User talk:ClickerClock

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Issues with other user[edit]

Hi. One user has made accusations against me and reverted all my edits and revoked my user rights. I was not given any warnings prior to any of his reverts.

With regard to his accusations, this is what he said "1. You seem to be a BJP proponent editing BJP-related pages. 2. You've engaged in plagiarism".

He has not said from where the plagiarism is supposed to come, and has not asked me about it. I used an old version of wikipedia for some of the information, but most of it was rewritten or clearly referenced to websites.

His other accusation about BJP (the BJP is the current ruling party in India) is also wrong. I'm not a proponent of the BJP. I'm also not aware that RationalWiki forbids editors on the basis of political affiliation.

On the other hands, due to the work of one editor, all Hinduism articles are extremely biased not only against the BJP, but against all aspects of Hinduism in general (like factual errors about Hindu educational institutions, ...). That user clearly was a SPA with the mission of Hindu-baiting. My edits were trying to make them a bit more factual and balanced.

For example, in the honor killings article I removed the category Hinduism [1], because it is not supported by any Hindu text or authority or guru, and is not practicised in Hinduism. I'm open to the possibility that it happens also among Hindus (I don't know), but is not part of Hinduism (which category implies).

My issue was not that honor killings do or do not occur among Hindus (I simply don't know enough about it), but that it is not part of Hinduism and Hindu doctrine (which I am sure about), which the categorization implies. My issue was solely about the categorization.

In the David Frawley article (about a fairly mainstream Hindu writer on Hinduism and Yoga) I balanced some extreme smears with actual quotes from the author. It is a "Biography of A Living People" article and therefore should be held to some higher standards.

And in an article about a Hindu educational institution, I pointed out that there are factual errors in the claims in the article [2], which still have not been fixed.

Please can you help? Thanks. --Stargazer (talk)


...but you can understand my position: I don't think I am being unreasonable/over-sensitive. Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Could you delete all edits by I have strong opinions about high school? Xe's a troll. I already binned xer. —Supreme Leader Bigs of Goatistan (Words of Wisdom/Achievements) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

All edits seem to be reverted already. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not funny[edit]

I am not amused - especially after the vandalism on my user and talk page. Anna Livia (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. @Anna LiviaClickerClock (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Opening or attention getter - Address the individual: "ClickerClock,"
  • State your concern - Express your analysis of the situation in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. "I'm concerned that LynnR is no longer responding about the joke on the page on Anarchism."
  • State the problem as you see it - "The sentence 'By the way, any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police' is not explicitly marked as a joke, so RationalWiki might lose angered audience members or otherwise take this seriously."
  • State a solution - "Let's explicitly mark the sentence as a joke or delete the sentence."
  • Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - "How does that sound to you?"-- (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I did use the preview button[edit]

Not sure why you think I haven't. - Chris.Sherlock (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking you to use it more. Look at this. I had to click a button on every single edit you made on this wiki to say "this is not vandalism. stop flagging this edit". I had to manually click a button for all your edits. @Chris.SherlockClickerClock (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To keep or not to keep?[edit]

Should this be reverted? Birdman already posted that on both his user and talk page. I was not at all involved in this fiasco, and you seem to be the sysoping guru, so I'm asking here. LynnR (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@LynnR lets guess ignore birdman and let birdman rant —ClickerClock (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems like the best thing to do. Thanks. LynnR (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)