User talk:Faunas

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

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Seme Blue 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory thing.[edit]

I've moved it to the essay space. Feel free to go nuts there. Cheers, Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Faunas (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Estulin[edit]

Nice work. Two things: one, try to avoid linking to that other obscure wiki. Two, the image needs to be credited/sourced. Let my inspiration flow/In token token lines suggesting rhythm. 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also...[edit]

This. Let my inspiration flow/In token token lines suggesting rhythm. 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop.[edit]

Please don't create links to WP (see above). Especially, please don't link to TV Tropes for no good reason. Thanks! Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll admit it. I'm the one who created the TV Tropes article (I even quote RW on the YMMV page!) and I'm the only one who edits that thing (so no quackery over there). On links to WP, weren't these to be avoided only on the bodies of the articles, i.e., we could link to WP on the end, so people know more about the thing in question? Faunas (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines say "please don't link to Wikipedia." If people want to learn more, maybe we should write better articles? I dunno? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with linking to Wikipedia in order to explain something that's not general knowledge but is off-mission. SophieWilder 22:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gardner[edit]

I don't know if it had anything to do with the gender studies project, but thank you for creating the article on Gardner.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, it didn't have anything to do with the gender studies project, it's just that I had an axe to grind - those people who foam at the idea of Gardner being "pro-pedophile", when this is not true, and who misrepresent Gardner's research; i.e., I had an axe to grind for the truth. Faunas (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If you have an axe to grind, RW mainspace may not be the place for it. Would you like to host the article in your own userspace instead, if the deletion effort is successful? Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 10:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, if my axe to grind is the truth (along with the use of fallacies against Gardner), then RW is the place. If the deletion effort is successful, then I'll host it in my userspace instead, or in an essay. Faunas (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Lady Catherine's talk page[edit]

Please don't go bothering RW users who haven't made any edits for two full years (to the day) to go support your article. Thanks. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 20:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WIGO[edit]

Check WigoBlogs/Clogs before adding to WIGOworld! Scream!! (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar templates[edit]

Why are you taking the categories out of sidebar templates? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Because otherwise we have a bunch of articles which are uselessly both part of main categories and some of their subcategories (e.g. some time ago, when I started doing this, pages of conspiracy theorists with the Template:Conspiracynav on them were in both category:conspiracy theories and category:conspiracy theorists, the latter being a subcategory of the former; before I had made it so that conspiracy theorists were shown separately from the theories, but then I found out that the theorists were still showing in the wrong place, so I found the source of the problem - categories in sidebar templates - and took it out. Then, I found out that the same problem crept out in many other cases, so I solved it). This is not only confusing, but unnecessarily inflates the amount of pages in the main categories. Faunas (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated[edit]

Hey buddy! Great work on the premium rate telephone number‎‎ article! Don't stop now, keep going! Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Reverend! Faunas (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine[edit]

Hi there. Good work on the osteopathic medicine page, but unfortunately we already have a page on osteopathy. I have marked the osteopathic medicine for possible deletion. Unless you have a rather convincing reason that they should be separate pages, please try to merge your page onto the older one. Bongolian (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on the Glenn Greenwald page.[edit]

The sources you used are fringe and secondary sources that are disputed by other primary sources, That's why I undid the edit, Please go on the talk page before you undo anymore edits. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

They are neither fringe nor secondary (except perhaps Errata Security). I quoted that The Intercept was going to help Reality Winner from The Intercept itself. I quoted that Assange supported Winner from Assange's own Twitter. These are primary sources. And, my main beef with all this is the "pro-Russia" thing. I haven't seen any evidence that they are pro-Russia (and no, mistimed leaks of which we do not know the provenance, and criticizing Trump/Russia conspiracy theories are not "pro-Russia"). Faunas (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: There are also another problem with the paragraph as it currently stands, which is how it basically implies that "pro-Russia" The Intercept basically threw Reality Winner to the wolves. Faunas (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The evidence that they are pro-Russian is the fact that they are ignoring, downplaying and outright denying that Russian collusion happened despite all of the evidence, Why would Greenwald and his team be so skeptical about this story when it's previously been willing to uncover the capabilities of worldwide spying operations? Also The Intercept is not a reliable source, You can add that The Intercept is going to help Reality Winner as long as you can find can find other reliable secondary sources that mention it. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1) Where is this "evidence" you speak of? All I've been seeing is media-created and spread assertions, some of which come from recently-created organizations linked to neocons of years past which supported failed militaristic policies and speak of Russia in militaristic terms. Meanwhile, all specific concrete claimed "facts" (i.e. the ones that are not the general "Russia won the election for Trump", such as e.g. the electric power grid infiltration thing, which gloss over facts such as that it was Hillary's campaign that wanted to focus on Trump in the first place) have been consistently debunked.
2) What makes The Intercept unreliable? The fact that it doesn't agree with what you say on Trump/Russia? Faunas (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
all of the evidence is right here and easy to look up, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections virtually every reliable source agrees that collusion happened and the only ones who deny it are crackpots like Greenwald and his berniebro/Trump enabling russian bots, It's obvious that you're a Russian bot or a troll and that i'm wasting my time even arguing with you, the reporting of The Intercept has been found numerous times to be incorrect or misleading.[1] You know that Greenwald is a neocon right, He voted for Bush twice and supported the war in Iraq. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jaydogg1994 It is entirely unhelpful to call Faunas a "Russian bot or a troll". First of all, Faunas has been a sysop on RationalWiki since May 2013 (the evidence of this is easy to look up), so this accusation is almost certainly false. Secondly, it is entirely counter-productive to argue against someone who thinks the Trump-Russia story lacks evidence by hurling accusations at them without evidence.
Also, sorry for the minor reformatting of your comment but it was really untidy. CowHouse (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I went out of line. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)