User talk:Exiled Encyclopedist/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Exiled Encyclopedist!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

This page isn't censored archived , nor have I deleted a single entry out of anger like most editors do when asked a question that pisses them off; being a revisionist makes you look bad, it doesn't erase what other people say about you.

If you would like to prove you are better than be objectively than lets have an article race/duel judged by a third party/parties. However despite all bickering, this isn't a tournament. Also, since when were Wikipedia references off limits, or the library bookstore or website you found an article required to be cited as well?

Greetings, Amateur Encyclopedist, and thank you for joining our pricey wiki! I hope you enjoy your time here. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind hello. I was exiled from my home village (wikipedia) and must now prove myself to the ominous council of 12 (arbcom) should I ever be allowed to return and right my past wrongs. I figured this wiki would allow me to mix seriousness and humor instead of doing one or the other; which can be annoyingly limiting at times. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad about Wikipedia :-( But I hope you like RW enough to stick around! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It was my own fault for pushing boundaries one too many times. I just hope they remember I did more good than bad; and that my mistakes at least had good, if misplaced intentions. I don't suppose you know of a wiki where you can suggest experiments for scientists to do, do you? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, no.
Oh, for future reference, could you indent your replies with a colon? It makes it easier to follow a conversation (you can see how by many colons by clicking to edit a page, and adding one extra to the number of the post you're responding to). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool; thanks.


don't really need to pick a fight in the article creation summary.--Miekal 23:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
jsyk, Your article is up for a deletion vote and even if it doesnt get deleted theres been questions raised of it's accuracy and it's quality. Those are going to come back to hit you if they don't get addressed early..--Miekal 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Original research is sometimes great, but if its OR that isn't true, or is just what you want it to be is true, it's not so great. So if your going to do it, do justify it. i;m guessing you were \kicked from Wikipedia because you didn';t like that rule. .--Miekal 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

For the love of God.[edit]

If you don't know how to use semicolns, don't use them. Nobody will think less of you. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Three reasons god cant exist[edit]

first you really need to learn how to format stuff.

Now on to the point of this
  • " you can't know the future and be omnipotent; it's one or the other." Says who?
  • "Second the idea god is all compassionate is offensive to anyone whose watched a child die" Yes, but mysterious ways. Also this doesn't disprove god exists, just disproves compassion as a trait.
  • " Third killing nearly all life on the planet with a flood is generally seen as evil by most peoples standards; the bible didn't mention anything anything about a planet wide torture epidemic that would warrant doing that." Evil people doing evil things apparently. Also see above.
If you plan to go into glorious battle to disprove god, please, find better arguments.--Miekal 19:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You forgot the part where I said he could exist but would responsible for criminal ass holetry. Also logical paradoxes are perfectly fine arguements; such as can god make a boulder so big he cannot lift it? The arguements are fine; they are just philosophical rather than scientific arguments. I will add that good in my complaining is defined in terms of Utilitarianism. Now if they somehow violate RationalWiki's rules please inform me what rules they violate. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
When i said "says who" i meant "how?". What specifically makes being all powerful and knowing the future mutually exclusive. As for "being responsible for criminal actions" i know few Christians who dont attribute good and bad to god, its just the latter half isn't specefic to what god wants happening--Miekal 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Technically an omnipotent being could change the results of radio carbon dating tests like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and just create fossils; so those arguments also don't work. That gets closer to Descartes territory though. Also as the FSM shows not all arguments against god need to involve science. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We are really into the old "First define your God" problem.
The more specifically a god is defined the the easier it is to refute its existence. The more superpowers a theist postulates the more likely they are to run into contradictions. The more positive human qualities gods are given - such as "mercy" or "justice" - the more likely you are to run up against examples where these traits are contradicted in the whatever holy book you might consider.
On the other hand, the more theists try to avoid these pitfalls by avoiding making specific claims, the less relevant, influential and powerful their god becomes. So perhaps you should be a little more clear about which of the many versions of god your arguments are directed against.
Oh, and "hi"!--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"No religion mentions time travel but einstein did!" so fucking what?--Miekal 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Am I actually violating any of the sites rules or just using non scientific arguments? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You are most certainly not violating any rules with the opinions you have put on your user-page. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, i'm just trying to figure why you think these are compelling arguments. especially your first one--Miekal 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
this debate has useful chat about evidence, logic and faith, if you're interested. SophieWilderModerator 20:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Exactly were you banned from wikipedia, may I ask?--Miekal 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

For speeding. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful.--Miekal 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How writing works.[edit]

Why do you think the sentence you inserted in this paragraph is at all relevant to said paragraph? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would have made more sense as a one sentence paragraph. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
One learn to use indents. Two that isn't the proper place for that--Miekal 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
We both learned something today. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What on earth did I learn?--Miekal 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem not to use capitalization during edit summaries or when using the word I. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't suddenly learn thats a thing, I just don't always do it.--Miekal 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What's up block?[edit]

Please specify Miekal as to why you blcoked me; Father Vivian just made my one sentence contribution to Forteanism it's own paragraph; hardly vandalism. You seem to be abusing your seniority. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
To make you stop for a moment and think as to why those edits weren't in the right place. And to wonder why you added content then right away deleted it as wrong.--Miekal 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If you think realizing your own mistakes quickly is a problem, that is a problem. (You still haven't fessed up to the capitalization issues.) Why isn't drapetomania pseudoscience worth mentioning on rat wiki exactly. Or why is it not worth mentioning at least somewhere on the Szasz page when Szasz popularized the term? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure it's worth mentioning somewhere, just not randomly tacked onto an articles lead.--Miekal 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that's a valid point. Would that somewhere be the same article or a different one? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ask somebody who can write articles.--Miekal 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting you would claim neither of us has that ability. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who this "Miekal" character is, but it sure seems like a bit of a boob. Incapable of placing others' work in a better place in an article is not much harder than using "rollback" in most cases. And far easier than running around being a dick. Which, by the way, is a violation of Guideline IX/E;19:b.002 ħumanUser talk:Human 18:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Application for administrator privileges; or for Miekal not to have them, either one works.[edit]

I would like to be an admin on rational wiki and would be more than happy to prove myself capable. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to hash this out in the coop, you may, but it would be... unwise -it takes a lot to convince other users to remove sysopship, once given. If you want to be a sysop, that's an easier matter. People become sysops easily here. It took me six months, but I was an exception, and I got along fine without it. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Three months, not six. Anyway, congratulations your demotion! I think. I forget how the joke goes. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to make him a Sysop as like i said, he isn't crazy, i just don't like that you, if i remember right, also get auto patrolled as a sysop and it's my opinion he needs a bit of attention to his edits at the moment.--Miekal 19:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I would prefer being a sysop, however long that would take. Is there anyone in particular you would recommend I contact in case I get blocked? I know some people are more active on ratwiki than others; I'll probably be editing less as time goes on. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
My favored attention block is 5 minutes so if for whatever reason anything like that happens again it isnt like your locked out forever. --Miekal 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Here. Try it out, just try and be better at the whole article thing. --Miekal 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here is a link you may find useful. Oh, and by the way, you're blocked for a day, which now means you get to figure out how to unblock yourself. Nothing personal, just part of the ritual. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I see it won't let me block myself. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
In the blocking dialog there is a check-box labeled "Confirm block" to make sure any given sysop means to shoot themself in the foot. Try it, it's fun! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


You have misused a semicolon. Any further attempts to use punctuation marks that you do not understand will result in a termination of all privileges. Thank you. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You've been misusing semicolons again. Please just stop using them altogether, since you don't know how. Semicolons are not necessary, even I don't typically use them. Also, please proofread your edits after you make them. Nullahnung (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Holodomor"[edit] spelled this way. "Mor" is a Slavic root related to death.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The only source I can find says the term was used earliest by Hitler. Thanks for the correct spelling. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Facts vs. almost facts[edit]

Please be careful when adding comments to pages, to make sure you are either adding facts, or using the proper weasel words. The one I was about to wipe out, but will rewrite instead is "the oldest dominatix is..." That's an extremely hard statement to back up, especially since we are hitting the relm of the unwritten within 1000 years of Innana. Who knows if some ancient goddess was a ball buster but no one recorded it. Better are statements like "one of the", or 'amongst the oldest" etc. Thanks.One tin soldier (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Rational Wiki is not an encyclopedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bronzing Falun Gong![edit]

It's satisfying to see an article I started my RW ID on to be regarded more!--Teslashark (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on the Falun Gong article, it's fantastically detailed, I think it should actually be rated silver. It has close to 50 references and contains half a dozen points absent from Wikipedia. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The references havs about five or six redundancies but I'm not really good with wikimagic. Feel free if you want to give a hand!--Teslashark (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Asking why this article isn't bronze..."[edit]

Stop doing that. The article probably isn't bronze because a lot of people don't give a shit about article ratings. It's an open wiki. If you think you'll get off on bronzing an article, bronze it. If someone thinks you're wrong, they'll undo it. It's not that complicated. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 22:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"bronzing article as there are 48 references"[edit]

There is no necessary correlation between number of references and article quality. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 23:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you care so much about Wikipedia?[edit]

What do you get from it?? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I get to champion social causes and fight a never ending battle for truth justice and tolerance. Once upon a time, the news divisions at the networks and local stations were not-for-profit, but that all changed during the 80's. Than in 2001 there came another non profit, only anyone could write for it. Even though volunteer crowd sourcing takes away the work someone used to get paid to do, Wikipedia delivers your message faster and farther than was ever possible with professional print journalism.

Economically America looks a lot like it did in 1939, we need Superman just as much now as we did than, only now we need Clark Kent more than ever before. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

" Wikipedia delivers your message faster and farther than was ever possible with professional print journalism. " Crazy people talk like that more than sane people, you know.--Miekal 23:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Really, that line the crazy part, not quoting Superman or saying the world could use him? Are you who asked that question Miekal, if so you should have used your regular user name. News papers get thrown out after a day, Wikipedia doesn't, those articles will still be around and read long after the users who wrote them are dead. Do you have a figure on how many people read a single New York Times article in a year, compared to how many people read one of the top 100 Wikipedia article in a year?

Also in terms of speed, you can post than see it up faster than a professional news papers editorial review process would allow you to make your words available to others to read. So no, your quite clearly wrong comrade. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can use a NYT article as a source long before i will ever write a credible history article that outright cites i used wikipedia. And you seem to be describing a Blog, not a wikipedia article--Miekal 02:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Dude, I was talking about what people read, not what people cite. I don't care who cites it, I care who reads it! Also as someone who cares so much about the Times prestige as a citeable source, you seem not to care at all about the prestige of using capitalization correctly. Also when you eventually get to college you just use Wikipedias citations and don't mention where you found them. Go google search the statistics on the number of medical doctors who refer to Wikipedia. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
And you are still describing a blog post, not a wikipedia article. Unless you think your POV is always neutral and then we have far bigger problems involving your state of sanity. As for capitalization, I make it no secret i have no interest it and will feel vaguely sad for whoeer has to edit my papers once i go to grad school and beyond.--Miekal 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What exactly do you intend to go to school for, engineering right? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Going, already, past tense. And a BA, MA and PhD in history.--Miekal 03:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you edit on wikipedia, and if not than why? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
because i dont?--Miekal 03:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Stoic, but less than open. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Because i don't? The fuck does it matter to you?--Miekal 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Lots of people don't edit wikipedia for no reason. People have a limited amount of time(you can't do it all in one day). Some people just find other activities more appealing then editing wikipedia. --NonPerson (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
No reason it perfectly acceptable. Your being needlessly angry Meikal, I assume what prompted your question was me citing the Heroes interview in The Nine Unknown or else you would have done this shit sooner. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Never even looked at the article, actually.--Miekal 19:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
03:19, 14 July 2014 Miekal (Talk | contribs | block) deleted page The Nine Unknown (reason was no) Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
One vote keep and 3 from the majority of people who vote on deletions for delete? what way was that going?--Miekal 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
So you don't actually bother to read the pages you delete? Your competency as a sysops is heavily questionable. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm violating my fiduciary responsibility, aren't I--Miekal 20:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Took a look at the issue. The article was deleted for being off mission as far as I can tell. You where asked for evidence that this was missional(a conspiracy theory anyone believed) and you did not provide any. Miekal's actions seem correct though I admit the comment 'no' is a bit... crap. --NonPerson (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I accepted the article would be deleted a while ago as evidenced by it's removal from my user page. I'm not contesting that, I'm contesting Miekals position as a moderator and systems operator should be reviewed as evidenced by the many complaints on his talk page. That he deleted the page without reading it and asks annoying questions using his IP, just to get pissed off when I ask similar questions in response demonstrates to me he shouldn't have so many privileges. I also think it's a bit hypocritical no one calls him on his grammar when I'm not a moderator and Father Vivian does that to me and I've accepted such criticism as constructive. Miekal also doesn't seem active enough outside of talk pages to be a good moderator, probably because if he was his talk page would have even more complaints. I know I wouldn't be that active if a moderator which is why I'm not applying for the position, but I will if no one else wants the job. I would have to look into the history of the moderator election, but I suspect that's what allowed Miekal to become a moderator in the first place. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Protip: You'll never be made a mod here or anywhere else, so you can stop talking about it. --Marlow (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
AE has repeatedly pre-empted that protip by saying he's not considering the position. That said, AE needs to drop the grudge against Miekal offending him with his harsh ways and move on. It's not doing anybody any favours and a waste of time. Nullahnung (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't edit articles because i know im not a strong writer, not because i fear some names on the internet disliking me.--Miekal 03:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That he deleted the page without reading it and asks annoying questions using his IP,[edit]

That wasnt me love.--Miekal 03:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think you could be a good writer, and that you might like Uncyclopedia. The snark here at rational wiki seems to be aiming to be something like the daily show, which would be difficult enough, only rational wiki takes on the even less funny subjects of fake medicine and hate mongering cults. I saw you deleted string of unfunny jokes on February 15th 2013 and that the first thing you added to an article was a joke on Putin, though I actually laughed at what you added to Abel, I think you can come up with good one liners which is how much you'll get starting out at Uncyclopedia where nothing is copied, little is factual and writing a full paragraph is a rarity. I think that if you managed to survive a week at Uncyclopedia you might actually enjoy writing more in general, just ask David Gerard. Either writing or editing exclusively can start to give you an unbalanced view that everything is either your golden creation or more likely just other peoples crap, whether it's addition or subtraction vandalism.

You can obviously copy pasta Wikipedia or another more specialized wiki like the Fortean Wiki, such as I've done, Uncyclopedia's article on rational wiki is right about that. You also know how to do research online or in a library, reading being the longest part of writing here. You know how to ask questions quite well even, even if you ask too many questions and it's annoying as shit that's to be expected from a journalist or historian. However you also know what not to copy pasta as shown by your deleting excessively long and detailed copy pasta for countries like Brazil, Egypt, South Africa and Slovenia. Your very good at the politicking on the talk pages and forums, I'd reckon more people like you than me here as you actually talk to them regularly and joke with them, even if there's also more people that complain about you. You can easily just fix your spelling and grammar by taking slightly more time, I think if you don't it will end up biting you in the ass either here or professionally when you get passed over for a position by someone no more or less qualified just for looking sloppy. I think the only problem you really have writing here is in telling jokes, which is easier to do at Uncyclopedia, your quote about crop circles being the alien equivalent of burning crosses is fucking hilarious and actually worthy of Uncyclopedia. Rationalwiki may have the atheism down slightly more but Uncyclopedia is better at comedy.

You do need to review your talk page though, and explain your actions just a sentence or two more, like the 15 page papers you write for history classes. I know from other peoples comments on you that you could take any heckling at Uncyclopedia, I'm just not sure you'd incorporate anyone else's constructive criticism though instead of completely ignoring it. Thanks for making a systems operator to begin with. I've said everything I've wanted to say now. Like I said before you have the potential to write well outside of class. I'll be leaving now and I doubt I will return, I'm glad I did this though. You need to believe in yourself just a bit more, I can detect micro expressions using photographs and you look depressed, I've been there myself before. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like uncyclopedia.--Miekal 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't say you like Encyclopedia Dramatica instead because you find there rape jokes hilarious.

Also read this, as there is no page here for depression, only anti depressants. National studies have shown that one in three college students is depressed and one in four contemplates suicide. (

Women who have regular unprotected sex are less depressed and perform better on cognitive tests compared to women who abstained from sex or those who had the same amount of sex but used condoms. Semen contains several anti depressants cortisol (known to increase affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter) ( Now here's some original research, vaginal fluid also makes you less depressed, but what would I know about sexism in science? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not depressed and i have a fiance, but thanks for playing--Miekal 20:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorization frenzy?[edit]

I'm sure you mean well, but are you sure this level of categorization is necessary? I think categories should be reserved for the defining characteristics of an article. The popes, for example, are part of a church with a definite historical pattern of sexism, but I don't see that as one of their defining characteristics unless one of them made a purposeful anti-XX effort. MarmotHead (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This same behavior, combined with an almost preternatural denseness, is what got you the permanent boot at WP. Stop with the categorizing. --Marlow (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I would rather like to go back to editing Wikipedia and thought if I categorized well it would send a good message. I was hoping to show sexism is a harder label to attach than homophobia. What's your opinion on the homophobia category spree, I'll remove them all if it's not an improvement in making right wingers look spiteful and stupid. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Then make a sockpuppet and go back to wikipedia, i really doubt coming here and wikignoming is going to "impress wikipedia"--Miekal 19:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice Miekal. I've used a sock puppet before, but I want to add more sections on bioremediating micro organisms to chemistry articles, and no one else did that so I'd get caught instantly if I did. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Then appeal the block, it might for out for you! You arent going to prove good faith by doing something nobody seems to think needs to be done here--Miekal 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You realize[edit]

That when you say things like "I spent all this time adding stuff to other sites just so I could get unbanned!", it makes you look incredibly insincere about wanting to aid and be constructive, right? If you want to be un-banned, don't trumpet about how you only helped somewhere else to look better to the Arbcoms, and don't trumpet how you helped this site just for your own selfish reasons while asking for our help in the venture.--Miekal 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's alright to have multiple reasons for doing something, and sometimes you can do the right thing for the wrong reason and it can still benefit people. The other big reason I wanted to edit rational wiki was that I wanted to go through the history of Christian religious denominations looking for incidents and statements that could be used to debunk them. I don't regret helping out here even if I don't get top back to Wikipedia, I helped give you all better arguments against religion and explained the roots of a lot of terms like chupacabra and evolution.

It also gave me reason to read rational wiki articles and discover they often contain information Wikipedia does not, which is awesome for rational wiki.

Anyways I'd say more about why I wrote for rational wiki and generally support what you do here, but this isn't an advertisement. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding categories[edit]

Stop. If you ever want to get unbanned at Wikipedia you'll have to show them that you get it. You obviously haven't figured out why they blocked you in the first place. --Marlow (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That you chose to leave the information I added while removing the inappropriate category insufficiently supported by that information informs me your concern for the quality of this wiki is legitimate. I will follow your advice, but they are never going to let me back on, even if I never add another category or add a plethora of valid categories to a dozen fan wikis. No amount of non fiction editing makes up for fucking with fiction. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy paste from Wikipedia[edit]

Stop. --Marlow (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Double STOP! Don't fucking do it. (WTF are you doing appealing to Human? Snorkle!) Scream!! (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Because I'm teachers pet, the one they aren't allowed to keep me because I get the place filthy from eating all the copy pasta in the garbage. But more importantly I'm pointing out authoritarian acts and effective rebuttals to them, like comparing Tibet to it's neighbors on the Tibet page, explaining the documented history of the legality of torture in Tibet. Also gay rights in Iran versus transexual rights is relevant. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing we have that they definitely don't at WP : Original Research. Do some and use the results in articles. The refs on WP articles are good for research but DON'T Copy WP wholesale! Scream!! (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I will definitely acknowledge it's copy pasta from now on to avoid looking like I'm something I'm not. If you have doubts that I deserve my accurate name and should return to Amateur, maybe you'd prefer I go back to the first one CensoredScribe and list my accomplishments again like a politicking braggart? I'll use the Wp tag like I did for King Arthur when the paragraphs aren't broken up. I'll be taking a break and reviewing proper reference formatting as well, it's arguably about as bad as Miekals grammar in that we both know how to do it correctly but don't. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
RW is NOT WP. "Proper" reference formatting is not necessary here. RW is NOT WP. Don't care what you call yourself but DON'T copy WP - unless you put it in quotes and acknowledge it's origin. But generally DON'T copy WP. RW is NOT WP. Scream!! (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I learned about this place from Uncyclopedia I will attribute to wikipedia and reword what they say to be more concise and differentier for Copyrightwingers. If I reworded what I took from Wikipedia for Tibets gerrymandered controversy page, Doctor Kings assassination being on the anniversary of Beyond Vietnam, and a basic page for Bhutan including religious history and human rights record relevant to rational wiki? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Write your own content and shut the fuck up you plagiarizing moron. --Marlow (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You talk real fancy Mr. yet don't contribute none and make it hard to learn bout things like human rights violations. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather we not learn about human rights violations than learn about it from somebody who is shamelessly copying wikipedia articles with the goal of using us to get unbanned from wikipedia.--Miekal 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're still swallowing that line? I now what's for dinner - fish! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
All you had to do was ask and I can add the additional reference to the Wikipedia page it's self; I can even slightly reword it if you care so very much to seem like you aren't ultimately going to have to do the same thing to add to that page. Also you both suck, and I'm on a good number of the pages central to this wiki's purpose. You'll likely end up using something or rather I wrote for you here if you actually argue with religious people about religion, pick a pope or protestant reformer. Your welcome. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
" I can add the additional reference to the Wikipedia page it's self; I can even slightly reword it" or you could just write your own work instead of ripping off wikipedia.--Miekal 22:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the mission very well, you write nothing, you don't volunteer to do anything helpful for the site. You don't even appear to be a principled skeptic. You seem to just sit around chit chatting with people who wouldn't give you the time of day offline and deleting material. I'm genuinely curious what you get out of RW. And FYI, his point is fine. RW doesn't need to duplicate WP material word for word, but if you're going to hound the guy every time he edits and he wants to add helpful supplemental material from WP like he's been trying to do here and there, let him rewrite it as he suggests. There's nothing wrong with that, so stop bullying him over content. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As opposed to the man who spends a lot of time throwing insults at people and telling us just why the site sucks now? If you are who i should aspire to be more like, sure, why not, im sure RW will be greatly improved by that. Honestly, i wish i could be like David or somebody, but that's a bit off from now. --Miekal 05:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
What do I have to do with this, who cares who some chronically uninteresting child of middling intelligence aspires to be like, and why can't you answer direct questions? You ought to be much more sensitive to the fact that RW has an extremely difficult time attracting motivated editors and that you are not one. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There you go with the insults again. And if you are gonna complain I don't do any good for RW, i'll look at my example, you, and not see much improvement if I was more like oh so helpful nutty. .--Miekal 05:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. If I were actually your example, you'd have spent a lot of time and energy over years of supporting the foundation and site. I want you to tell me my contributions were not valued. Say it. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Mikalosa you have no idea what you are talking about. Apologise and move on. Tielec01 (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The nutty who helped the foundation and site is a nutty I like, I respect that nutty and actually wanted to be like him on this site; so no, your contributions are valued. All you seem like now is a bitter man whos angry at the direction things went, and keeps yelling how much we all suck. I don't like that nutty, I want the other nutty back. --Miekal 05:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for defending my efforts at being a skeptic here. I have a hard time summarizing Wikipedia sometimes, the stuff on magic tricks is already very precise, though explaining religion can be done several ways. Also stop lumping people together with stage magicians with the magician category, I didn't come up with the original definition for that category, I just thought pointing out I know how they work is beneficial to everyone.

Oh yeah Marlow wants there to be less info on faking ghosts, which would be appropriate for my newest article list of magic tricks as much as it is for ghosts. Just though I'd point that out to the rest of the hive and see what the consensus was before reverting. I cited Wikipedia, it's technical info. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Stop asking us to get you unbanned from wikipedia --Miekal 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit late with that Miekal. :-) Scream!! (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
>.> <.< There is a reason my pokemon is a slowpoke--Miekal 23:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


You can create your own - subpages of your userspace - to work on drafts if you want. Like User:Exiled Encyclopedist/MLK and his grassy knoll. Just create the title as a red link then click on it to edit it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip Human, that should be the last page I make though, as I'm honestly out of material that's notable enough to include, I also want to do something other than researching religions. I have no desire to run for mod here, but I would really appreciate having my old account on Wikipedia back, so I can continue to make bio remediation sections for Wikipedia chemistry articles. I get the feeling I'm going to need to go onto TV tropes though to show I've gotten better with categories, what I did here should take care of my soap boxing and OR history though.

Thanks again for educating me and others, and not being an ass like a lot of the people here, Rational wiki is mostly alright though. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you are still under the mistaken impression that either RationalWiki is somehow affiliated with Wikipedia, or that your actions on other wikis will have weight in the eyes of Wikipedia's admins. Both cases are wrong. Nothing you do here will help you "have your old Wikipedia account back".--ZooGuard (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I am under the mistaken impression they advise to edit other while blocked, because that's the advice they give. Thanks alien zoo guard. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

William Godwin[edit]

I'd never heard of him. I think we should start unreasonably comparing people to him in internet arguments. SophieWilderModerator 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By this point[edit]

By now you've realized that word for word transcriptions of Wikipedia material are frowned upon here. If you continue to insist on copying Wikipedia, something will be done to prevent you from doing so.

My suggestion for you would be to work backwards from Wikipedia's references. Instead of copying and pasting a passage from Wikipedia, look at the reference the passage is based upon and write your own material from that reference, in a manner more relevant to RationalWiki (which is a skeptic resource, as opposed to Wikipedia which is a general encyclopedia and subject to NPOV).

I'm sure that if you want to, and that if you try, you'll be able to be a useful contributor to RationalWiki. As it is, you're not doing to well.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind showing me an example of your own ability to do this, using the page I created list of magic tricks to demonstrate how this is done with technical information? I would appreciate seeing how it's done with that topic in particular. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can definitely do that. I'll try and make something of a chassis/framework that you can base further contributions from. Of course, it'd be based on my style of research&editing, and won't necessarily be a golden chariot for your contributions on the wiki.
But I'm going to do it later, not now. Now, I have to do my laundry and my dishes, which have piled up for quite some time. Then I have to go grocery shopping. And I also said I'd do some other stuff on this wiki (editing the circumcision article, troubleshooting the "Email this user" function which isn't working for me). So don't wait with bated breath.
And if I forget, and you really want my assistance, then drop by my talk page and remind me. Just wait a few days before assuming that I forgot.
Finally, while this is unrelated to magic tricks, if you want an example of an article I've written, I created milk yesterday, and nobody's tried deleting it yet. So you can assume that whatever I did while writing that article was somewhere along the lines of "acceptable."--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, that would taste good with a fortune cookie, as long as it's baked all the way and not the original version of the page. Sorry, the metaphor collapsed. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know
  1. Please make sure to use an extra colon ( : ) than the comment above yours when using a talk page
  2. I haven't forgotten about that guide I said I'd make you. I should have it by the end of Sunday this week, if not earlier
--"Shut up, Brx." 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A guide, to help you edit. Part 1[edit]

As promised, I am here to help you edit. Finally. I know I said I'd do so earlier, but I got caught up in some wiki drama and decided to take a break from the place before wading back in. Here, you linked to Wikipedia as a citation because Wikipedia effectively backs up in the article you linked the claim you wanted to make, that communists didn't like Malthus (and possibly also that Darwin and Wallace did).

  1. So, the first step we want to take is to look at the Wikipedia article and see whether it makes those claims, and what citations it uses to make them
  2. It notes Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, by Engels, as one of its sources. Now we go look for that, to see what it says.
  3. Luckily for us, there happens to be a website,, that compiles the works of communists, socialists, and anybody remotely related. Found it!
  4. Now, we read it, or at least skim it, to make sure that it does indeed support the idea that communists don't like Malthus.
  5. and in contrast to this sham philanthropy produced the Malthusian population theory – the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about philanthropy and world citizenship. The premises begot and reared the factory system and modern slavery, which yields nothing in inhumanity and cruelty to ancient slavery. Modern economics – the system of free trade based on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – reveals itself to be that same hypocrisy, inconsistency and immorality which now confront free humanity in every sphere. Holy smokes! Engels really did not like the ideas of Malthus. Well, that'd be enough if all we wanted to say that Engels didn't like Malthus. But we said in the article prominent communists, implying more than one.
  6. Hey, turns out Wikipedia also cites Lenin criticizing Malthus' ideas! And though I hate to say it, Lenin may actually more prominent a communist than Engels. And they even link straight to for us[1]. Well, let's see what Lenin has to say about Malthusianism- yep, he hates it. He's talking about "neo-Malthusianism," sure, but there's no need to mince words here. Lenin hates Malthus.
  7. Well, you've got your citations. Just need to make the edit. Voila.
  8. If you want to do really well, you can use both of those references I just added to add information to the article, such as: Why did Engels hate Malthus' ideas? What does that have to do with RationalWiki's mission of "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, documenting the full range of crank ideas, explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."

Now, I remember promising you more than this, for a guide. I told you I would make you a guide that would help you research magic tricks and discuss them in the context and the mission of RationalWiki. But you're going to have to wait for that. When will you get it? Probably within a week. Hell, it could be later tonight if the fancy takes me. But I said I'd help you, and I intend to help you.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to practice, you can try looking for specific citations that Darwin and Wallace drew inspiration from Malthus. Either look at the Wikipedia article, use Google, or look for a database of old letters, essays, books, and any publications of people like Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. This should be about as easy as looking for citations on, because both of these men were important and influentlial scientists. So there's probably a university or some other group that has an online archive of their works. Then look for references to Malthus.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

India's debt slavery[edit]

India's debt slavery no doubt is the legacy of British efforts to suppress publication of Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User Pages[edit]

If you wish to speak with Human, post your comments on his talk page. It's not appropriate to do so on his user page directly. Thanks. - Grant (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam and Eve as sexism, Christian eugenics and fictional portrayals of religion.[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

Isn't my second wife got me kicked out of paradise a sexist story and my first wife's a vampire who wanted to be on top but I said no,a story of sexism? Also that eugenics page says Presbyterians and episcopalians were invovled and I think thats important to mention on their pages. Also if my mentioning Star Trek and God isn't ok, what's up with the JRPG's on Satans page, why is that page acceptable for sci-fi but God's isn't? This doesn't seem very internally consistent, and only Zoo Guard is doing it, I'd like your opinions on whether this is justified or if someones being a douche bag. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not the topics of your edits, but their quality.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in the Saloon Bar. Take it up on the relevant talk page(s). WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. As it stands it's kind of incomprehensible.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Weasaloid; you call my crap when it's there and don't when it's not. As for you Zooguard, if you are as vastly more component than everyone here, as you imply on your user page, than why didn't you make my edits before me? Spelling and grammatical errors can be corrected later by me or other editors, your lack of initiative in making my edits cannot.
I'm more active than you so it's difficult to compare us because you avoid making mistakes by sticking mostly to deletionism and talk pages, though you contribute more than Miekal. Of the recent batch of deletionism you managed to get Hideo Kojimas criticism of Richard Dawkins on meme deleted, along with some see also's on information theory which was warranted given the black hole information paradox theory. You also deleted Ozzy's line on Aleister Crowley along with God and the Devil in fiction. It's worth noting you didn't care about the two in fiction until I was involved, so your welcome for telling you what your opinions are. You messed up on Adam, Eve, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Star Trek, and Plato though. So being generous and counting those deletions all as equal, you got 5 out of 12, which is less than 50%. Further analysis shows outside of saying fiction sucks, you suck.
Was the butt hurt comment you made an attempt at patriarchal dominance coming from someone with the sex skills of a G.I. Joe and a homophobe who doesn't realize the sites anti authoritarian and that the military is authoritarian (even in the 23rd century)? I imagine you'll be deleting what I've done on Stem cells next being pro right/life, I don't know your gender, but I do know your an asshole who likes crapping on people. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, kind of incomprehensible. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
… and this person wonders why WP kicked him out! Scream!! (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey scream, constructive criticism involves more than just saying you suck, you have to say what specifically I suck at, than suggest an improvement, otherwise your just whining (your name should be Whine!!!). I was kicked off for over categorizing fiction, not spelling errors or anything anything involving facts. What new sections have you added to rational wiki pages Scream, or what would you call your greatest accomplishment here, outside of caring to proof read before posting like I used to as CensoredScribe? Your kind of just...screaming without saying anything and trying to pass that off as snark. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he meant anything by it. Probably. Try not to take it personally. Usernames draw peoples' attention, and they fixate on it. Ikanreed (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You can call me what ever you want, I'm still taking your cake. By cake I mean all the new content relating to religious hypocrisy, strange but true science or stupid things politicians say. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC) So again Scream, Weasaloid use more than a sentence. As for you Zoo Guard, if you hate fiction than don't quote sturgeons law. While were having a dick measuring contest like a bunch of unwed allegedly straight pretend soldiers for atheism, what are the longest sections of new content you three have added to Rationalwiki?

One last question, what's you anti-authoritarians opinions on abortion? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole page that's just people dumping their abortion opinions Essay:Where_do_you_fall_in_the_abortion_debate?. You seem like you're spoiling for a fight, and I'm not sure why. Ikanreed (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Censored Scribe, you were not kicked off Wikipedia just for adding categories to fiction. My reading of it says you were showed the egress after wasting a lot of other editors' time arguing about it. Not listening to advice is a pattern you have continued here. Talk about dick-measuring, check your own image in the mirror... if you think that mere volume of "contributions" is a valid gauge, think again. Unique pinion (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like edit warring Ikanreed, but Zooguard and Weasaloid are not justified in their deletions, they have bad track records as I've explained and seem motivated by personal hatred, or else they would have changed the stem cell research page a long time ago, it's the third one I edited, so it's pretty easy to see. Your as bad as Ryulong on Wikipedia claiming there's no size change in every episode of power rangers, an opinion they accepted than flip flopped on when someone said they reminded them of me. I'll remind you 2 editors here have lost sys ops privlidged arguing with me, and I wasn't the one who decided that.

Your partially right Unique pinion, how many pages you've edited means little, that's why I stopped listing the pages I added anything to a while ago as evidenced by my talk page. Now adding an entire section or creating the page is much harder to do, and shows a better understanding of the subject. What is your measure of a good editor pinion, is it how much the other editors like you? What's your criteria if it isn't the amount of work you've done on the wiki, how many people have read what you've edited? I'm basically on half the pages here, where are the statistics?

This question is for all of you, what's the best contribution you've made here? I have so many it's hard to choose, I wrote the lead and added a section to Star Trek, a page I'm confused why you even have if you all hate fiction. You've read what I've done on Wikipedia right Unique pinion, your not just letting other people tell you what to think like cliff notes? Your analysis is correct, I was given close to a dozen warnings and ignored them, I have a problem with authority, I think I might have written some school reports via being copied by lazy students, like your selves. I'm curious what you fellows Wikipedia contributions are if you care so much about reminding me of it, because I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. I( bring up how little any of you have done in comparison to me, because I'm right. Ask Sprocket or Human to give me a detailed critique if you are all so incapable of writing more than a single sentence of whining. Or ask David Gerard to help you, although Gerard dislikes me for poorly explained reasons that seem to involve nothing more than not proof reading. Also if that's such a problem, demote Miekal, he sets a bad example by not proof reading, half the wiki hates him for asking stupid invasive questions (unlike my invasive questions taken from Blade Runner), I've bettered more history and geography pages than he, a professional historian, and he generally does very little but chat you up on talk pages and delete vandalism. I consider needless deletionism vandalism as well, and I would be willing to say hi if that and anti vandalism is all it takes for me to get elected a moderator like Miekal. What is he better at than me, using commas?

In conclusion, make my edits before me so you won't have anything to whine about. Also learn to use contributions as references when whining about other editors, I went through Miekal's contributions and saw almost nothing but deletionism and chit chat. Gerard said someone should do that for me, without actually doing any of the work or presenting the statistics that would go against his argument. You need a pie chart like Wikipedia if there's this much skepticism about other editors. Now go show this site to your significant other to get some real group think, I think the will be much more interested in what I have to say than you gents. I'm guessing the gender demographic here isn't far off from Wikipedias, Human is only one editor, and I see no female faces, just males like Miekal and Weasaloid. Oh and your welcome, I honestly don't think most of you deserve my assistance, but I'm hoping you'll realize you made mistakes and learn something, just maybe. — Unsigned, by: Exiled Encyclopedist / talk / contribs

I will try to be brief.
make my edits before me so you won't have anything to whine about.
I honestly don't think most of you deserve my assistance, but I'm hoping you'll realize you made mistakes and learn something
Do you hear what you are saying? We should all be so attuned to your view that we speak with your voice? Do you think your edits are pure crystalline essence of what the wiki should be, if only it knew what it needed? No, the mob is a varied bunch of flawed individuals, many with value to add, but none having final say. It is a wiki, for FUCK's sake.
People like to have their voices heard. It is a basic urge, rooted in males and females alike. One manifestation of that urge, in the modern world, is online commentary. You are not alone in being partial to making your difference become part of the record. In my opinion, you still need to work on the collaborative aspects of how that works in a wiki.
I do not hate Miekal. I do not see Human or Sprocket coming around much any more, not as much as they used to. and I doubt either one is interested in spending the time and energy it would take to give you a detailed critique. (Notice how that makes it all about you?) David Gerard displays superhuman tolerance for some of the mob's more egregious stupidities. I see him going through lots of popcorn, well-buttered, so he is not tempted to get his grubby fingers onto the keyboard while the idiocy is afoot. Unique pinion (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Wpa:Olga Mesmer I collaborate even with people I dislike, I gave Weasaloid the idea to vandalize the stemcell page, just as I gave zoo Guard the idea to delete fictional potrayals of god. I prefer collaborating with allies though, I had some on Wikipedia, just as I have some here. I'm not perfect, and I never claimed to be. My voice is unique but my references are not; you assumed that's what I cared most about, because you like to assume things. Unless you've died before, than what is your opinion on personally perception during death based on? You assume a second ever lasting non existence you assume your entitled to, and that death will be more fair than life. Unlike that non existence you came out of, how long was that non existence exactly and how did your consciousness arise to begin with? What was it like being ova and sperm, or the stuff of stars and black holes before your first ancestor? I mentioned the military is homophobic and sexist because until very recently they clearly were, just as Wikipedia has obvious sexism problems. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Mate, your posts are unintelligible - take some time off, get your head straight and then try again. I think there might be slightest hint of a point in what you write, but it's hard to tell when 99 percent of it is gobbledy-gook. Tielec01 (talk)
I am about to take an indefinite amount of time off because I did everything I set out to do. Instead of using single sentence criticisms please quote a line in the paragraph and ask for further explanation, I would be more than glad to teach you how to read things longer than a sentence. Your one of those people who needs an intro, 3 points and a conclusion.

What specifically was unintelligible? Yes I do write stream of conscious, so did William Burroughs.

I think Zoo Guard deleting all fiction references yet quoting a sci-fi author is unintelligible. I think Zoo Guard using clips from a fictitious movie about soldiers is unintelligible. Particularly coming from someone who thinks there should be no references to fiction on this site, because it makes it resemble T.V. Tropes. I think Wikipedia being 85% men is unintelligible. I think Ryulong on Wikipedia accepting my categorization of Power Rangers as having size change in episode, than recently deleting said categorizations out of personal spite is as unintelligable as Weasaloid suddenly taking an interest in the stem cell research page. I think editors who don't edit Wikipedia criticizing those who do is unintelligable because anyone can do it, take the Wikipedia challenge and see how you do. I think the gender gap in ground forces is unintelligable, just as George Takei and Captain Eugene Wesley Roddenberry think war it's self is unintelligible. I think not being able to read sentences with commas in them is unintelligible, even if the commas aren't placed correctly, you should still be able to get the general idea being a native English speaker. I think you speaking only a single language is unintelligable and shows you don't value other cultures; you consider words you can't understand just memes to be weeded out when English becomes the universal language. I think you could never teach English, because you would not be able to read anything your students write, and that you would be fired for telling them their god is a lie to their crying faces. I think single sentence criticisms are unintelligable and ineffective attempts at getting the final word in on a conversation, and demonstrate an unwillingness to actually discuss the issue in detail until something is learned. I think not mentioning Richard Dawkins errors in linguistics is unintelligable given he's mostly famous for coining the term meme; not for being a zoologist or for being an atheist. I think ignoring the fact a persons go to example for everything involves the possibilities of women being raped is something a psychologist would note, given they note your reactions to ink blots and word association. I think a zoologist getting famous for a linguistic metaphor is as unintelligable as calling outer space an ocean.

In conclusion I think these things are unintelligable. Damn, I didn't list those points in the intro than again in the conclusion, I guess that means you can't see anything I just wrote. Please remember to use citations like the poster immediately above you, Unique pinion. If you have questions, you need to ask them or else no one can answer them. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok now I have to be official[edit]

Stop editing people's user pages.--Miekal 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What if they plagiarize like ZooGuard?

And you know what, I was staying out of that clusterfuck of a thread of yours[edit]

The ONLY reason my name is even a part of it is you felt the overwhelming need to mention me in a rant; I had no interest in taking part in it. Now, would you like to actually be useful or are you just set on being an additional nuisance alongside the doxxing troll?--Miekal 15:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of doxxing? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Go visit the magic place known as Recent changes. --Miekal 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I did, there is no username, nor is the nature of the doxxing evident. That's the problem with secret courts is it protects the one committing crimes, which is ironic when the crime is doxxing. See my rant on MGS2. Would you even tell me if the person doxed was me? You do some things right as an administraor, I'm not saying your a bad person or not without some talents. I'm also not asking for any particular outcome, but Former Editor did raise a valid point. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
People being banned and their edits (alongside the revisions of said edits) hidden tend to do that for not seeing usernames. Now, mind leaving me out of your current spat? I only got involved because you made another "I'm leaving now" comment and then started actually breaking rules.--Miekal 15:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll leave you our as you weren't involved in this particular incident like the other 3 editors. However what ZooGuard is doing is also plagarism and I would like that noted. If the rules are set in stone they must be enforced by throwing stones. What did you mean by seeing usernames? I get the feeling someone, maybe not me or Former Editor will bring up your lack of additions at some point, rational wiki's premier historian. I think you've demonstrated that you definitely deserve sysops privileges though and you can quote me on that, and although I may have more edits to historical topics than you, I could never replace you as a moderator; just ask that someone else does. Would you be willing to testify on my behalf at the chicken coop? I somehow doubt it, but regardless, I'm glad you and I can can actually talk out our differences.

Also, the only edits I intended to do involved reverting reversions of my edits, and maybe saying something or rather about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. Those have far fewer articles than Christianity or the miscellaneous smaller religions. There's surprisingly little science articles here as well; so there's not much for me to do that I haven't done already. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather just stay out of it entirely. Just don't break actual rules and things are fine between us for the moment. --Miekal 16:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I made my point about being needlessly strict on plagiarism; so I highly doubt it will happen again. Definitely not with exactly the same people on their user pages because that would be dumb to do twice and expect different results. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:Chicken Coop[edit]

Like Weaseloid said, you should try going on the article talk page and having the discussion there. The Chicken Coop is more for administrative abuse and trolling, and not so much content disputes. I suggest you practice in your user space more. I'll try and make you another editing guide by the end of the week (how was the last one, by the way? Did you find it helpful?)--"Shut up, Brx." 21:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping you would actually edit the Not actually a list of magic tricks article, I was using a technique inspired by Tom Sawyer when he said work was fun to get the fence white washed. Unfortunately that article is still completely on target, yet no one is editing it, I presume because they all want to be in the magicians guild, instead of revealing secrets like Penn & Teller.
I would instead prefer help with rephrasing the science information in the absolute zero, time travel or ghost articles. I did a fine job with the existing references for said magic article, though I'd like to see more work done on it, because it has the potential to be one of the larger articles on this Wiki.
Though an edition to that magic article would also be appreciated, it would be less useful a writing lesson than the others I've listed. Thanks for the help informating the users of this Wiki about theoretical physics and stage magic. What was your intended edit to the circumcision article? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do-"Shut up, Brx." 00:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Why does everyone here dodge questions, even when I ask only one? You don;t realize how obvious it is your doing it, do you? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What was my intended edit to the circumcision article? I intend to add in some of the information a BoN wanted included about foreskin's role in sexual pleasure, and also to note that not all circumcisions are equal (while one might be performed by a doctor and another might be done with a machete in a third-world village and result in an infection that requires you to lop off the rest of the penis). I didn't answer it because the question came out of nowhere, and I wasn't sure of what context you intended in. I could have asked you, but I simply didn't feel motivated to do so. Sometimes, I'm quite the conversationalist. Other times, not so much. It's not a reflection on you, I just fluctuate that way.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It's alright, I just remember you saying that was one you were interested in and I figure you know how I started the perpetual edit war on that article by labeling it alternative medicine. I'm not like Sophie Wilder where I expect things to be done within four hours when you say soon; at your leisure. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Race![edit]

If you are here to complain about my drive by's and edit gang wars, than please take this time to propose an article race. This wiki is about as competitive as a shonen jump manga. So rather than through a figureless edit accuracy statistics around, name an article that needs improving, and we will race to improve it. I'd prefer a non active third party name the article rather than someone who already has something written in advance. I'm not interested in editing any more fiction articles, and I'm much better at science and religion than I am at politics; but any would be fine. May the best reference racer help this wiki win! Alternatively we could also just agree to work together, but than no one gets to call the other mean names; which is the only way some of the people here know how to criticize. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what do your doctors call whatever the fuck is wrong with you? Robledo (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's adorable your an atheist yet still believe there is actually universal health care in America. Add any sections to articles recently or just one liners like an American action movie? The idea of cooperating on something strikes you as madness because it's always a competition to look the best with you, ever think to be more friendly? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Community norms about talk page comments[edit]

On RW, there is a strong distaste towards modifying talk page comments a significant amount of time after they have been posted, even if other people haven't replied to them. The same applies to removing other people's posts. (If you haven't noticed, in that edit you also removed SJC's reply to your original post in October.)--ZooGuard (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Would removing my own words but keeping Sprockets reply have been acceptable; or is anything on a users talk page relinquished, including other editors words? How's life treating you Zoo Guard; what articles are you currently working on master? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Religious fraud[edit]

More here Scream!! (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks cool, feel free to add them. Thanks by the way, sorry for yelling at you. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Of user rights and plagiarism[edit]

Firstly, I've made you autoconfirmed so you don't need the CAPTCHA. Secondly, with this change in user rights, you should be careful. Watcherinthedark has reverted a number of your edits because they were copy-pastes from elsewhere. Please don't do this, as it is plagiarism. Use your own words, and add/subtract parts that make it more worded like a RationalWiki article. Thank you. Noisemobile (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, what might I do to be given full sysops like I used to have? exiled did not believe Farenheiot 451 or Handmaids tale were sci-fi Watcher gets defended by Sophie when people say they are old andblind but I don't when people accuse me of being a tone deaf 12 year old for referencing Metal Gear Solid II on memes. Tone deaf is another medical condition that's offensive to throw around as an insult. Could we work together on something Noisemobile? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Working together[edit]

I don't have much time for a little bit to work on something that will take-off on this Wiki, but if you have something in mind that we could work on together, I'd gladly help out when I have intervals of free time. What would you like to tackle here? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Still plagiarizing from Wikipedia.[edit]

I blocked you for a couple of days. When you come back please stop plagiarizing from Wikipedia and asking others to clean up after you. Also stop whining. --Marlow (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

3 days is reasonable in most instances, I only used harsher blocks on sysops that could revert them instantly.

If I copy my own words from Wikipedia isn't it unreasonable to expect me to sound different from myself, if I already relayed the information as best I can on wikipedia? If I had a better way or relaying that information I would have worded it that way the first time.

Also, what is you Wikipedia name, or why don't you edit there if you read it so often. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The license is compatible so I don't see the big deal. Landmartian (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


I don't wish to intrude on your delusions of persecution but your user page accuses me of removing your contributions to three pages (Presbyterianism Episcopalianism and Methodism), two of which I've never actually edited. Please try to get simple facts right. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So what's the deal with you defending Methodisms support of Eugenics? Since when did you leave out parts of history because they were old? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

GHWB and the throwing up thing[edit]

How, exactly, does him throwing up on a HOS because he was sick prove he hates asians? And If you want to use the event during the war to justify it, thats a bit of a stretch to combine the two, let alone into the bigotry. --Miekal 01:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

To be completely clear, just say the magic words this is not a comedy site. Alot of people are under the impression this is; like T.V. Tropes and Uncyclopedia. I know you are the expert on jokes as well as history. I know this place isn't funny, but do you? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
..? I'm asking how George Bush Sr. getting sick from a flu leads into being bigoted against the Asians. --Miekal 01:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
...the 24 hour flu that he contracted after playing tennis correct; I presume contracted from someone who has close contact with the president? Do you believe in Micro Expressions exhibited during a war flashback being recorded at a large official event? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Do I believe that, with the possible analysis that almost being eaten by japanese cannibals left him with a hate of the japanese, that getting sick and throwing up on somebody doesn't lead me to the conclusion he is bigoted towards asians, nor that either link mentions it, nor, afaik, has he stated he hated asains? You're trying to combine two events together to justify something, and that's reaching just a bit to much. --Miekal 03:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That you didn't interpret the words speaking about hating asians as the set up to one of this Wiki's many failures at humor; it's not like humor is even listed as one of the 4 mission goals. Please show me an example of a good joke here because I'm starting to doubt you have a sense of humor, so far the Ayn rand one is the only one that's given me a laugh. This site just wants the legal protection given to humor.
You're weird but I know you already knew that Mikal is humorless and not very smart. And he's somehow arrogant about it. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Also who gave president Bush that 24 hour flu, how many people can even get the president sick? He wasn't sick during the tennis match he just played, you'd think he would have noticed than, being more physically stressed and all. You would think that limited circle in contact with the president would have medical records that would corroborate the official story of a 24 hour flu.

It's like teh peanut that almost killed W; really? Obama can catch flies. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


I think you're a good and good faith editor. People need to supervise you, and do it less reactively, but you're a good faith editor. Congratulations for being one of the few people I've sysopped. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I definitely need it, or else I'd be blocked for the slightest act of rudeness on a talk page like has happened to me before. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong and you[edit]

Go here. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me and starting a more formal discussion. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about Ryulong, I know him Wikipedia as a humorless, authoritarian bully. Thanks for your contributions to the Caligula article. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A message[edit]

Here's what you need to do: actually learn something from when you were banned from Wikipedia. You add shit to articles that is entirely unrelated but because there's some extremely minor connection between two topics (eg. Watergate and Gamergate both have "gate" in them) you make the connection. This is not necessary. Get a clue already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a test to see whether or not you see the glass as half full, half empty or completely empty. You recognized that you were wrong to call it completely empty thus you have grown as a person since reverting super sentai. Sorry top go all L on you. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
RationalWiki mainspace articles should not be used as a sandbox to test people's reactions. (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with above. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for the reaction test on the main space; though some lasting good did come of it, it won't happen again. I'm glad that although Ryulong and I both make mistakes born of our unfortunately antagonistic brief history, we at least realize and admit to them quickly. That surprises me, you have actually grown as a person since reverting super sentei in a temper tantrum and calling me a fucktard; just because your stubbornness was compared to mine.
I've contributed to most of the articles here already, now it's Ryulong's turn. For the nothing it's worth, you can tell Arbcom that I think you should be allowed back onto Wikipedia and allowed to edit unrestricted, just not as a sysop because you edit war too much. It's one thing to make mistakes; we were blocked for making the same exact ones repeatedly, when after the first reversion we should have just brought the topic up to the talk pages and discussed it.
I hope you enjoy it here, I rarely did; for the most part this place is a clone of Wikipedia that fails at being funny, in large part because the morbidly depressing subject matter of fake medicine and hate groups, but also because one sentence isn't enough to be snarky, just short. I really recommend Uncyclopedia for a sample of Wiki humor; most humor tends not to have many hyper linked references. I think this place only exists because Wikipedia refuses to make religions look bad, even when the references are good; which is surprising given how many of the first 10000 wikipedia articles were just Ayn Ranty named arguments against the non existence of god; not really encyclopedic topics.
Just one question Ryulong, does Super Sentei have size change in every single episode of the majority of it's seasons, just a simple yes or no? [2] Regardless of your answer I want you to know I have no quarrel with you unless you again go out of your way to make one again; which would look rather vindictive, as I'll be gone after today. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you are incessantly focusing on this minute aspect of our interaction on Wikipedia, the tiny fact that led me to discover how much of a problem you were there, really speaks more about yourself than it does me. And CensoredScribe, I'm not banned from Wikipedia. I came here because I wanted to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad you still have your editing privileges at Wikipedia; I'm mostly glad your editing something other than anime articles. As for our history, there's only two things I could focus on, that ancient ANI discussion, and that you called be a fucktard and have yet to either admit to it or apologize. I have two questions for you, is there size change in most episodes of super sentei; per the growing the monsters page on the super sentei wiki? Also, as an oceanographer; how much wiki karma do my additions to the plastic and global warming articles warrant compared to my categorization sprees? Have you actually seen any of my edits outside of fiction; I wouldn't expect that you would, however I'm extending that invitation to critique me now.
Your competent, even if I don't like you, though I doubt your nice or honest enough to admit I've done any good on Wikipedia. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I honestly cannot remember calling you anything. It's unimportant what happens in that TV show. And I did not study pollution or global warming.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That's alright, because the history for your page talk page on Wikipedia doesn't reflect you having said that either which is a blatant sign of misconduct in white washing your edits; most likely assisted by your crew. But there's no evidence now that it's gone, unless someone high up enough in Wikipedia is reading this and could confirm there was an anomaly about the time the super sentei category was changed. That other user you were talking to probably didn't bother to check their own history to see it was altered.
I would like to report both this and the fact I wasn't able to log on to my wikipedia account to the proper people at Wikipedia, would you tell me who to contact and how when I'm indefinitely blocked?
As per the importance of fiction, LA LI LU LE LO. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You know, a sane person would drop the fucking subject about the fucking category edit you did that tipped me off to your wiki quackery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh, your nervously repeating the word fuck like how you nervously made typos earlier. You know Dramatica will be all over Gerard and you, by having him cover for you; you caught the ire of Annonymous, for being a hypocritical authoritarian liar. Was Gerard smart enough to doctor everyone's talk pages or just yours? He shares your stubborness in edit warring long after he or she has lost. I seem to recall another editor who compared you to me which prompted you reverting your approval of the size change category. I assume that editor who didn't seem to think you were that hot anymore is going to be shut up by you and Gerard nice and legal somehow before they come forth as a witness. I know it was someone familiar with you so they probably left you a message on your talk page previously, which should make finding them fairly easy.
As for the super sentei power rangers and ultra man edits you refuse to mention by name; that you reverted your self after 2 months of allowing that edit shows that either you made 2 months worth of mistakes or were right the first time and can't admit I was right out of pride. In which case you are a failure of a wikipedia editor and as a decent human being. By the way, your oceanography career is being crowd sourced. [3]
What articles are you here to edit? I think you're mostly here to try and make your self look less misogynistic by editing the gamer gate article; which this Wiki needs to hide it's failure at the cyber bullying article. You clearly fear powerful women; like the fictional ones with size changing powers. Mind telling me your opinions on women's rights, particularly when it involves abortion; as well as your opinions and regarding the mentally "fucktarded"? You know, cause you care so much I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing your wonderful arguments that will better humanity with your compassionate words of wisdom.
For the love of atheismo; please use multipel paragraphs when trying to criticize thousands of edits as quackery. Where you refferring to the psychology of the holocaust; or the sufferers of atom bomb disease not being given medical care as quackery. Really, all 100% of my edits lacked references? I'm only accusing you of erasing a single edit on your talk page by asking the corrupt administrator David Gerard to white wash them for you. Like how he wants to white wash the history of slavery to exclude U.S. presidents. You and David Gerard are fighting losing battles. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You won't drop these fucking issues. You are fucking insane. You have learned absolutely nothing from anything that's happened to you because to you it's just one track. You have constantly and unnecessarily brought up this garbage like it fucking means something here. I mean I didn't even know you made this edit either. And would you stop attacking me for what I fucking studied? Ad hominem attacks don't help your case. No one cares about your insane attention to detail that belongs at TV Tropes and not Wikipedia or RationalWiki about what minor concept connects two unrelated topics. Yes, Rita Repulsa makes her monsters grow. Yes, Megazords and Ultraman fight monsters in cardboard cityscapes. But 'no one gives a fuck about this commonality but you. The same goes for all of the categorization bullshit you're pulling here. It doesn't matter here who did or did not own slaves. Slavery has nothing to do with the skepticism or conservative right wing bullshit that RationalWiki covers and mocks. And would you stop fucking bringing up ED? If you fucking love it so much go over there and see how they handle your eccentricities. For one thing, they'd call you a fucktard more than I ever did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocking people and edit warring without discussing things with them is a bad example for a sysops much less a moderator to set. I asked you about oceanography once, and told you about crowd sourcing oceanographer jobs away once. Ryulong, you learned nothing from ANI; you edit warred over size change and you revert rape being unremitting horror; you are a sexist trying to look less sexist. I am not going to ED, I'm confused why Wnt is there given they appeared quite polite, concerned with new ways that might treat COPD and rational. You are a jerk, read the Wikipedia page on slavery; it's still very relavent and I'm guessing more conservatives than liberals own slaves nowadays and in the past. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You were banned from Wikipedia because I managed to show the community as a whole how much of a fucking drain on the project you are because you would not stop adding useless fucking categories to pages that have nothing to do with the whole of the actual topic and you made up new categories for new intersectionality that only you recognized. Just because you read that one issue of Superman where Darkseid or whoever enslaves him, does not make Superman a fictional slave. Just because one episode of some shitty anime you watched once had a character grow fifty feet tall does not mean that it justifies inclusion in the category you made up for size change in fiction. The Atom is about size change in fiction. The Fantastic Voyage is about size change in fiction. Rita Repulsa going "MAGIC WAND, MAKE MY MONSTERS GROW" is arguably size change in fiction but no one but you gives a fuck about it. So drop the fucking subject. You went out of your way to contact me when you know damn well I'm the reason you were banned from WP in the first place. You will not stop bringing up this insane theory you have in your head that we can bury the hatchet when all I've seen from you here is behavior that should get you booted. You are being enabled and it will come to an end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

you know[edit]

If you aren't actually going to go on wikibreak, you shouldn't run around saying you will.--Miekal 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it's annoying, I'm at the bottom of the long riffled barrel of horrific religious and authoritarian knowledge now. I'm gone new years day and I'm not coming back except to say hi to what few friends here I have, Nutty, Stabby and possibly Sprocket. Also everyone else whose helped me out yet I've never actually talked to on the talk pages. In the future I will remember to use talk pages more and work more closely with others, in preparation for the inevitable ANI discussion. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I Don't really care if you stay or go. But you have way to much of a history of going " and I'm done/gone" and then staying the course instead. If your actually done be done. If you want to stay stop saying otherwise--Miekal 22:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Uh, could I get your endorsement as a historian? Do you think Hitler owned slaves? I've been told on Wikipedia he did not; and that he did. Also, should the Roman Emperors, Pharohs and Caliphs be considered slave holders? I don't think the Nazi's should count as the majority of them did not order slaves; but those kings gave orders.[4]
I'm not much of a historian on Hitler, so I can't realistically answer the question. & I'm not telling you to leave or stay btw, I'm asking you to staying you will but then don't.--Miekal 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's cool, neutrality is way better than hate any day; just to warn you, I'd keep an eye on Ryulong because they have a selective public memory and have the ability to change the edit history on Wikipedia to white wash their edits. I had no idea Wikipedia cared that little, I thought they were at least sticklers for their own rules.

I also had these two other history topics if your interested; I just recently started reading more about ancient Rome; I can't find any sources saying Caligula was the one responsible for his armies engineering advances.

I did find a source, however un academic top ten lists are, that explains how much rape there was in ancient Roman society. It's not the most academic source, but it's a start. The Wikipedia page for Roman history doesn't even mention sex slavery outside of the rape of the sabine women. Slaves had no rights in Rome, they could be raped at any time and at any age.

Also for the historical revisionism page, because I guess it's not relevant to understanding the atomic bombings of Japan... Removed from many accounts are the inappropriately named 'ant-walking alligator people'; who by chance were shielded from the blast and it's initial rays by their surroundings. They did not have eyes or faces, with red holes incapable of speech, instead of mouths and had clothing patterns burned into what was left of their skin. [5]

I was hoping to go out on a more pleasant note, like Spider Obama, but I guess not. A Spiderman does what he can. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if you just did a wee bit of critical thinking and fact checking, considering that your Hiroshima source is this book (yes, your very own NYT source also back-pedalled). Just like your sensationalist "Hitler kept slaves" questions this hardly suggests someone who's exercising much in the way of due diligence.
Not that Hiroshima or Nagasaki weren't horrific, but some of the descriptions in Pellegrino's book sound physically implausible, not to say fanciful. While I've seen a photo of a horrific burn injury from Hiroshima (the victim's back was one great blister), the idea that microwave radiation would lead to "[p]eople who wore wristwatches were branded where the metal met their skin," sounds implausible (microwaves are usually not the main problem anyway), as do the claims for dark patterns in clothing being "branded permanently onto their skin" (unless the actual reference is to some kind of metallic print/threads melting rather than burning, and then the branding would probably not be the victims' greatest concern, but rather their full body burns from their burnt off clothing).
By contrast, the “ant-walking alligators” sound far more plausible since there were clearly the most horrifically wounded burn victims who (initially) survived. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
ADDENDUM I was at least partly wrong: See my SkeletonKing's response on my talk page. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have mentioned I have not read the Hitlers slaves book; it was the one named on a Wikipedia discussion of this same subject. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine EE - and a happy new year, btw. I've made a longer response to you on my own talk page, but I'll just reiterate here that I'm sorry if, as it seems now, I was unfairly harsh on you in my initial response. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Be careful about sources and formatting[edit]

Hi EE, good to see loads of activity. I just want to call your attention to a couple of points. First, try not to insert spaces before refs (it should look like this,1 not this 2). Secondly, and as I've mentioned in an earlier post: Be careful with your sources. Please don't cite Daily Mail for anything (unless, possibly, it's to illustrate the rag's ludicrous "journalism"), particularly not on scientific topics (I came across one such in your edits on genetic modification). Citing the Mail is tantamount to citing (aka Scopie's Law). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've read the Mail's Wikipedia page now; I was not expecting to see support for Hitler; that's a lot of libel lawsuits they've lost as well, they have a lot in common with the The Mirror. I don't think respectable newspapers run tabloids, so I'll avoid referencing them like I do with The Sun. What The Sun said about AIDS is more appalling than any vandalism to the Wikipedia AIDS article, and makes me feel like a legitimate journalist in comparison, just for regurgitating what I read about the CCR5 gene in a science journal. Scrutinizing these sources more closely by learning their histories has gotten me interested in the history of journalism; I even found a good opening quote for the H.G. Wells article, his epitaph "I told you so. You damned fools." I get the feeling Wells would have been opposed to human animal chimeras; though I'm curios what he would have thought about Spiderman given he was born human and is science fictions luckiest lab accident, for all that Peter Parker has the worst luck the rest of the time.

I'll format references better and go through any repeat references and consolidate them with ref name to take up less space; I see the page numbers will still be view-able in edit mode. Thanks again for the approval on most of the additions to genetic engineering article, I think it's as important to detail as the causes of global warming; sometimes pseudoscience is just the absence of a basic scientific explanation when one already exists, it's not just refuting false scientific claims. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh, the H.G. Wells page is gone. That's strange, considering all the science fiction authors inspired by him that have pages here. I wonder who deleted his page? Someones up to no good. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I mixed up Mark Twain with H.G. Wells, my bad. Also it's unbelievable that I would welcome Ryulong to RationalWiki but not have tried talking to him on Wikipedia. I had to ask him to keep the category size change for Power Rangers Super Sentei and Ultraman. If you want to run an experiment, simply add size change in fiction to super sentei and watch the addition get deleted, even if you include this as a reference, [6]. I have double reverted myself by accident before, however the record claims I did this 6 minutes after posting the category size change to super sentei; an awful long time for a page to not load correctly. Strange I wouldn't notice either considering I was trying to get a hundred different pages to say they had size change in ficiton and often double reverted Ryulong. Unbelievable. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Jesus christ stop fucking bringing up this petty bullshit from Wikipedia. No one gives a fuck but you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Says the man afraid of giant women, who denies rape is unremitting horror, who is about to revert super sentei again. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You are just a fucking idiot. Where are you pulling this "afraid of giant women" bullshit? Did you pull it out of your ass like my elementary school classmates did when they said I was afraid of the Quaker Oatmeal guy? Please. And I am not denying anything you moron. Do you honestly think that Rape belongs in the same category as Sarah Palin or Jenny McCarthy? You're putting extremely serious topics into categories that are about making fun of people? Seriously.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2014 Isla Vista killings/Elliot Rodger's manifesto, Aum Shinrikyo, Branch Davidians, Charles Manson,, Holocaust Khmer Rouge, Magdalene laundry, Slavery, The Resistance Manifesto, Unabomber, Police brutality, USA PATRIOT Act. You think all these Gamer gate are funny? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Indent properly you moron. You are justifying your addition of Rape to this category based on a fucking TV Tropes page. You need to get your priorities checked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Having edited the page for holocaust, I'm saying you are a Grammar nazi that would deny human rights based off a spelling test. Now answer the question. It's justified because the vast majority of people you ask will say that category contains a lot of real horrors and rape is horrifying; that's the justification you don't understand as a misogynist. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You've argued yourself into a hole, please swear less, it's rude. I asked your permission to add size change to those pages; than you deleted our truce from the history of your talk page and tried to make it look like I reverted myself on Super Sentei 6 minutes after the fact, before continuing a merciless and foolish edit war. Now address whether you think those examples I listed are humor and why that wasn't your first reaction, having examined the category. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Have nominated the category Slaveholders for deletion[edit]

Just thought that I'd give you a courtesy call as I've nominated your "slaveholder" category for deletion. See the category page for the reason behind my nomination. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, how long do most discussions last; is it more than a day? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Depends on overwhelmingness. Mobocracy is more or less how rationalwiki is run. Ikanreed (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, EE. My guess is that voting was closed so quickly for two reasons:
  • No one thought the category was useful as reflected by not a single "keep" vote being cast (bar your own subsequent one).
  • You've not exactly endeared yourself to several users (meaning that it's unlikely that someone will stick up for you for just being a nice guy).
Now I don't find the second reason to be particularly pertinent, but I've included it because I do think it played a role. Nevertheless, compare how quickly your category gathered 8 "delete" votes with the other articles for deletion and you can see why yours is a very clear case.
Also, your recent comment in the Saloon Bar only strengthens my opinion that deleting the category was the right decision, because you once again goes into conspiracy mode and attacking other users, rather than actually making a case for the value of the category. Try not to be such a drama queen, it's not helping your case and is likely to convince even more users to vote for harsher sanctions against you. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And EE, those articles you list on your user page as being of high quality were so before you added to them. From the content I've seen from you it was definitely not because of your edits that any article has been upgraded. Your content seems to me to be mainly of the trivia/pub quiz variety; vaguely interesting and not entirely irrelevant, but not eye opening stuff either. I doubt RW would have been much worse off without your input. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


are likely about to be desysoped and vandalbinned, and the reaction you have is to go to the saloon bar and post the same inciting crap that is making people vote for this? Dude, stop. Nobody cares about your vendetta with DG or Ryu, nobody gives a shit about super sentai and size change. --Miekal 21:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)