage access should only be revoked if it is abused. Christopher (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I wish to remove any proof of my activities here

May I please delete my talk pages? I am leaving this site forever, and I do not need any of my detractors using the contents of my talk pages to attack me. Wisconcom (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We couldn't "remove any proof of your activities" even if we wanted to, especially with some of them being documented off-site. The only action you can take to obscure your activities here (aside from deleting your userpage which you've already done) is requesting a rename. Your talk page+archives would still exist under either your old or new username; they can't be deleted per RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Talk_pages. Christopher (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. As I pointed out on Wisconcom's talk page, he is already contravened policy with his attempts to whitewash his talkpage with premature archiving. Our standards explicitly state that removal of talk-page activity will not happen. Our standards state: "Talk pages should never be deleted." Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:53, 23 December 2022 (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.

Plutocow (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)