Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

User talk:EmeraldCityWanderer

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent change to Heresy article[edit]

While your recent addition to the Political heresy section is well-written, I noticed that none of the linked references actually work. Could you try fixing this?--TiaC (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Crap, sorry about that, mistagged it. Should be all fixed up. Thanks! EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, That helped. However this link still just takes me to a login page. -TiaC (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think I did too much to that part besides move it about. I fixed it though and added an additional reference. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, EmeraldCityWanderer!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

So, do you follow the yellow brick road? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that pink? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Read this and tell me what you think[edit]

This was handed to me in printed form. The original website has been shut down. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't hand me tasks. Just because I wasn't as insulting in a couple messages as others on RW doesn't mean we are best buds. Talk about creepy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion discussion[edit]

You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You shall retract your libel or lose all credibility[edit]

This is a notice that you shall retract your libel at this instant. I am not, was not, and never will be a fan of Taylor Swift and you shall acknowledge this or you will be forever noted as a liberal libel artist who has no place in intellectual discourse. --Elvis is King (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You should have some bacon. Elvis loved peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwiches. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You have not retracted your libel and I am certain you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claim that I am a fan of Swift's. Typical Al Sharpton clone. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ooooo, do some more. I love this parody. No one can be this dense except the parody of a wack-a-nut. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You have not substantiated anything. Provide evidence that I am a fan of Swift or you're just another clueless Obama drone who cannot comprehend the pitalls of Keynesian economics. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
So if I lose all credibility to a joke account that has less than none, it's like a double negative and I get more! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I have contributed much of substance on other sites. Nonetheless, you have still failed to substantiate your claim that I am a Swift fan. If you can substantiate your claim, I will eat my words and eat an abominable slice of bacon. However, you lack the capacity to do so and thus I have nothing to worry about. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I know it takes a bit of intelligence to get a joke, but this is kind of sad even for a parody account :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you realize what it is you are saying? I am not a parody account. I have told the unmitigated truth on many occasions, and all you can do is say that I a fan of the vile liberal Swift. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty self evident and you haven't provided anything to disprove it 8-D -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I am a conservative, therefore I am not a Swift fan. Is that logic so hard to understand? --Elvis is King (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So, conservatives can't like her? If so, then why was Tim McGraw staring at her ass the whole time they were doing their duet at that one country award show? You're not going to tell me he's a liberal. --Elvis is King loves Taylor Swift (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Geez dude, that's a pretty big stereotype on conservatives. Several high profile conservatives have come out in favor of her. You don't speak for all conservatives, they are individuals right with their own minds right? :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
LIBELSLANDER!!! Everyone knows we conservatives are a hivemind. --Castaigne (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems pretty insulting to a large group of people where a number accuse liberals of marching in lock step to everything their leader says. Seems like pretty obvious projection with this, or type casting people you know nothing about. Also, the sin of pride to say their ideas of what conservatism should be is what everyone should be to be a "real conservative." -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I am a true principled conservative who does not support her whoring, rabble rousing ways that are tearing apart the very moral fabric of this nation with the utter filth and vulgarity the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves over. I am not a fan of hers. If you want to have a shred of credibility, you are to block the account above whose username dares libel me, a true principled conservative. --Elvis is King (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
AND NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON! --Castaigne (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The founding fathers provided freedom for the tyranny of what one person thinks is right. Even if they think they are the only true ideal and attempt to force them on the country. It's why the fought the revolutionary war and set up the government as it is. You are the antithesis of what America, and the founding fathers, stood for at the time and now. If you had a shred of credibility you would never invoke their legacy!  :-p -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You all are ignorant liberals. True conservatives would never support Swift, and neither would have the Founding Fathers, as they were true conservatives. Those with a love for self and country would not support Swift, and as such, support morality and not drug abuse, self abuse, and other forms of liberalism that are by their very nature ruining the moral foundation of the United States of America. I am not a Swift fan in the slightest. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, 100% certain this is fake now. This is so absurd it would be too much for "whose line is it anyways." A+ for effort, B+ for continuing, need some work on the ending. Good work though. Thanks for the good performance art, seriously. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You simply cannot accept that I am a real conservative, and not a fake as you would like to believe. I got banned from Conservapedia because I would not accept their liberal definition of fornication. I am still waiting for you to apologize for calling me a Swift fan. --Elvis is King (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you afraid of the truth? --Elvis is King (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note from BoN[edit]

I agree and you should take your own writings on board.94.192.105.51 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Edits[edit]

When people reverts an edit without any mention of why, they should be ignored, not sided with. 94.192.105.51 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly blanking an article and making a bunch of opinions how this idea should operate is not within the community standards. Feel free to make a case on the talk page, which is why it's there, but stating this repeatedly without acknowledging replies (up to this point) is not helpful. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Edits were in progress and no opinions given. It is clear you do not understand the topic. You were arrogant and disrespectful to revert with no reasons given or taking to the talk page. 94.192.105.51 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You changed the article without reason why, seems pretty similar to your accusation. I am sorry though your majesty, but your check where I am at your beck and call has not arrived.  :-p Seriously, it's not anywhere near a big deal. Make the case on the talk page and quit the overly dramatic teenager act. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
And do note that the rollback function is a staple of the RW toolbox (and it doesn't involve an edit summary), no need to get all pissy about it - especially when more than one editor reverts your stuff. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on your user page...[edit]

It's awesome! KOMF's Userpage/Talk Anonymous user will die. 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

About 75.157.133.70[edit]

Should I vandalbin or block him?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, vandlebin might be a good place for him till he learns to be more chatty on the talk pages...and in case he jumps to a new IP the next person won't be blocked entirely. That stuff is comedy gold though. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Kthx. I'm new to being sysop.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure myself, I haven't been and nor do I want to. It's just me and the chickens... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious[edit]

I've already apologized on the banana talk page, but as I read it again, could you tell me precisely, what was offensive? I haven't seen anything that would have offended me. A lesson in manners in this particular instance would be gratefully accepted in order to avoid it happening again. Cheerio Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Selected Text: "It still seems to me that you are separating humans from the rest of nature" This is a word in common usage and that's how it's used. I didn't put it in Webster's or take a stand on how it should be, or if I had any opinion, since you had just asked for clarification. I can't think of more of a generally dickish thing than going around telling a strangers their beliefs. I can understand wanting to talk about pros/cons, but I take an extremely dim view of reframing facts as some sort of personal belief. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case you have not understood me. Words can have different meanings in different context and I was just pointing out a false dichotomy. The word theory suffers from the same thing. In any case, I still can't see anything offensive. Your personal dim views are your own. I was not reframing facts as you would have discovered if you had read with more attention. All in all, it seems to me, that you're just being prickly and I can't do anything about that. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This simply does not make sense either conceptually and grammatically: „I can't think of more of a generally dickish thing than going around telling a strangers their beliefs.“ Isn't sharing opinions one of the mainstays of this particular wiki. Let's not speak again - we probably have similar views of each other with the difference, that one of us is right. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you don't care what I have to say, and don't wish to speak to me, then stop editing my talk page to lecture me about how we shouldn't speak :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That last bit was meant to put an end to it, you know? If you mean do end something you might as well say so. Is this beyond comprehension? That it happens to be your talk page is irrelevant. You have managed something rare, all the more surprising since it's here, that is fill me with a particular view of a human being which I am generally and happily free of, but as they say, the first letter starts with cont. Being serious, you could do with a stern lecture. If I'm a dick, what does that make you with your incapacity to understand combined with pure bred arrogance? But all in all, I'll leave with this from the „good book“:
„And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.“
And with that I bid thee farewell. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So are you actually leaving this time or should I expect more bloviating on this page? I have rarely seen more arrogance than telling people what they believe, how they should interpret words, dictating how they should take your barely formed thoughts, and the lectures if they don't agree. I guess I should turn off my alerts if your LANCB means you coming back to post your verbal diarrhea and dictates here several times a day. As you see, you are not the first crank to do so.  :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a communication problem between you two. I don't know what exactly it is, but you seem to misunderstand each other and this seems to end up making both of you angry at the other for no good reason. Just my two Öre Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, yeah...smiley faces mean I am mad as hell :-p Do people just skim things and make assumptions? Don't do that too as it's just disappointing. Frankly it was something to break the monotony of watching -Mona- spam the recent change list for another month more than every other poster combined. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, have you seen what AvengeroftheBoN did to RecentChanges recently? He added his username to it so many times! It just looks so ugly. The aesthetics, man! The aesthetics. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Dude, as stated that was directed at another user. This is a great example of skimming and misinterpreting again...third person in a fricken row... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Here, watch this...it's funny and help you feel better. It's almost Friday. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-EmeraldCityWanderer, what's your issue with me? I add tons of data to many articles, and most importantly, can document it. Yes, I hold some minority points of view, but I can and do support my positions on the various talk pages. I traffic in logic and facts to support my claims, Moreover, I "call names" generally only when announcing that I'm mostly ignoring someone and why their views are no longer worth my time -- something I rarely do. The one person I have decided that about has also been labelled a troll by others. But otherwise, I have reasonable exchanges with the various reasonable people at RW. [shrug]---Mona- (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's see
  • Edit warring
  • Boring repetitive edits
  • Shilling (we all assume that you ARE Glenn Greenwald, who in the past has used sockpuppets to promote himself)
  • CONSTANT additions
  • Editing the talk page and 5 seconds later editing the page itself claiming "no one disagreed with me!"
  • Trying the "ZIONISM IS RACISM!" canard
  • Whining when you don't get your way

CorruptUser (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Corrupt's got part of it, though I make no opinion about Glenn because I don't care who that is. Mostly spamming more edits than anyone else in a day combined, and more than I have ever seen except for Ken Doll, and screaming Zionist conspiracy at anyone who doesn't fall over and agree. As I have stated is automatically recorded in the recent changes list, the Chichen Coop, and the various talk pages on Hamas. If you want me to spell it out for you like more than half a dozen people did before on the Coop...no, I am not going to waste the time they did when you didn't read it the first couple dozen times. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh Honey[edit]

Emerald, your hysteria is getting the better of your common sense and the facts. I have never cooped anyone, contrary to your claims at the BLM talk page. Rather, I was cooped by Arisboch last August, a case he eventually agreed was bullshit and for whicvh he withdrew his support. Moreover, it is true that I edit many articles touching on Zionism; however, I also have begun copy- and line-editing articles that urgently need it. Such as the ones on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Catholicism. (And a bit of My Little Pony.) That will continue as I encounter more articles needing an editor's pen. But, it is most unlikely that my interest in issues related to Zionism will wane here, so, you best just make your peace with that!---Mona- (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

wp:Oh Honey :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then....---Mona- (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty much my feeling about your powers of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of having extreme emotional states.  :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, something must account for your accusing me of routinely doing that which I have never done. That's not merely "disagreeing" with me.---Mona- (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
So if something unidentifiable does than why make wild guesses and accusations? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That GM algae report[edit]

I think it is right here. I didn't notice you bring it up in the WIGO talk.--Owlman (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! Though the full thing seems to be behind a $32 paywall :-( I know someone who did research on targeting specific protein/lipid layers of cells (like cancer) as an idea for tailored drugs...but they didn't have the tech to use it at the time. I thought it was pretty neat stuff when he talked about it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to vandal-bin you[edit]

But not ban you, because you've been a productive and fair-minded community member. This way, you can still fix pages and let us know if you change your mind. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, thank you. I don't feel like it sometimes...though I know the hardest one you can evaluate is yourself. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Another thing I've sometimes done is put a site in my hosts file so it won't load. You can undo this, of course, but that takes some effort and it's a useful "extra barrier" to prevent looking at a site out of habit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What...[edit]

Pray tell did you have against my Fred Phelps edits? I was making fun of Phelp's ridiculous babies in your mouth comment from the Louis documentary. Couldn't we have a kumbaya moment about that or do you just not take a break from perpetual hatred towards those you disagree with? Burkean (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think everyone is this one big group that hates you if they don't fall over and adore everything you do. Like a kid that thinks their teacher hates them because they get everything wrong. Get over your arrogance and diarrhea of the mouth to do something useful for a change. I won't read one of your 10 page screeds of nonsense, where you make up a bunch of lies about people you disagree with, so go bother one of the other people that reverted you since they might care. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think pointing out that Lincoln and Calhoun agreed on the Mexican War is inappropriate? What do you have against making fun of Fred Phelps? Why do I expect adoration when I merely ask about reverted edits? Why are you so combative? Burkean (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough[edit]

But I was trying for an olive branch. Looking to make fun of the asshole. No word Salad. Burkean (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Brooks[edit]

I agree with your rewrite but the last sentence is mangled. Not sure what you were trying to say there.--Fire Me Boy (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a bad cut on my part and I limit editing to every 30 minutes. I just find his magical thinking about "love" and "traditional families" will fix everything because, well, he liked things better when he was a sheltered and adored kid instead of a stressed adult. Someone should finally welcome him to the club of realizing the rose colored glasses many have of childhood. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Coop case vote[edit]

You previously stated in the coop that you'd make a decision based on evidence and a list of reasons why the accused is guilty. That evidence has now been laid on the table in the coop, and you can now decide based on the evidence presented. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)