RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3383Goal: $5000

User talk:EVDebs

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, EVDebs!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:


Welcome! Its great to have you here, I am sorry for nuking your open source article, it was great actually :). Hopefully I have atoned for my sin by helping get this project here rolling. I think you will find most of us here value wikipedia a lot and agree with its missions and goals (and many of us edit there). I am pushing the idea that RW should be complimentary to wikipedia, I am encouraging the meme that what we should offer is an article that people can come to after reading wikipedia and learn something new, see a new perspective or be engaged in a way that wikipedia can not because of its guidelines. I hope you will enjoy your time here.

Anyway, again welcome, and I am sure I will be bumping into you frequently as we go. tmtoulouse vex 21:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I for one welcome our new socialist overlord.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 21:40, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the welcoming. I hope I'll have a few good things to contribute. (BTW, TMT, the only regret I have is that you caught me before I could add a few references -- I was totally going to go Coulter on the page and add a bunch of misleading links, just like the creationist articles, and I'm pretty sure I could have found a "reliable" source for at least 75% of what I said. At least you tried to make that cesspool live up to its own billing; too bad ASchlafly's so autocratic and paranoid.) EVDebs 23:31, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
*sigh*, are you a front for the entire godless liberal conspiracy worldwide???? ..... if so, then welcome! You might see me around a bit, you socialist swine. --ηοξιμαχονγ 23:36, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

So, no kidding, EVDebs isn't your real name :-) ? Hahaha, Eugene Debs is a hilarious historical figure. Welcome, glad to have someone who's from a respectable site around here. As you can see, most of the rest of us are the dregs of the interwebs. Welcome, and hope you have fun!-αmεσ (!) 19:38, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Eugene Debs is awesome. But not as awesome as Huey Long. GHammer and Sickle text gold.svgdlessLiberal 08:54, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

EVDebs[edit]

"does not consider scientific/rationalist POV to be inherently equivalent to NPOV"

Context matters. For some articles, the historical/social science/political science POV is the NPOV. HeartGoldJump up and down 00:51, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
Indeed, thus the weasel word "inherently". The problem is that at Wikipedia, it isn't always the NPOV. EVDebs 00:55, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
Agreed.HeartGoldJump up and down 01:01, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

block[edit]

The reason for your block was random. Human agreed to make me sysop for 6 seconds, and you were just a random casualty. I also blocked three or four others. So no, I didn't really take issue with your name, and I am not really a sysop. Bohdan 00:53, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I just died laughing from reading your "welcome box". Bohdan is a hard-core commie and is on our side, except he hates socialists. Go figure. humanbe in 01:58, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Sick Bastid[edit]

With all those "bible translation" UXBs. I'm waiting, nervously, for the N-word Bible UXB (care of Dave Chappelle?). Or not... humanbe in 01:56, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Good Vibrations[edit]

I've played with your vibrator vibrations art - you might lije to play again. Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 09:42, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Dreaded redlink[edit]

You've got a redlink on your userpage: singularity, might like to link it to Black hole? SJGsjg 21:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Would you mind looking at an article for me?[edit]

I made an article on Zionism, and I was wondering if you would look over it for me. Since you're obviously very knowledgable in things pertaining to Judaism, more so than me, I'd like you to look at it and make sure I didn't accidently pass on any kinds of stupidities or accidentally make anything up. Researcher 22:32, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • Well, it could use a lot of cleanup and some references, but it's a great start. And I'm not that knowledgeable about Judaism, though maybe a bit more than most by virtue of having been a bit of a fanboy (I grew up Catholic and I'm now an atheist). I'll take a hack, though. EVDebs 22:43, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I'd greatly appreciate it. I mostly work on this site from work, where I don't have time to do things really properly. And, when it comes to this, I was mostly working from the fuzzy understanding I've picked up from poli sci theory, rather than historical studies or Jewish studies. (I went through some phases of religious fanboyism as well as a youth--perhaps I shoudl write a page about Vodun at some point...) Researcher 22:49, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Move[edit]

I hope you get around to fixing all those double redirects you left behind when you moved Bible translations to Guide to Bible translations --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 11:08, 1 December 2007 (EST)

  • I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do -- if I read the "what links here" page correctly on Bible translations, most of those were done when you merged all the individual translation articles into that one article. I took a couple of links out of Bible, but I wasn't responsible for the links in the other article on "kinds". EVDebs 14:37, 1 December 2007 (EST)
"Double redirects" can be listed from "special pages". Just list 'em, see where they end up and fix them? Shouldn't take too long I hope. humanUser talk:Human 16:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 17:33, 1 December 2007 (EST)
No, thank you (or whoever did) for catching them and making them go away! humanUser talk:Human 18:46, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Wut r u talking about?!!!!!!!!!!! --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 18:48, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Someone fixed them. humanUser talk:Human 18:51, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Evening![edit]

What on God's brown polluted earth are you doing up at this hour, editing away? --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA harass stalk 03:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)

  • Chronic depression + chronic unemployment = strange sleep cycles. Even though I live on the East Coast I've been essentially on Pacific time for the last two years or so. (BTW, I'm not quite sure I remember what the afikomen is (isn't that the hidden matza?), but your username -- it is something that could ruin a Seder, yes?) EVDebs 03:29, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Well, it ruins things only if cancer is a bad thing... --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA harass stalk 19:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Haha, I'm almost on Hawaii time half the time. Whiel living in EST like you. humanUser talk:Human 19:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)
I'm in EST, but constantly, um, awake, so I should really switch to Zulu. Yes, a radioactive afikomen would really ruin a seder. Might be cool tho.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:05, 6 December 2007 (EST)
I've been waiting a long time for an opportunity to inform others of this, but the color for the initials "RA" in my signature was chosen to reflect the "true" color of radiation (you can check pictures of the insides of working nuclear reactors to verify), as opposed to the green color supposed by pop culture (a fallacy largely spread by the Simpsons cartoon). Not that any of you care *sniffle*. --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA harass stalk 00:37, 14 December 2007 (EST)
That's very Cherenkovian. As it happens, I heard somewhere that free electrons in solution are quite blue. EVDebs 00:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

commenting out[edit]

hey, I saw what you did at chickenhawk - I think it makes more sense to cut and paste weird stuff like that to the talk page? otherwise it just vanishes... humanUser talk:Human 00:01, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Sure, if you want. Personally, I think if it belongs anywhere it belongs on Bill Clinton, though. EVDebs 00:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, that would be fine. The only problem with commenting out via html is it sorta vanishes. Rather than being discussed, say, on the talk page. Just sayin', is all. I know you meant well. humanUser talk:Human 00:37, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Michael Jackson Liberal[edit]

So we attack him even though he`s a liberal because on the whole he`s an idiot? Well maybe thats an American opinon based on American bias. The fact that he ended racism in music and MTV, was 1 of the first people in the 80`s to support Aids charities despite its taboo attachments from the conservative right, has given 300 million dollars to charity, is a friend of bill clinton, basically means he is a desent person outside of the media spotlight and is a very well known liberal. Realist2 16:50, 17 December 2007 (EST)

  • I think you want Liberalpedia. We only do politics as it relates to rational thinking, and even from a liberal standpoint, people who support scammers like Geller do more to hurt liberalism than they help; they perpetuate stereotypes that liberals are soft of mind as well as soft of heart, which we simply don't need. EVDebs 20:08, 17 December 2007 (EST)

And not a child molester! No! Definitely not! 193.113.235.174 17:07, 17 December 2007 (EST)

  • Well, as a matter of law he isn't. As a matter of fact, who knows. He's certainly an expert at incriminating himself enough to ruin his rep without getting convicted. EVDebs 20:08, 17 December 2007 (EST)
I agree with the Debster on this one. The mention is only a "slander" of Jackson inasmuch as he gets taken in by Geller's woo. It illustrates Geller's hanger-on-ism without impugning anything about Jackson except his credulity. humanUser talk:Human 20:24, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Also in the edit summary you called me chris crocker, i know who this person is and i would like to no why you found it necessary to make this comment, was it ment to be an insult and if so why would I find it insulting? Please get back to me on this directly. Realist2 09:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

  • If you know who Chris Crocker is, you have a pretty good idea of what I was getting at. Basically the message is "lighten up". EVDebs 11:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)
  • Yes hes the gay internet Britney fan who gets a hell of a lot of hastle of the conservative right. If your intention was to label me a homosexual by calling me chris Crocker (which I suspect it was) I would like you to know that it didn`t bother me. Realist2 15:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I think rather than calling you a homosexual he was calling you an obsessed fan-boy who takes things too personally. Researcher 16:08, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I wouldn't even say obsessed per se -- just incredibly over-the-top. And badly -- and willfully -- misinformed about the point of this site. EVDebs 16:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Why have you reverted my edit on Mein Kampf ?[edit]

Dreadnought 11:32, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Damn you for being so productive![edit]

Quite writing numerous useful articles, you're making the rest of us look bad!  :-) --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:14, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Yes. EVDebs, you are clearly in violation of our 99/1 commandment. I expect to see more talk, talk, talk and less valuable contributions from you in the future. Please help us run this non-encyclopedic learning resource into the ground. Goatspeed. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:51, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I hate you all, and just for that I'm going to write like two more articles tonight just out of sheer spite. (You guys can contribute...) EVDebs 00:11, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Wifebeaters[edit]

I'm afraid I don't see the point of the article you just created. It's... it's about fashion for crying out loud. Not exactly relevant to RationalWiki's goals.

In my infallible, just, loving, magnanimous, perfect, wizened, and brilliant—did I mention I was humble, too?—opinion, it should be deleted. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Shrug. I'm not attached to it -- I just filled in the blank because there was a red link. I'm inclined to think we should have some sort of article on domestic violence, but I'm not quite sure how to frame it. EVDebs 13:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Well, wifebeaters is about the shirt, not domestic violence. And if we do make an article on domestic violence (and be "we" I mean you), it should probably be titled [[Domestic volence]]. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:07, 30 January 2008 (EST)
PS Just because there is a red link to an article, doesn't mean the article should exist. Sometimes it is better to just remove the link. Or, if the link is meant as a joke, re-route it to a different but still relevant article that does exist. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I think if we make the article mentioned above it should actually be called domestic violence. People are more likely to link to it then... humanUser talk:Human 14:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Isn't that what I said? --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:16, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, but you speled teh likned vesrion worng. humanUser talk:Human 14:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I never spell anything wrong. I just make tyops. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 14:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Wondering if you can help[edit]

I am looking to get wiki software on my personal computer, but am at a loss for how to do this. Can you, or anyone else here, help? Thanks! Craig

  • Try www.mediawiki.org. MediaWiki is what we use, what Wikipedia uses, and actually probably what most wikis use these days. They should have the system requirements on the website. EVDebs 14:28, 5 February 2008 (EST)

You're cruel..[edit]

Please, not the wedgey bit![1] - Icewedge 14:56, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Reverts[edit]

We're actually replacing wp links with red ones at the moment, with the intention of writing the actual articles later. No reverting on sight. Bad EVDebs. Jellyfish! 19:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Orgone[edit]

A one man act over at wp:orgone is driving me nuts. He has annoyed me enough the name calling has slipped out so I am taking a break. But any suggestions on what to do? tmtoulouse vex 01:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Can you give us specific diffs, TrundleMouse, to make joining in the battle easier?
The history of the article is now one giant edit war between me and him, at this point he has completly dismantled the article into a shell of itself. I am trying to focus on just getting pseudoscience into the lead. I have brought out 4 sources for it and he just reverts it every time. tmtoulouse vex 01:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I think at this point you basically have two solutions -- meatpuppetry or RfC. I suggest going for the latter. Beyond that, I have no idea :-( EVDebs 01:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I put the article up at RfC and several other places for dispute resolution, gotten very little feedback, formal mediation might be possible but I am really not liking the guy....ah well. Thanks though. tmtoulouse vex 01:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
You could always ask DrTorstenHenning for help. Apparently he has battled the nutjobs extensively on this very article. You may also want to summon the Rational Skeptics group on Wikipedia, whose goal is the same as yours. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 01:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I didn't understand a word of it, but that sounded like smart advice. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Bad link on RSg. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Huw! I fixed it. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank, RA (I hope). Trent, it looks like wikilawyer war, of the saddest kind. I can't meatpuppet for ya, (because I wouldn't know how!) but if I can figure out how to contribute I will. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Trent, can you at least "bring it here"? (have you already?) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Geez, everyone here chatting in my back yard, I feel like I ought to bust out the beer and a platter of goat kebabs. Huw, you'll need to bring salad. RA, go pick up some pita bread. Trent, can you get some chips? And can I request a bag of Stacy's Naked Pita Chips? I'm hopelessly addicted to those things. EVDebs 02:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm in, as advised, for party provisions. I'll also grab those Naked Chips, what the hell. Party at EVDebs place, y'all. Bring munchies & drinkies! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
That request is particularly humourous in light of the fact that I am sitting here, eating Stacy's Naked Pita Chips right now. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Phony skeptics[edit]

You say John Stossel is a "phony skeptic" and I was wondering how so. I'm not defending him, I'm just interested in what exactly makes a skeptic "phony". (Full disclosure: I already don't like him, but that's because he's a libertarian  : ) ) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

My personal definition of the term is "a denialist in skeptic's clothing". He's not quite in Steven Milloy territory, but he definitely tends to take his skepticism with a heavy dose of politics, which is a remarkably easy way to develop bad conclusions. He's not really about skepticism -- he's more about creating doubt. That's not science, it's PR. EVDebs 02:08, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Uh, I was hoping more for specific examples of stances he takes or of things he's done. Although "takes his skepticism with a heavy dose of politics" strikes me as also describing Penn and Teller. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah. I would have to do a bit of research, as I can't recall any specifics off the top of my head (ISTR an incident involving lack of FDA approval of devices that were largely considered useless by doctors, but it may not have been him). And you're not wrong about Penn and Teller -- they've gotten called out a few times for producing bullshit of their own on Bullshit!. I think they've only recanted once, on secondhand smoke. EVDebs 02:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
And actually, now that I think of it, he does a lot of very simplistic analysis when it comes to government waste -- long on loaded language and handwaves, short on actual information. Definitely denialist tactics. EVDebs 02:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
How have you decided he is denialist as opposed to the skeptic he claims to be, or that he is phony? Having read his book Give Me a Break , he seems pretty authentic to me. Everybody on TV comes off as phony, and many are, but i'll bet you'd come to the seem conclusion as i, were you to read just his autobiographical sketch (he was a bad stutterer) in that book. He didn't start out a skeptic; he won many awards (see photos in middle of book) for following the conventional wisdom in his televised pieces.
-- RemBeau 14:13, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
He may in fact be completely sincere; I don't think most people who espouse his positions are as whorish as, say, Steven Milloy. But that doesn't mean he's not a denialist, or that he doesn't take a lot of rather sketchy positions as gospel. I really think he's less about facts than principle, and those principles are pretty typically libertarian, which tends to put him at odds with a lot of empirical data on science and economics. EVDebs 15:22, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Coulter's fit[edit]

"[Ann Coulter] threw a "petite" hissy fit... on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno when she realized that "godless" isn't actually... insulting to most liberals, even the believing ones." —EVDebs[2]

Could provide a link to a video of this or something? I'd love to see her doing this. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:32, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Wish I could. Unfortunately, the hissyfit in question was sufficiently petite that it was little more than a slightly overdramatic moment of cluelessness. Might be on YouTube somewhere, but I doubt it. EVDebs 10:09, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
You're right, it's not on Youtube. I ascertained that it once was, but it was then taken down because NBC complained about copyright infringement. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Soooooo ?[edit]

Why is there no article on Eugene Debs here? Or am I missing something? Carptrash 19:50, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

But sir, that would be vanity on his part! Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
"Vanity, they name is . . . Eugene V. Debs"? Yes, I see your point. Carptrash 14:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Chickenhawks[edit]

Would you care to justify your removal of this perfectly justified addition, given that Ronald Reagan was in the military (granted he made VD films) and my removal of him was reverted and the additional fact that Reagan was about as much a warmonger as Clinton was - and what the hell is with this "you'd have been RFCd on Wikipedia by now"? I suppose Wikipedia has turned into a completely cabal-run place where nobody is allowed to make good faith edits to NPOVify articles anymore if that is the case. If Clinton doesn't qualify, Reagan doesn't either - and I believe they both do. If Reagan does qualify, and I believe he does, so do both the Clintons, as do Bayh, Feinstein, and a whole bunch of other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War resolution. Or are you just another one of those who is only antiwar when it's a Republican in office, who turns prowar as soon as a Democrat is in the white house? Secret Squirrel 13:41, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

  • You're working against consensus on a very messy issue and being a complete and utter monomaniacal tard about it. That's my justification, and I'm sticking to it. EVDebs 01:37, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
This place isn't about consensus, it's about party line enforcement, which is why all the snarky lulz and snide tone in most of the articles. You should know that by now. Secret Squirrel 20:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Look. We have essay space for opinion pieces. Use it; don't start edit wars over articles. EVDebs 20:56, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
The "Where's Clinton" article is in mainspace, not essay space. I find that article particularly offensive because it repeatedly lies about Clinton's position ("B) does NOT support the current wars" - bullshit; "Furthermore, Clinton isn't a member of the CURRENT administration running the CURRENT wars. This is modern politics, not ancient history." - the 1990s are ancient history how?), then hypocritically says "Trust us, if a Democrat were in office and sending our children overseas to die, we'd squawk" which is exactly what Clinton did multiple times during his tenure. Do they then admit that Clinton was indeed a Democrat in office sending our children overseas to die? No, they conclude this: "Where's Clinton? If you're read this far and still ask that question, send email to Where's Clinton@nhgazette.com and we'll be glad to explain why you're a moron." And you think that garbage should go in a new "source" space as if it somehow qualifies as citable source material. Secret Squirrel 21:15, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for your loss[edit]

I'm terribly sorry, EVDebs, but I appear to have demoted you. My condolences; here is your bucket and mop. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 13:05, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Aw crap. What the hell am I going to do with my vandal-busting superpowers? EVDebs 22:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
You can cook a mean waffle with them. Try it. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:22, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Objectivism[edit]

I see you got right on it. Thanks.

I do feel somewhat disappointed, though. I suppose I was hoping for a more substantial critique of it, rather than more snark.

Or am I hoping for too much from this site?  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 15:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I think part of the problem is that most of the good stuff is on the Ayn Rand page, but I see what you're getting at. At some point I'll see what I can do about writing up the Peikoff vs. everyone else schism -- there's a lot of info on that in the Non-Libertarian FAQ that really has only a bit to do with Rand. EVDebs 15:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
*blinks* I have no idea what you're talking about. Link, please? Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 15:57, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
There should be a link to the overall site on the bottom of libertarian. There's a fair amount of discussion about Rand, as you may expect, and at least some of it discusses Leonard Peikoff's psychotic boosterism of Rand at the expense of Objectivism as a whole. (There's actually a whole school of non-Randian objectivists, actually -- they see much merit in Rand's thinking, but are not exactly fans of She Herself. You might think of them as the Objectivist Freezone -- although the Rand Institute doesn't exhibit the sheer evil of Scientology, there are quite a few disturbing parallels, including mass purges of dissenters and legal squabbles over IP. It might help to visualize Rand as Jabba and Peikoff as Salacious Crumb.) EVDebs 20:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Debs, despite the horrifying visual. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You're not dead![edit]

Hooray for your first edit in forever! Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 01:46, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Was just about to say similar. ToastToastand marmite 01:48, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Your reappearance isn't anything to do with the Ayn Rand debate on WP? ToastToastand marmite 01:49, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Nope, none at all. I just haven't been on RW in a while (been doing most of my Wikitation on TVTropes of late) and I wanted to come back and see if there was anything that I could help with. I'm in and out; I promise not to be a complete stranger though. EVDebs 01:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Ah, another TVTropes addict!  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Sorry then EVDebs, confusing you with someone else. ToastToastand marmite 02:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Oblique strategies[edit]

Yes!!!! More people should know about them. Totnesmartin 18:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanker[edit]

"That’s the problem with truth. The truth is relentless. It won’t leave you alone. It keeps creeping up on you from every side, showing you what’s really so. That can he annoying" [1]

Sorry to be such a wanker.

I thought your essay was good. I kind of thought that people there felt I was trying to promote God, but I wasn't.

  1. http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/cwg/cwgquotes.htm
I call 'em like I see 'em. Frankly, whatever you were doing was indistinguishable from evangelism, albeit persistent if low-pressure. EVDebs 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no desire to convert anyone, being unconverted. However if a necessary point is one which an evangelist would make I might very well see it and defend it. I don't care if the point is for or against, only that it's right or necessary. Tarantallegra 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GIT R DONE

My abuses of power[edit]

You are drunk aren't you?

  • Nope, just insane. And my 20mg a day of Celexa won't save you now MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! EVDebs (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?[edit]

[3]

"Any questions?"[edit]

  • "There's more than just faith involved..." Do not the Lutherans say otherwise? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do. As do most Protestant denominations. But agreement is not universal. EVDebs 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

you too[edit]

Meicon.png MEMO
Happy New Year, EVDebs. This is from Useful Mei. It is an appropriate time for festivities, like alcohol. Today try not to eat too much, or too little.

You might be the only one awake to see this -- =w= 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Heh, not necessarily. Mountain time rolls over in five minutes, Pacific time has another hour, and I'm pretty sure we have editors from other parts of the world who will be getting up soon. EVDebs (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for you sir[edit]

On your user page you say: "Wikipedia, in what I consider to be an unfortunate but fortunately mild infection of Compulsive Centrist Disorder, does not consider scientific/rationalist POV to be inherently equivalent to NPOV." How so? I'm not a WP user my self but I haven't seen any instances where they've put pseudoscience on equal footing with real science. Tetronian you're clueless 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • What it comes down to is that there is a great deal of debate as to whether a scientific POV is inherently a neutral POV. To anyone who's a regular here, that should be self-evident, but it doesn't work out that way in practice. Some of the WP articles are babysat by people who are quite clear supporters of antiscientific agendas (vaccine deniers, global warming deniers, and New Agers are frequent offenders), and it's rather hard to count on the WP power structure to take the scientific side. EVDebs (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I was not aware of this. But what about this? It seems like Wikipedia's policy on pseudoscience is pretty clear. Tetronian you're clueless 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Huh. I have to admit it's been a while since I've done much heavy Wikipedia work. I wonder when they started that policy -- it's a big win for SPOV. EVDebs (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible for editors to take over articles by editing them constantly, but on the whole I think WP does a pretty good job with SPOV. Tetronian you're clueless 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Nice to see you around again. Btw, Goonie might be in Maine (Scarborough) in a few weeks on business. You are in Taxachusetts, as I recall. Do you want to try to meet up if he does fly in to the ointment? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Human is Goonie's womanly secretary. Glass ceiling be damned! Acei9 05:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, Sirs, if I intruded on your conversation. Would you like cigars and glasses of brandy? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Googledämmerung[edit]

It now exists in one one place, in which this glorious quote is found:

The Wagner tubas are tuning up for Googledammerung: It’s the twilight of the bots.

Lyra § talk 05:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BANCStar[edit]

Was it you who made that page on it? Time time Hoover! 14:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • ...mmmmmmmaybe? EVDebs (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems like a pretty nice starting point for an esoteric language, although I gather that the people who made it will bludgeon anyone who reveals anything about it to death. Time time Hoover! 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of funny because even Java and UCSD p-code have disassemblers. BANCstar, on the other hand, is a shining monument to misunderstanding your end users. EVDebs (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
So can you reveal what the example program actually does? Time time Hoover! 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, Joe Loughry never sent me any reference material. Honestly, I suspect it's just a random chunk of source code from one of his old projects, so whatever it does it probably doesn't finish. EVDebs (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
wp:BANCStar programming language was started by me. But any more horror is much needed - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that gives us the syntax, about 5 conditional instructions and the scoping rules to work with... Time time Hoover! 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I'd find a programming language based on, say, Basque or Na'vi more interesting myself. EVDebs (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As the article points out, BANCstar is actually the bytecode for a crappy programming tool, and the "language" was reverse-engineered from that. I wonder what the human language equivalent would be - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism[edit]

Hey, in the article on libertarianism, about a year and a half ago someone put a citation needed tag on your sentence "Strict laissez-faire economics tend to favor established companies and oligopolies in a market, since there is no economic incentive to lower barriers to entry in an established market." Do you have any sources for that or know where I could look for some (or provide some kind of economic/logic argument for it in a footnote)? I know you wrote that over two years ago, so do what you can. ThunderkatzHo! 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pathfinder[edit]

Someone other than me plays it? ТyTalk. 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I actually don't, but I like the whole idea of it. I do know that there's a game shop in Cambridge, MA that has Pathfinder nights once a week to keep the 3.5ers happy. Not quite as popular as their Magic nights, but what is? EVDebs (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I hear you. I think i still have my fathers First edition stuff around here somewhere. Sometimes I play that, but only with serious gamers.ТyTalk. 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose you do have to be in a certain mindspace for the really old versions. I actually like 4e because it dumps a lot of the old baggage for a more modernized system, but people hate it for exactly that reason... come to think of it, isn't that basically what OSRIC is, oldest-of-the-old-school reconstructed? EVDebs (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoskeptics[edit]

Stossel really pisses me off as well because he piggybacks stuff like climate denial on skepticism of woo power bracelets, quackery, etc. I got snookered by the denialist BS until I actually did the heavy lifting and looked at the scientific literature (helps to have a university library with subscriptions to so many publications). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

blog[edit]

Found yours: makes me hungry. Pippa (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Randroid![edit]

I'm not an Objectivist for all of the rational reasons, but I also notice that every time Objectivism is mentioned, Rand gets beaten on for a while. It isn't relevant, it isn't amusing most of the time, and it certainly doesn't refute the idea that sexism is dying off, given that people can refute Communism without mentioning how ugly Karl Marx was. It would be great if the anti-Objectivist people would focus on the philosophy (such as it is) and not the middle school crap. —207.196.181.241 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

67.82.91.83 Vandal?[edit]

I don't think what this editor was doing was vandalism. They made two edits that seemed like serious disagreements; mistaken perhaps, but certainly not vandalism. Given their slow rate of editing what would putting them in the vandal bin even do? Perhaps you know something I don't but I think that vandal-binning was unwarranted. Tielec01 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be stretching the definition, but going hack and slash on an article that's already been the subject of edit wars is uncool. If it had been most other articles it probably wouldn't have been an issue, but this is one of those powder keg articles that bears watching. EVDebs (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Technically, you shouldn't put IPs in the bin (there's no time limit, and it could easily be a proxy or shared IP). Try protecting the page at autoconfirmed for an hour or so instead. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The BoN is probably unaware of the history of that article (as am I). To me this is getting close to blocking someone over an ideological difference; granted the BoN wasn't really blocked and their ideology is stupid. Regardless I think the vandal-binning should be lifted.Tielec01 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting me, even if temporarily.[edit]

[4]. I'm new to RationalWiki. I've noticed, mixed in with the milk of skeptical wisdom found in many of the pages, a few floating turds. One just got added to Cold fusion, so I removed it, and explained why. Thanks for noticing, and for the escalated promotion. However, as a n00b, I'm confused, the state of nature for n00bs. How to handle floating turds? Would RationalWiki like more, I could supply plenty of them, they are found all over the internet, promoted enthusiastically by the Skeptic from Skokomo, who imagines himself knowledgeable on something because he read it on a "skeptical" blog somewhere. Should we promote false arguments? Or should we expose false arguments on all sides? --Abd (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that you've got a reputation that precedes you. My only advice to you would be to stop digging around in the noise for your data and stop trying to intimidate people by writing text walls. EVDebs (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Suit yourself. If you think I've ever actually tried to intimate anyone by writing text walls, you are dreaming, and the fact that others have shared that dream doesn't make it real.
Is the following brief enough?
Go ahead, leave the turd, set out attractively for your readers. If that's what you want. Let me know if I can be of any assistance, either way, removing them or adding them.
Meanwhile, my reputation, eh? That's fascinating. Do you really want to go there?
"Digging in the noise for your data" seems like a reference to cold fusion research, a common error, again. Confirmed results aren't down in the noise, that's an assumption made by those who have a preconception that cold fusion = pathological science and that in pathological science, results are down in the noise, and even more so with careful measurement, Q.E.D., cold fusion results are down in the noise, don't bother me. It's a myth. But myths abound in this field. On all sides. --Abd (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How about this? If you want to talk about anything other than cold fusion, we'll consider what you have to say. Otherwise, be prepared to be erased with prejudice. (Which is not to say you will be, but I doubt anyone will stick up for you if you are.) Like I said on the talk page, solid, reproducible evidence of nuclear fusion in a Pons-Fleischmann-type cell would be a near-instant Nobel Prize winner at this point, and probably at any point in the last fifteen or so years. It certainly wouldn't be considered dead-end research and a one-way ticket to obscurity. Not to mention that although i'm not aware of any research on the matter, but it seems like palladium's catalytic properties might be somehow connected to the excess heat, if that was accurately measured in the first place that is. EVDebs (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's what I'm getting. Correct me if I'm wrong. Seems to me I was "erased with prejudice" (very accurate, thank you), but the issue isn't whether "anyone will stick up for" me, but rather whether or not anyone will stick up for reasoned presentation of evidence and argument, or whether, instead, knee-jerk attachment to fixed views will prevail, no matter what evidence and argument exist. I'd thought this was RationalWiki, but maybe I'm confused. I'm old enough to be allowed that on occasion. If you want RationalWiki to promote bogus arguments, be my guest.
  • There is the reproducible evidence you are suggesting, it's been covered under peer review, in a recent review of the field, it's been covered in many other recent reviews of the field (again, in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and "mainstream" means not devoted to fringe topics), and no Nobel Prize nomination has been made, so what is this argument? Argumentum ad non-Nobel Prizium? The original reproducible research providing the findings was published something like 1992, and is widely known. There was some debate about it, years ago, but no negative replication.
  • The evidence is statistically solid and the evidence is reproducible, and has been reproduced by twelve research groups, according to the 2010 review I'm referring to. Helium production is routinely being used in current research, by those who can afford the mass spectrometer, as a marker of the reaction, to distinguish between nuclear heat and possible chemical artifact. No anomalous helium, no nuclear reaction. Period. At least with PdD.
  • You raise an obvious concern, but
  • Palladium is a catalyst because a palladium lattice absorbs hydrogen gas, dissociating it in the process, so when it releases hydrogen, it's released as atomic hydrogen, until it can find another hydrogen atom. Atomic hydrogen is highly reactive. Nevertheless, the release is endothermic, because the absorption, which is spontaneous, is exothermic. However, consider this as well: What was carelessly called "cold fusion" by the media was discovered and claimed to be of other than chemical origin by world-class experts in electrochemistry, and the released energy they found, when the new reaction occurs (it's very difficult to set up) was way beyond any possible chemical reaction in the cell, in their opinion, and no plausible chemical explanation has been published. Cal Tech suggested failure to stir, based on an error they'd made which they then thought might have been the error of Pons an Fleischmann. In fact, their error was impossible under P-F conditions.
  • If you'd like to discuss it, there was indeed a proposed explanation of the artifact called the "cigarette lighter effect," but it's totally implausible under conditions in most cells. The necessary oxygen just isn't there. Nevertheless, the most prominent skeptical writer, who is a scientist and who has been published in the past, has invented his own entirely idiosyncratic explanation that roughly resembles the idea you have. It involves proposing new chemistry, and a set of Rube Goldberg proposals to explain away the massive contrary experimental evidence. He can't get it published, he's tried and has been rejected. I know his work and it could make an interesting discussion, but are you truly interested? Do you know that the journals are now treating whole-hog skepticism of cold fusion as crank?
  • This has nothing to do with the edit I made. I was removing an argument that is obviously bogus, and I think we should focus on that, not on whether or not cold fusion is real or someone would get a Nobel Prize or a booby prize. I think you've seriously bought into the idea that if someone holds some view that you imagine is "pseudoscience," even though you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about the field, everything they do must be flawed. Sorry, even creationist clocks are right twice a day. You might be right even more than twice a day, after all, you aren't a creationist. Don't, however, "correct" someone else's clock unless you know the actual time, and unless you don't care about being a visible idiot in front of someone who can see.
  • Again, thanks for the regrettably temporary promotion. At least you tried. It's appreciated. --Abd (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Debs:"...stop trying to intimidate people by writing text walls." Concern Troll: "5000 characters of tl/dr." The internet is awesome. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • You get what you ask for, or pay for, or both. No problem. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant[edit]

Seriously. --Abd (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thunderf00t blog[edit]

Actually, i've read Eds given reason. And i've listened to what TF said on the subject. And i've also read this from PZ. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/01/thunderf00t-check-your-email/comment-page-1/#comment-382619 "has decided to dedicate his blog to opposing every other blog on the network that argues for greater equality within the atheism community. It’s bizarre and unsupportable. It sets him up as someone outside and opposing the FtB community, and it means we can’t keep supporting him here." So yeah, the reason (according to PZ) is that he opposes the rest of FTB on equality. But clearly "fucktwittery" is a better description. — Unsigned, by: RapsK / talk / contribs

Actually, it is. It's rather nonspecific, but it certainly describes what he was up to. Anyway, that doesn't imply groupthink as TF wants to think either. Greg Laden was shitcanned for much the same reason as TF (except almost all of it was backchannel) and he's very much in the same mold as PZ, just kind of obnoxious about it. EVDebs (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Greg made threats of violence, went fishing for PTSD triggers and doubled down when called on it. TF was being TF, clumpsily speaking his mind on things he doesn't understand in an unamusing way. That takes serious motivated thinking to call "much the same thing". Anyway, I never said "groupthink" nor do i think that would be an appropriate description. "Banned for disagreeing on a sacred cow" is not the same as "Banned for not being part of the hivemind"RapsK (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Atheism Plus[edit]

Would you lot please STOP removing content that I post up with citation in regards to the reaction to Atheism Plus? Why is it my stuff with citations gets removed, and it gets replaced with comments/information that resorts to ad hominems to such critics, AND replaced with stuff that ADVOCATES the movement that the opposition is against? Ronin Zanoh (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, I will not. Most of it misrepresents the aims of Atheism+, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's taken exception with it, and if you can't be mature enough to seek consensus on disputed content on the talk page, you don't belong here. Furthermore, you may have noticed that although we don't explicitly endorse A+, RationalWiki definitely supports its aim of questioning prejudice the same way any other woo is questioned. Take it to the talk page or get lost. EVDebs (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

//:Uh, no, I will not. Most of it misrepresents the aims of Atheism+\\ No it doesn't. It actually criticises the PRINCIPLES and ALLEGATIONS made by the group, not the aims of the group. Especially when I rightfully posted the criticism in regards to the following: Adding principles to a concept that doesn't condone or condemn the ideologies or aims of the philosophy based within that group, the devisive nature based on the gorup's key members by alienating anyone with the label or episteme of an Atheist, and above all things a humanist perspective against the irrational arguments made by the group in regards to Secular Humanism having "religious trappings".

//I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's taken exception with it,\\ Yes, you are the only one with this "taken exception" because it doesn't fit your red herring. You removed my work (vandlism right there), my cited work with your spiel of misinformed, and totally off base remark about Male Rights Activists and "priviledged" people when I posted none of that, and posted a Secular Humanist perspective and OTHER various crtics INCLUDING the male rights activists. So why should My work be vandalised whilst yours doesn't? It makes no rational sense.

// and if you can't be mature enough to seek consensus on disputed content on the talk page, you don't belong here.\\ The same goes for you, you do not belong here if you think you can post whatever you like without citing sources. I can remove your post on the grounds that it is uncited, full of misinformation and invoking red herrings JUST because you didn't agree with my post. I have removed your contribution, but instead of posting mine in its place, I am mature enough to take this to the talk page. So I would much appreciate that you put your ego asider, and engage in a rational conversation or take your OWN advice. -- (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm rubber you're glue" is not an argument. Like I said. Take it to the talk page for the article or get lost. Either way, stop polluting my talk page. EVDebs (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Atheism Plus edits[edit]

I've added this topic to the Atheism Plus talk page regarding your edits, so as a courtesy, I thought I'd drop a note here on your talk page so you'd see it. I mean, I'm sure you're keeping an eye as such as experienced Wikipedian...but just in case. Anyway, thanks. 38.109.88.133 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Gaining Sysopship[edit]

Okay, I'm not trying to be an impatient brat, but I joined up for this wiki on July 28th and since I'm obviously not a vandal, I was wondering when I could be promoted to a Sysop. I really am excited for it and if you nominate me I promise to never abuse my powers. I would love to make bigger and better contributions to this wiki and I feel I am ready for the job. Plus, I've been on Wikipedia for about 4 months and even though these two websites aren't the same, I discovered a policy of honesty, integrity, and usefulness from it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Leo, I've looked at your contribution history on Wikipedia. It seems like you learned a lot there. Before anyone issues you a mop, I would suggest they do the same. Some history of non-tendentious RW edits will help you here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It used to be that anyone who asked for sysopship status would have his application put back a couple of weeks. Wanting to be a sysop at Rationalwiki is the best indication that one is not qualified. --DamoHi 01:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You need a track record, Leo. Same here as anywhere else. By your own admission your account is three days old. That's not nearly long enough. EVDebs (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it totally would be if it was three days of solid edits... Tielec01 (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So...[edit]

Is this finished, or are there plans to finish it? There is currently a tag on top saying it's under construction--Token Conservative (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm... that one may be finished. I have others I add to whenever I think of something. EVDebs (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, very well. Thank you--Token Conservative (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories: Extreme wingnuttery and Extreme moonbattery[edit]

Hello, I have nominated these two categories for a merge into one, and as you are the original creator of them I would like to invite you to see and participate in the new AfD discussion here (updated link). Thanks, --Yisfidri (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)