User talk:GrammarCommie

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

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Christopher (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you any relation to the Grammar Vigilante?[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You can assist me in my "project" of correcting the past participles of prove all over this wiki! —Kazitor, pending 22:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


Fuerst article[edit]

You froze the main page, and said to take to talk. But the talk page is locked. lol. --PBJsandwich (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Then @PBJsanwich, let us discuss the matter here. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Automatically Patrolled[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Indwelling to Dwelling in[edit]

Just be aware that Denlinger uses "Biblical language" meaning the uses the not so current grammar of the KJV. The word indwell is one such instance. The use of the ablative noun was translated incorrectly as on instead of in. Hence, why the sycophants of the KJV movement claim to believe "on" Jesus rather than using the word in. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies then, I was unaware of that fact. --GrammarCommie (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Every time I hear someone saying believe on it gets my goat too, and I too want to yell back and correct their grammar. However, the KJV is the unadulterated word of god and according to the cultists its grammar is perfect. I attempted to explain the use of the ablative case, and I was admonished because I was correcting god. :) MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Also If you could hie to Kolob is a Mormon hymn ... Prophet Joseph Smith spoke hick instead of proper English... so yes it is hie as in walk quickly. Hence the word fraid instead of afraid in the Book of Mormon. LOL. Its hickenese (pidgin spoken by hicks). MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That explains it, even though I'm from Texas I can't read Hickenese. (or recognize it for that matter) --GrammarCommie (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. CowHouse (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What have you done? Giving Power to a Communist? Now where have I seen this before? Oh, that's right. The United Nations. Nerd (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Soon Comrades, soon we shall begin the global revolution of...err... Rationalism and Skepticism? Who wrote this speech? — Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 04:04, 1 December 2017
GrammarCommie is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star! CowHouse (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I knew it!!! Communists are plagiarists! Nerd (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nerd Capitalist lies I assure you!!! GrammarCommie (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling[edit]

Remember to patrol edits after (or before) you undo them. Both actions are separate. —Kazitor, pending 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

170.140.161.127[edit]

Pardon my French, but are you seriously sticking up for a concern-trolling fundamentalist bitch? All of those fundie schools ought to be hard blocked. Samantha (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd honestly prefer them over you. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Troll "Samantha" seems to be a Grawp clone. Don't engage. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Who or what is this "Grawp"? GrammarCommie (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Never mind I looked it up GrammarCommie (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverts on the slut article[edit]

Why? Impeach Trump (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at a few of your entries and tell me what you see. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Facts? Humor? This site is full of humor, what's a little more? Impeach Trump (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Calling sorority girls and cheerleaders "sluts" is neither amusing nor truthful. GrammarCommie (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It is when you are the fat girl who got picked on by them in high school and college. I love giving the Pop Warner girls in my classes bad grades. Impeach Trump (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@ListenerX apparently had the same idea, because he wrote on there that sorority girls are sluts but someone else must have removed it. Impeach Trump (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please think twice, @Impeach Trump, about castigating cheerleaders just because they're cheerleaders. Did you know that Representative Barbara LeeWikipedia's W.svg was once a cheerleader? Being a cheerleader doesn't automatically mean you're stupid. I remember some high school teachers openly stating about how they gave grades arbitrarily: it was the second biggest bummer of high school after having to deal with my fellow students. Bongolian (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. We have an amazing art teacher at our school who has won numerous awards and is well liked by everyone. She went to a religious-right college, is known to have voted for Donald Trump, and she believes in creationism. I'm glad she isn't a science teacher though. She is the exception of the rule with conservatives, and Barbara Lee is the exception of the rule with cheerleaders. Impeach Trump (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

complaint[edit]

why do you keep on removing everything i do my edit to clogs

occult [2]ritual [3]secrets

and me crying sad on the talkpage

this guy and you deleted my stuff https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.174.51.72 Revision as of 00:56, 5 December 2017 by 206.174.51.72 (talk) https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F&direction=next&oldid=1900335 Revision as of 01:03, 5 December 2017 by GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) (→‎November 2017: The clog BoN is back) https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:What_is_going_on_in_the_clogosphere%3F&direction=next&oldid=1900337

i tried to add this to the steve salier page , relevant discussions of saliers raceism by robert , you even removed it from the talk page

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/niggers-and-beaners-destroyed-the-economy-and-other-disgusting-lies-of-the-right/, "Niggers and Beaners" Destroyed the Economy... Steve Sailer, Republican Party operative, was one of the major people pushing this lie.
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/on-hbd-the-difference-between-me-and-steve-sailer/, "For a long time I defended Sailer on the charge of racism, because I honestly did not think he was racist. Since the election of Obama, he has frankly gone over the line.

why did you get rid of the edits 101.180.193.48 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

In the case of the Clogs article it was because it was poorly formatted and simply put a standard internet hoax, same as dozens of others on YouTube and other sites.
Removing the talk page post in hindsight was a mistake and will be rectified.
I fail to see why a relatively obscure blog should cited in the "Steve Sailor" article when more noteworthy and public sources can be used instead. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

robert has known steve sailer for years thats why , also robert is just awesome... well was

and that blog secretsun on clogs was not a hoax he is very serious , he wrote a book on comicbook superheroes, in fact he dug up previously known facts about lovecraft stealing ideas from the theosophists and alice bailey

also why dont you delete the crooked timber quote on the sailer page too they are a blog 101.180.193.48 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right crank[edit]

That's quite an allegation against Ian. Care to back it up? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read instead of getting upset you'd have noticed that I didn't write that particular statement. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I also can't help but noticing that you keep citing a nazi website, need pageviews much? GrammarCommie (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You didn't write that piece - but you had a problem with me removing that unsourced allegation. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"Nazi website"? Are you writing that with a straight face? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Alt-right, nazi, same thing. As for the post click the handy dandy link for the citation. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Wait, where is this citation? Is this the rarefied national socialist citation? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, anyone there? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What is going on in the world[edit]

Why did you revert my edits to rational wiki what is going on in the world? --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Think on it and answer your own question. GrammarCommie (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you reverted it for no good reason and your reversion should in itself be reverted. --Mr1.136.108.2 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GrammarCommie: Please stop editing other user's WIGOs. That's why we have voting. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato WIGOs are not signed, so they do not belong to any one user. If you are correct then @Stabby the Misanthrope should not have made this edit (which was productive and a huge improvement). Where is it a rule that entries cannot be edited? CowHouse (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Consider WIGOs to be an unsigned talk page post. Let people express their opinions -- don't rewrite to suit yours.
Entries shouldn't be deleted because the poll number progresses up by 1 and we will lose count. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 05:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Understood. GrammarCommie (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Is this policy though? It is not disclosed anywhere (as far as I know) that WIGOs are considered unsigned talk page posts. Since there is no disclosure, this has the potential for newbies to come to the site and see a bunch of shit in the WIGO pages and then (rightfully) conclude this site is either full of crazies or has no quality control. It also actively encourages trolling if they know their entries will not be edited, and trolls do not care at all about our votes. If this is policy, it should be clearly stated that each individual entry is not representative of the site but of one contributor. Either that or actually have people sign the entries (this is preferable).
Also, in your view, what are the criteria for commenting out entries? For example:
  • nonsense entries [4][5][6]
  • misinformation [7]
  • trolling [8]
  • links to pages from more than a year ago [9]
  • ads for alt-right speakers [10]
CowHouse (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Weird, I don't see that rule in the community standards, or the manual of style. Even as a suggestion, it doesn't pass the smell test. The WIGO pages are linked directly from the main page; the wider public is encouraged to view them. If an entry is shit, it should and will be changed to make it not shit. If an entry reflects poorly on us and is simply unsalvageable, it should be commented out. It is not a "talk page post", because talk page posts go on clearly-labeled talk pages. What then, are the WIGOs themselves? Not conventional article pages, but nonetheless, as a content/resource/non-talk page we encourage the public to read, they must be curated. They are not a dumping ground for shit—that is, after all, what talk pages are for. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stabby the Misanthrope Note, however, that the Fox News and Breitbart entries are heavily downvoted and would not appear to have RW approval. The system works.

More broadly, RW needs to be more careful to allow a diversity of opinions in talk-like spaces. An echo chamber is useless for all of us. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 14:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If an entry is downvoted to death it should be removed or modified, if there's a blatant factual error/fallacy/whatever it should be removed. I really don't like the idea of treating WIGOs like talk-page posts. Christopher (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato That's confirmation bias. You don't know why people are downvoting. People could downvote because they think those entries do not belong on the page and should be removed, which would support my argument. Leaving entries up that you know will get downvoted can also massively backfire. For example, if a story about anti-white racism gets added by a troll, and it gets downvoted to death, then that will be seen as proof that RationalWiki is "anti-white". Another problem is entries added to the clogosphere page where the article belongs in the page but the description describes the article favourably. Downvoting then becomes confusing (see this discussion). The far better approach is to simply edit the entry. So no, the system does not work.
Your comment about diversity of opinion on talk-like spaces is only relevant if I accept your premise that it is like a talk page. If the same story is corroborated in a better source then I'd probably agree with you, but we should never link directly to Breitbart or Fox News (unless we're criticising them). Diversity of opinion does not mean we include content from websites known for promoting conspiracies, false stories and which generally have a poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking. CowHouse (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree and my biggest issue with leaving Breitbart with an unedited WIGO description, we're also encouraging clicks to Breitbart's site. We're giving it attention it doesn't deserve at all and by leaving it there, it seems like we're endorsing it and the downvote system makes it unclear; are we endorsing the site but disliking the news, are we objecting to the site AND the news, or are we just holding our noses at the site itself? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wangmeister[edit]

Please stop reverting his edits, we agreed that he can put the information about FST in the article. ലിൻ ആർ (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 18:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it back. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. ലിൻ ആർ (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted your revert of your revert as the only alteration he made with that edit was moving a paragraph and adding a sentence blabbering on about race denial. Christopher (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, actually Tuna just posted some data refuting his claims, so maybe it would've been best if you kept him out. I guess we'll have to see if Wang can prove the veracity of what he says in the face of Tuna's data. ലിൻ ആർ (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 18:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering Wang's repeated citing of Rightpedia, a wiki founded by users who were too insane for the neo-nazi/nazi wiki Metapedia I very much doubt he will be successful. GrammarCommie (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)