User talk:GrammarCommie

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>

Paleolibertarian Page[edit]

The Paleolibertarian page includes quotes and descriptions from a Paleoconservative. The article needs to be updated with actual Paleolibertarian quotes and descriptions. As of right now neither Paleolibertarian, Paleoconservative, Libertarian, or even Paleo is mentioned once on Phyllis Schlafly's page. — Unsigned, by: / talk


Why did you revert me? I was begging to get rid of snark from this site. What was wrong? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk

Troll ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I was expecting -_-. But don't you realize you are offending people with snark and you can just be polite? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F169:AB59:374E:B385:4D81:BEA8 / talk
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Tone argument. Yawn. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike is butturt over something... again...[edit]

Why would you want to hide the important historical fact that blacks on Haiti immediately tortured and murdered the entire white population upon gaining independence? How can you be so dishonest, and hold so much hatred for white people? Actually I think you should be careful, you might find that you're wildly outnumbered. Papa Doc (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should stop with the vague posturing. Fight me or don't, either way stop with the bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What bullshit? You even lie about lying. Explain why you are hiding this fact. Papa Doc (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you? I know you're too scared to talk on video and show your face, despite saying "fight me". But seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you hate white people? Why do you lie? What is it? Papa Doc (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Well obviously I'm "butthurt" or angry. You're an anti-white enemy agent acting with impunity. You should be executed. Maybe one day we'll identify you. Papa Doc (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
What are you, thirteen? Your impotent threats wouldn’t scare a toddler. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Watch from 2:09, looks Aryan anorexic.Tobias (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
To lie is to spread misinformation with the intent to deceive, a charge which you actually have to prove. Further, "You should be executed. Maybe one day we'll identify you" Mike, I live in Texas, a state where I can legally shoot you if you attempt to harm me. Do you actually realize how hollow your threats really are? I've had people threaten me to my face and I laughed them off, what makes you think I'm going to take your empty posturing seriously? Either attack me or don't, either way threats are pointless. Finally, "you're too scared to talk on video and show your face, despite saying "fight me". But seriously, what is wrong with you?" Yeah, that's bullshit. You threaten to kill me (multiple times) then expect me to debate you? Are you an idiot? Seriously, in what universe does that line of reasoning even work? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I think he's targeting you because you have "commie" in your name, but he doesn't understand its a joke or tongue-in-cheek (as is my page). The RationalWiki on communism isn't sympathetic and has many criticisms, so I've never understood why he still claims this wiki is Marxist or communist. And he's still claiming this on his Gab. Also very few sysops, if any, support Antifa (and I've always been very critical of them). So he's also mistaken about that as well, yet according to him we're all Antifa Marxists.Tobias (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Pointing out that Africans on Haiti had such a terrible life that they had to keep importing slaves because they were dying to fast to naturally reproduce. As well as the fact that Jean-Jacques Dessalines Actually tried to make peace with the white minority. His Lieutenant was the violent one. source Commie Lib (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that...[edit]

I appreciate your thoughtful remarks about the Pinker video argument. I prefer to share common ground whenever possible. I'm glad you are not still pissed at me.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

Per Wikipedia, "negrophobia" is the correct term for "anti-black hatred", and Wiktionary defines "immigrationism" as "A policy that favours immigration." "Anti-immigration" is an adjective, "Anti-immigrationism" is a noun, as in "The Klan are anti-immigration, as they endorse anti-immigrationism". The use of these terms in no way constitutes "butchering the English language". A gentle carving of it, perhaps.
Cordially – 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:54 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah.. No. Try "racist" and "xenophobic" respectively. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Patrol then delete[edit]

Why? What's patrolling for anyway? I've never done it and nobody else has complained. Avida Dollarsher again 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please respond[edit]

Why was my topic at the Saloon Bar removed? I don't understand, please explain. Countryboi (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't bother responding. This is another Logic-boy sock, and I dealt with it appropriately. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


I wanted to ban them with a Strawberry Fields Forever reference :) Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I only vandal Binned them, you can still Ban them with your chosen reference if you so wish. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No matter (or use it yourself if appropriate) - but the 'ping' doesn't always work. Anna Livia (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh c'mon[edit]

Why can't I make fun of the troll? (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A) You can (and in fact did), but it may be reverted. B) Your "joke" has all the creativity of a child hitting someone with a rock and then laughing about it. And C), it's not funny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Cometan page[edit]

Dear GrammarCommie

Thank you for providing feedback on the biography page for Cometan just created and resubmitted. When you say "work on the draft more", could you provide more specifics? Do you mean to expand the article further by adding more sections to the contents? And also, would you be able to add a relevant image to the page to enhance it further. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind regards

--TIOTPOM (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The article in question appears to be nothing more than a promotional piece for this individual, is absent RationalWiki's style, and appears to be almost entirely copied from these articles. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Can you seriously block Oxyeana and oversight the dox he is posting in the coop? I'm afraid he is going to start doxing PSG too as he is starting to talk about her in real life and he should not be doing that. This is seriously against policy. Silver Belle (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who she even is irl you fucking ingrate, all the details I speak of you and her have admitted yourselves. Oxyaena Harass 21:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You're an idiot. You start this drama over an email that has zero Doxxing and the user you accuse has at no point doxxed you on this website. You then bitch and whine about your ban (yes you did, don't lie, I can pull up the edits) and then get huffy when things escalate. I will ask Oxyeana to tone it down, but do not mistake me for a friend. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
He's gone. I've hidden the visibility of the revisions. Morris should be persona non grata. Good riddance. Oxyaena Harass 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete my account[edit]

Delete my account. There is nowhere a settings tab or menu where I can do it. I edited a page giving the same message and you just removed the message without deleting my account. Delete my account.

I am waiting -Allomar — Unsigned, by: Allomar / talk / contribs

@Allomar You're obviously new to the concept of wikis, as well as blatantly possessing little technical knowledge beyond simple account setting/preset interactions. You can't delete a wiki account. You can simply leave. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I did the next best thing, it has the same approximate effect. :p — Dysk (contribs) 13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Red link for protest[edit]

"If you don't know what a protest is and need an article to explain the concept to you, you sadden me." Haha, I didn't even realize it was a red link. I must not have reloaded the page before I submitted that. W.F. Tucker (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Literalists be like spreading out their definitions thin, amirite? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My talk[edit]

Can you restore my talk page? It wasn't an act of harassment, it was a good-faith message to Oxyaena. - 2600:1:982E:FC6C:84F3:5D9F:1C9B:1738 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Best, 2600:1:982E:FC6C:84F3:5D9F:1C9B:1738 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


@LeftyGreenMario@Bongolian If you and the other Mods would like to review my temporary promotion and block, that would be appreciated. If someone has a problem with my behavior they should have gone through proper channels. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking abusers does not require discussion prior to implementation. I'll be happy to demote you in 9 hours. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I merely blocked a persistent troll who had repeatedly edit warred and posted inflammatory comments, something I would have pointed out if you had either asked or brought my behavior up for discussion. Neither merits a 9 hour block. And further, given my cooperation in previous disciplinary actions, does not merit a promotion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
So you stand by your false charges. In addition to practicing more discretion in the use of sysop tools I also recommend more care in evaluating other people's behaviour. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@142․124․55․236 It's generally not a good idea to mess with other users' toolsets especially without hearing them out first. I don't buy the "false charges" either. Unblocked and reinstated demotion privileges. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I can attest that beyond minor edit warring the charges are without any substance. GrammarCommie proved to resist any discussion prior to a block being handed out. Temporary desysops were also once a common practice when a regular user would earn themselves a serious block. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let me see the diff links. Please, guys, I might not even be looking at the same edits that caused the conflict. I need to make sure, not make assumptions. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I suspect some executive overreach was due to an incorrect assumption conflating User:Communism with IP 2A02etc. The limited edit warring actually committed was due to disagreement about a collapse blurb. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
142, believe it or not I do understand why you blocked me, and calming down and engaging in further contemplation do not contest the block if you feel it is necessary. I am also willing to elaborate on my actions if you so wish, however I request a temporary reprieve, given that I am currently editing from a mobile device any I present explanation is better conducted via my computer. Until then if you wish to reinstate my block I will not contest it further at this time. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If we've all come out of this wiser and calmer, I'm happy to let things stand as they are now. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That's great. You guys handled this very well. Thanks so much for the cooperation. :) --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe I am saying this, but what the actual fuck was this shit @ when Oxyaena and D do the same shit rampantly and get off scot-free? Doing this to GC was bullshit. Turtle Wax (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat inclined to agree, even if someone is rather quick to indef block fundies as spambots. — Dysk (contribs) 19:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
GC sometimes shoots first and asks questions later. Oxy is just plain a mad man, giving outright trolls administrative tools and overriding moderator decisions while blocking people for infinity for "vandalism" posting something he disagrees with, in direct violation of RationalWiki:Blocking policy, and I'm not talking about his blocking of certain trolls' sockpuppets. He has been warned about this more than once, but he retains tech status (that's right, same buttons as a moderator)... but GrammarCommie gets promoted? Does Oxy have something on Trent or something? (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If you got any comments about how sysops in general are blocking vandals trolls for longer you could comment at RationalWiki talk:Blocking policy#Blocking duration where I brought up this issue months ago, if y'know, you think it's a problem. As far as Trent is concerned, we all know that he was caught in a compromising position with goats, and that's why he hasn't made any non-essential edits for six years. /s :D — Dysk (contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Morris, cut the fucking harassment out, and it's her, not "his." Oxyaena Harass 13:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
From your userpage: This user is transgender. I was correct in saying "he." Orange Slices (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please cease your misgendering twaddle on my talkpage. I know that you know better Morris, you're just acting like a 4 year old because you think there's nothing we can do that will actually hurt you (not true...). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi. Thanks for editing my draft and showing me how to insert references properly. --Aporadox (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It was a joke...[edit]

Not harassment. Chicken Nuggets (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't funny. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

What did I do?[edit]

I was banned for an hour. Reason? Grammar? I seriously have no idea what I did. So what did I do? — Unsigned, by: Ajuran / talk / contribs

Repeatedly making comments that were not formatted using indents ":", placing new sections at the top of the page rather than the bottom as is customary on most wikis, and just generally making messes that I had to clean up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


Why did you undo that? It was referenced even... (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it was poorly written. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Too much alcohol. (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, "and straight men who were molested as a child or otherwise sexually abused by someone who is homosexual" is poorly phrased. It would be better to phrase it in a way that specifies that the reference is a male pedophile and a male victim, rather than invoking the "Homosexuals = pedophiles" trope, even if inadvertently. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Right... that wasn't the intention, sorry if it came across as such. I was reading the article and thought about people I know personally who are "homophobes," and not to excuse the behavior, but knowing their background (and without getting too specific on here), it's pretty obvious why they are that way. Which is a shame, but is is what it is. (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It didn't read like you were intentionally trying to invoke that trope, just a poor choice of phrasing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


As First Comrade of the People's Republic of RationalWiki, I hereby sentence thee to death by exile!!!!1! Oxyaena Harass 04:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


My bad I thought ya'll were looking to fit puzzle pieces together. You are correct on my lack of linguistics. I will leave you with a — Unsigned, by: Jaded / talk / contribs

Random link, no context. Point lost due to refusal to communicate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I got it with the goats, just seems silly to have all the power and use it to keep others down. Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in the cage. — Unsigned, by: Jaded / talk / contribs

"Your "unsourced" statement cites two sources."[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Actually, the sentence that is sourced is "According to current scholarship, around 5,700,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust." The actual claim that the section supposedly exists to address is "Revisionists may point out that this number is less than six million" which is an unsourced, speculative strawman. Is the purpose of the article to expose the flaws in the arguments deniers actually make? Or is it to waste time debunking nitpicks concerning terminology and semantics they could conceivably make, even though they never actually have or will? "It's actually 5.7 million, not 6 million" and "It wasn't called the Holocaust until the 1970s" are absurd arguments that no denier would ever make, and wouldn't help their position if they did. (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Troll Oxyaena Harass 13:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Not trolling. It is precisely because these arguments are speculative, unsourced strawmen rather than actual arguments made by deniers that responding to them in the article is a waste of time and space, and does nothing to aid efforts to combat Holocaust denial. (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have an actual argument to make, do let's hear it. (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Really, Mike? Oxyaena Harass 13:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

They thought of all places[edit]

Rationalwiki would be the place to spam "body cleanse in three steps". There's irony and then there's irony. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed The irony is indeed quite amusing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why reverting slavery in the bible quotes?[edit]

On the Slavery in the Bible page, You reverted my edits twice with these comments: "The bible endorses and encourages slavery. Find a better source of morals." "Is it really so hard to say "Oh, an outdated book had outdated ideas, let's not do that sort of thing."? I mean really." I do not understand your revert or your comments. I think you misunderstood my purpose.

I agree the Bible endorses and encourages slavery. I'm attempting to use the article here to clarify that to apologists and it lacked the necessary quote text to make that clear to them. Without the full quote I added text for, it isn't fully clear what is wrong with their argument that the bible forbids kidnapping. The quote they cite (which is included in full above in the article) is misleading because this quote shows it only applies to not kidnapping hebrew slaves. In context, the quote apologists use matches up with this quote to show that it was in fact allowed to kidnap non-hebrews.

It seems like you assumed my intentions but I don't know how you could infer that from the simple purely informational edit I made which was to add the quote text that is alluded to in the existing text with a verse citation number, which I added text to but did not alter in any way. The description of my edit was: bible|Deuteronomy|24|7 quote for full context comparison. The second edit (I did not know you had reverted in the meantime) was to try to format it more appropriately using the bible code plugin which the wiki uses. I am doing my best to conform to the style and standards of the Rational Wiki. I'm contributing to help people debunk Christian apologetics explaining away the Bible's support for slavery. I can understand that the wiki is probably inundated with ill-intentioned sabotage, but my edits were not of that type. Do you understand my intent better now? Do you have any other issues with my adding the relevant quote in full to make the existing text as well-supported as possible? -Near (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Near You went straight to the "but it says otherwise once right here!!" quote. I have a pretty low opinion of that quote due its misuse. However, I admit I could have been a bit hasty in my reverts, given my opinion on the matter. I'll add it back and try to write some context surrounding the apologetics in question. My apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I did indeed want that full quote precisely because that is the quote the apologists leave out in favor of the Exodus quote that leaves out the hebrew/non hebrew distinction. Thanks for expanding it into its own sanction and clarifying further. --Near (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

reverting the Capitalism article[edit]

I know the new user who made the change had no edit summary, but if you check the talk page, there's a good reason to take it out. It's probably a misattributed quote. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert the self refuing atheist idea?[edit]

Hey GC, You did not leave any comment on your reversion of the self refuting atheist idea. I haven't seen the movie, but I think "Atheists hate God" is a pretty good example of a self-refuting idea, since, if somebody believes in God enough to hate Him, then they are not an atheist. I would simply phrase it differently rather revert it (and I do prefer my "Machine thinking" text to theirs) --Bertrc (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bertrc I might have been on the phone at the time and unable to edit it, then forgot to rewrite it later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bertrc Now I remember the other reason I reverted that example. Trying condense an entire section of the Atheists hate god article into a note is a pain in the ass. Specifically the fictional counter-examples section. If you can think of better phrasing and wording than my re-write, please edit it. I'm still not happy with it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Tireless Worker Award[edit]

I don't need to know the specifics, I understand that you work your ass off. I do too, I work maybe average 45 hours a week, never fewer than 40 and I am the guy who grants time off at mu job. I have seven weeks of vacation saved up, it is a problem for payroll. I used to travel. This site doesn't operate without people who put in their work. I can't teach anybody else how to do my job either.

On whether strongly conservative people are far-right[edit]

I see you reverted my change renaming the "very far right" section to "ultraconservatives" in the Reddit article, and I want to see if I can convince you that I was right to make that change.

Obviously these things need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, because someone who doesn't know much about the political spectrum (or compass, or whatever) might have attributed something as "far right" when it isn't actually far right. I had a quick look at the 2 reddits mentioned in that section, and I encourage you to do so too.

I want to make two points:

1. People on the far right (Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, etc.) do not compare things they don't like to the Holocaust in order to make them look bad. They either deny the Holocaust, or even worse, they post anonymously about how they think the Holocaust was great! So this is some evidence that those reddits are not far-right.

2. In our Quillette article, we (rightly, in my view) make fun of Quillette for publishing a ridiculous article that lumped a bunch of far-right/alt-right people in under "conservative" to attempt to push a conservative victimisation narrative. This gives the impression that the RationalWiki community believes that the far-right are not correctly categorised as political conservatives, and indeed that the very idea that they are conservative is ridiculous. Yet your reversion suggested that these redditors, who I would think of as hard-right conservatives, are far right, or at least far right inclined. This seems like a massive contradiction on Rationalwiki - it looks like we are taking opposite views on whether the far right are conservatives in the Quillette article and in the Reddit article.

(I actually went ahead and wrote an entire article on the hard-right, because I had more to say about them, but you don't need to read it if you don't want to.)

So where does our disagreement stem from? Do you disagree that those reddits are conservative reddits, or do you think that a reddit can be both conservative and far right? From your edit message, I'm guessing the latter? --Greenrd (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just going to commoent and say that anyone that you could call hard-right or ultraconservative is literally far-right, and should be described that way. Most conservatives are far-right. It's not complicated. — Dysk (contribs) 16:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
So you're going to delete that part making fun of Quillette for thinking that far-right people can be conservative then?--Greenrd (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what "conservative" means, rather you use it as a catchall for "right-wing". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Greenrd No because neo-Nazis are a subset of the far-right whom are not generally conservatives (being instead generally Third Position). So for Quillette to hold up some neo-Nazis as an example of the entirety of conservatives, or even the entirety of the far-right, is disingenuous. However, it is absolutely possible for a conservative to be far-right, and yet not a "neo-Nazi", since these are not synonyms nor particularly even points on a linear left-right scale. — Dysk (contribs) 18:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dysklyver OK, I took a look at the raw data, researched some of the people, read the Third Position page, re-read your reply several times to understand it better, and I think what you are saying sort of explains the discrepancy - but I'm still wondering if RW made a mistake somewhere. Are there any names on that list in the Quillette article who are "far-right conservatives", do you think? If so, then we're partially criticising them for classifying them in a way which is, according to you, valid - and we should fix that. --Greenrd (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No, I'm not using as a catch-all for right-wing. I was claiming that the far-right (by which I mean neo-Nazis, white nationalists, etc.) are right-wing, but are not conservative, so conservative isn't a catch-all for right-wing. But according to NekoDysk it is more complicated than that. I am trying to learn. --Greenrd (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Anatoly Karlin[edit]

He is British Russian. He says that he has citizenship in both countries. Inthecave (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Not that I care that much, but what was wrong with my edit on the WOMBAT page? -- (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It didn't make sense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandal Bin[edit]

You binned the K1410407 after just 3 edits and without even raising it on the users talkpage to give them a chance to respond. I have paroled them. Try take a lighter approach. The user may have been confused about our goals and style. Acei9 04:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked I'm not inclined to be gentle with hard green wackjobs who call me a murderer for eating meat and who would willingly stall human medical advancement for their own egos. They give environmentalists a bad name. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
That’s not a valid reason for a vandal binning and is poor form. Acei9 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked Very well then... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What's actually going on?[edit]

I've seen Point (clearly a kiwi) & ScSb's edits in the bar. This isn't the first time I've seen this (including me asking about this back in July, where my topic got erased by Dysk). From what I've been gathering after a quick google search:

1. Dysk & Discord member redacted got banned from Wikipedia. Something about russian bots (I don't even know what wikipedia is on about, but it seems to be something about Dysk having a sockpuppet named "redacted")?

2. Something about this redacted I just mentioned and a guy called "redacted" (that name is giving me tons of results via google (mostly reddit posts)) being brother & sister/cousins (don't know what redacted have to do with Dysk.).

3. Dysk being accused of having a double personality (That's a huge stretch, if you ask me)?

4. Dysk & redacted being the same person (which would mean that Dysk has 2 accounts on the discord if true (if Dysk is still a member from the discord))?

5. The site being in on it (the 1st nuttery BS. Also, you're making things worse if you're getting rid of these topics asap (saw several people doing this in the past, including my dmorris topic being erased by Dysk back in July...)).

6. Dysk, Oxy & redacted all being the same person (2nd nuttery BS).

WTF is going on? Why not just be open with everyone, on the site, about this whole shitstorm (anons WILL keep pouring in and they WILL keep posting claptrap) (the situation, that is. Not the crankery points that I summoned, although the whole Dysk getting banned from Wikipedia thing... They don't ban people for jiggs & giggles over there, so...)? Tinribmancer (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer I removed the content in question because it was A) in bad faith and B) harassment. I intend to do nothing more than remove such comments for the purposes of moderation, unless such comments escalate in their harassment. As for the events on discord, I am under the impression that both Dysk and redacted are banned there, though I wasn't a part of that. @Vorarchivist or @LeftyGreenMario may know more, though I am not certain. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
hi @Tinribmancer
1. if it wasnt obvious already, dysk is a crazy communist and russian bot sympathizer. they were banned from wikipedia in 2017 for chronic administrative disruption. some others may have been banned at the same time
2. imagine i dont exist, and shut up. i redacted your post
3. dysks mental state is not relevant
4. dysk was banned from the discord and that is why they left the site. they stayed for a short time because rwrw asked them to do the trustees election
5. every single thing about this has been posted by a small group of banned or troll users, namely aeschylus, dmorris, mikemikev, and two others
6. everyone is bongolian
"Why not just be open with everyone" - open about what?
"anons WILL keep pouring in" - short of neutralizing the trolls irl ye they will
"Dysk getting banned from Wikipedia thing" - it only takes 2-3 days to read the ban debates there
"the events on discord" - dysk was banned first, about a month later i wheel warred to unban them and others and was demodded and banned
EK (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, who made you a mod? I can say whatever I wanna say, miss Fascist!! Tinribmancer (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
i was elected as a mod for the discord in april.EK (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Discord is not the site.. Tinribmancer (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
ye so what? u asked about events on discord and i told u in the shortest possible way some information. EK (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Talk Page[edit]

I am in need of assistance.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@RipCityLiberal How may I be of assistance? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieWould you consider boxing in rob's many rails. We have escaped the purpose of the talk page almost entirely and he's whipped up at least three different random conspiracies that have nil to do with the topic.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieHe's back on his bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


I am the guy who edited the Yugoslavia article. I want to apologize for any inconvenience since I am no war crime apologist by any means. I really just wanted to point out the fact that EVEROYONE commited war crimes, not just Serbia. There is no part on Operation Storm, which was a horrendous cleaning operation commited against the Serbs. The Medjugorje massacre, for example, was also commited against Serbs. I know there was a crime commited in Srebrenica, but 8000 people do not really make a genocide per se (a genocide is a mass killing of an entire nation like the Holocaust, not the cleansing of a town with barely 15000 people). Also, what kind of language is "piss off"? I just want to be civil on the topic, not trying to outcuss everyone here... -- (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Terms like "countercleansing" sound like you're attempting to justify Serbian atrocities. In addition, the Holocaust was the attmpted mass extermination of people from ultiple countries, several of which willingly sent the victims to die in German camps. Finally, scale is irrelevant to the definition of genocide in the broad strokes. I use the U.N.'s definition. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I get it, really didn't know about the UN definition. Since the article is now locked, could you update it regarding the w:Prespa agreement which ended the (N)MKD - GR hostility regarding the name last year? -- (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I will try once I get home. I'm currently unable to reach a computer at the moment, from whence I am able to edit more effectively. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Thanks, wasn't sure how long to block him for (as a sysop I am hesitant to do more than 3 days unless they are a spammer, etc.). CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


Unfortunately the thank user contribution extension isn't installed on this wiki, otherwise I'd use it for your posts on the JG talk page. Instead I'll leave this message here. Consider this a "thanks". The entire chain was extremely amusing. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for changing the visibility on those edits. I'm still pretty knew at editing and I wasn't sure if what I did was correct. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@CAPSlOCKrOXX You did fine. Blatant harassment, doxxing, or vandalism like that should be reverted without hesitation. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein page[edit]

I am adding new research to the Nassim Haramein page supporting his work with legitimate physicists in reputable scientific journals. My intent is to simply improve the page. Please advise. Jahub (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jahub Take it to the article's talkpage and discuss with the editors who dispute your edit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What's up?[edit]

I thought you would be interested in a mention of Rationalwiki in the scientific literature. Mediocre Bob (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mediocre Bob Two Racialist idiots are still pissed at us. Who gives a shit? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Randi kook[edit]

I don't think they were engaging in any sort of talk page editing I'd call "vandalism" either. It seems excessive for what is a nattering nut. While I don't think I'd have any chance of persuading them that Randi's challenge is on the up-and-up, the extent to which they brushed too close to slander wasn't that close that it represents a risk to the wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I just didn't want to slog through that wall of text to read the ineveitable "you're so biased! I'm going to take my ball and go home" post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Also the whole "vandal" label was more me flipping them off than anything else. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yeah don't call it vandalism either. Even if it's just your way of communicating, that wasn't clear to me at all. Anyhow, it's someone thinking they can fight with you and doesn't like having their comments collapsed with an insult. It's cute. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you okay?[edit]

That recent block got me really worried. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See my last post in the Saloon. I can't bend on this issue. the world is a fundamentally fucked up place, and every day I continue living I'm reminded of that fact. Reminds me that acts of bravery we exalt in our media aren't rewarded in reality, but punished. Reminds me that there are people out there more concerned with "security" and "safety" and venting on those without power, who never wanted any of this, than for basic empathy. I had to learn empathy. I didn't get it originally. Yet even I understand this is fucked up. Yet those who are supposedly my equals or betters can't. It sickens me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Can't say that's entirely accurate. We're always going to get people that live in a bubble and think immigrants ruin lives because they're not born to immigrants or never made friends with immigrants, they probably didn't spend enough time and appreciate cultural diversity's net positive effects. You should also be empathetic to them but I still think you should try coping with that depression, like maybe think about meds, drawing stuff, learning about community efforts to help others? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on being more active, but it'll probably be in 2021 or thereabouts. If you ever see reports about a young-ish guy who looks like a bum calling our government hypocrites and cowards and cussing near constantly, that might be me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you reverting stuff that isn't vandalism or trolling?[edit]

Seriously, this is why I had to anti-endorse you. For all the good you do for the wiki, you really need to remember that not everybody who isn't a daily editor or edits from an IP isn't a troll or a sock of one of your "pals." And the reason for the IP hopping is because I work somewhere that uses a BlueCoat device; a lot of companies use them. Have a nice day buddy. (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your aggression has been noted. Now, why do you assume I have a slant against IP editors? There numorious examples where I either patrolled an IP's edit or let another person who might be better informed deal with the edit. My current problem is that the Mod and board elections seem to attract what appear to be concern trolls, and your first edit consisting of using myself as a foil for your complaints seems... Iffy. Especially as you then admitted that I had naught to do with the matter. So, you see my dilemma now? I am not Oxy, and I do not appreciate being used as if I and she were one and the same. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's just annoying that whenever I edit logged out (regardless of where I'm editing from) it seems I get mistaken for a troll. I get it, the trolls are annoying. But seriously, I'm just bored at work cause it is super slow right now, and I don't want my company looking into my political and religious opinions as expressed on RW (especially considering our CEO is a huge Trump supporter), nor do I care to have everybody getting excited and being like "OMG, you're back!" when I don't really intend to stick around. But I actually like you, I just think you're a bit quick on the trigger to be a mod, and that is meant as constructive criticism. As far as Ox goes, I'm not even going to go there because I've seen what happens when someone criticises her, and she does not take it well at all. Good luck in your race! (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
And, 'generally rather than specifically speaking' some things are 'not in the spirit of RW/sufficiently on topic for the specific article.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


What did you do that was different to what I did? (I am in favour of the week or month long block available elsewhere - long enough for the nuisances to get bored and go away). Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Which block? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Maybe I’m missing the nature of this page? Pick any of the Feser sources mentioned in the article, you’ll see how terribly off base the objection is. Why should we allow an objection to a non-existent argument? It just doesn’t seem right to make fun of someone for making a claim he never made, right? Or is the point to discredit him regardless of what he actually says? Why don’t we make fun of him for saying Santa Claus exists (who cares if he actually said it!)? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Why are you removing Dasnahmynay's post from the Saloon Bar. There is no reason for it so I have reinstated it. If you want it removed give a good reason. AceMcWicked 05:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked It looked like a concern troll. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
So? Just ignore it. Don’t start deleting comments just because you can’t follow the Don’t Feed The Troll mantra. AceMcWicked 19:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather not have concern troll shit clutter up the Bar thank you very much. Oxyaena Harass 19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Talkpages, including the bar, are community property and as such comments should be left to stand as long as they don't contain racism, overt sexism etc etc. It's not the communities fault you can't ignore trolls. AceMcWicked 19:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from the community standards: ...users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. There are exceptions but the exceptions do not cover suspected concern trolling. So leave comments alone and if you can't ignore comments like the one being discussed then you are on the wrong site. AceMcWicked 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Your obnoxious insistence we play by out-dated rules as if they were law is really pestering, as soon as someone does something you don't like you're there to hound them about it. Oxyaena Harass 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ace has a point to some degree. I disagree with his absolutist stance, but he does have a point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
By “outdated rules” you mean “the actual rules” right? AceMcWicked 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Does it not say right on the very guidelines page that "these rules are not binding and are only intended to serve as guidelines?" (slight paraphrasing) Oxyaena Harass 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
If you can't ignore simple trolls then this is the wrong site for you. AceMcWicked 21:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

My talkpage[edit]

You don't need to revert comments on my talkpage, I am adult enough to deal with trolls through not feeding them. AceMcWicked 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked I saw your edit summery. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Can never be too sure if anyone reads those or not. AceMcWicked 21:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I replied via joke block. Anyway, yeah... enjoy the drama. The last time I let them fight it out on my talkpage it took around a week to die down. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


I was right that you'd win, wasn't I?

I wonder what's going to happen, now that Ace became a mod and Oxy didn't... Tinribmancer (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer They'll likely keep going at it, and it should be the job of the Mods (other than, but possibly including Ace) to keep it under control. And yeah, apparently you were right. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


So, I haven't been here in, like 2 days (I think). And in such a short time, The following things have occured:

1. Oxy LANCB'ed (which I saw coming)

2. DMorris was unbanned thanks to Ace's stupidity (and getting pretty defensive about it on his talkpage (translated: "I'm old guard and do not need to take orders from anyone that isn't old guard!"))

3. Coop case being open after 90 days or so (and I knew that the first new coop case was going to be Oxy vs. Ace. They've been bitch fighting, since before the elections)

Since I have no idea if this is possible, could Oxy open some sort of "mistrust case" towards Ace (Probably thinking too much in the politics area), and demand his Mod removal and being replaced by either Scream! or RightBlue Luigi? Tinribmancer (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bongolian @Spud @LeftyGreenMario Definitely. Oxyaena Harass 20:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "mistrust case" means. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there even precedent for this sort of thing? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Was the original DMorris account permabanned? What was the account name? Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@BongolianSorry, I meant "motion of confidence". Tinribmancer (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, there's only the coop. Getting things approved by the coop can be difficult especially when there's no specific rules violation. Bongolian (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Coop me, bitches. If you want me removed from the mod position take me to the coop with specific breaches. AceModerator 22:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Don't assume that I have an overarching opinion on this because I don't. I am trying to offer impartial advice and gather information at this point. Bongolian (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I just can't believe this shit is still going on and Oxy is spreading over multiple pages now. I'm just trying to get on with it. AceModerator 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Just thought you might want to know.[edit]

Some moron started a coop case against you. Literally nobody cares, but you might want to respond.Summa Atheologica (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Scream!! leaves[edit]!!

He's one of the alternates. Does this mean that another alternate has to take his place? Tinribmancer (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As that was in 2015 I don't think it's really relevant, do you? Scream!! (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why even keep it, if you're not LANCBing? Tinribmancer (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What have the contents of my user page got to do with you? Scream!! (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What is it with old guards and acting like assholes? Old fossils seems like a better word.. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is acting like anything but a misreported and rather offended person? Scream!! (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Scream has a point. False alarm, everyone take a break, calm down, and drink some hard cider or other substance of choice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting on Mormonism[edit]

Hi! Just wondering why you reverted my edits on Mormonism. I'm newish to editing wikis, so if I did something wrong I'd love to know what. LiteralBird (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It looked like you were whitewashing the article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hm, that wasn't my intention at all. I'm exmormon, actually. I noticed that the word of wisdom part was contradictory (it says abstinence from caffeine is a commandment, then later says that caffeinated cold beverages are not disallowed). So I thought I'd correct that while also clarifying the language, and more starkly pointing out the contradiction between Mormon scripture and actual Mormon practice. For the Homosexuality part, I thought it was important to add how the "same-sex attraction" language is a weird type of mind control that prevents gay Mormons from seeing gayness as an okay thing. I thought the distinction Mormonism makes between gay attraction/gay action was necessary context, as well as important for understanding homosexuality in Mormonism in general. Idk maybe I misunderstand the tone or purpose of rationalwiki, but I didn't think my edits were very controversial. LiteralBird (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Nah, you're fine. It's just that we get a lot of random people who try to whitewash articles. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll revert my revert. Between your explanations and my double checking the changes, it appears I was in the wrong. Apologies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thanks! LiteralBird (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


Morris still hasn't gotten one yet? Cool. Oxyaena Harass 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently this is a "war." And here I thought it was a tantrum... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Oxyaena Harass 23:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
And he says we take ourselves too seriously. Please. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
His one man circle-jerk is amazing. Oxyaena Harass 00:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Stop talking about him. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Look on the bright side of lifeAriel31459 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Male circumcision[edit]

What is your rationalist's point of view on male circumcision?-- (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ask? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Because a rationalist is supposed to be against circumcision. -- (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are you asking me about circumcision out of the blue like this? What prompted this inquiry? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for late response. It is not because it's you, but because I wanted to ask a random administrator of RationalWiki (who happened to be you) to find out how rational RationalWiki is. One who is pro-circumcision tends to deny facts, believe more into pseudo-science and less into logic. One who is against it tends to be more of a rational and logical thinker. If you don't want to answer it, who do you suggest me to ask? -- (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Err... I'd like to see some data on that correlation... And proof of a causal link. Seriously, that sounds stupid. Holding a positive or negative opinion of circumcision has little to no correlation, let alone causation on one's mental facilities from... basically everything I've seen on the subject. I mean, your argument is a complete non sequitur. Which is a logical fallacy... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
You're also likely invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel somebody had their weenie whittled when they were younger...... Oxyaena Harass 15:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Another unkind cut?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that BoN is a Nazi trying to poke his weenie into the flames here. The anti-circumcision movement has been adopted by some elements of the alt-right.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't you mean "poke his weenie into the scalpels"? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

why revert me???[edit]

Why me? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Your comments will be re-instated shortly. Our free-speech advocate seems to have censored me for some weird reason that I totally can't understand... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Your comments have been restored Comrade! Glory to the Revolution! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Excommunication Nazism[edit]

Look up the excommunication decree of the German bishops of 1931. (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... Citng a wingnut "news" site (go through their homepage) isn't helping your case. It also kind of hurts your case that the New American is founded and owned by the John Birch Society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I cited the site cause it references Gary L. Krupp`s book. I am not a fan of the John Birch Society at all.
Here is the book directly then.
It is referenced elsewhere btw. (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are further sources confirming the excommunication decrees of 1931:
I would look up Scholder, Klaus, The Churches and the Third Reich. (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Then don't cite them. Seriously. If you have better sources, use them. A small number of decent to high quality sources is better than a large number of shoddy to outright discredited sources. As for people talking about the book, news stories talking about a controversial subject doesn't necessarily give me any relevant information on said subject. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Also please indent your comments, it prevents the thread from becoming a mess and means I don't have to do it for you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Those next two sources only tell me the book was published. One is again, a news story that a controversial book was published, and the book itself gives me no information as to its historical accuracy. I am going through the fourth source now. Understand that while I may come off as harsh to you, I have been presented with books and documents on multiple occasions, each with their proponents, and many (though not all, and not examples have been on this site) turned out to be incorrect. Thus I exercise caution, rather than sensationalism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The fourth source concludes that the Pope ultimately did nothing. Not that he did nothing wrong, but that he decided to ultimately not stand at all on this matter. As for the 1931 letter, it appears that at best a group of Bavarian bishops stated that the Nazi "Kulturkampf" was incompatible with receiving sacraments, which is not a formal excommunication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I did not mean to edit war but Gary L. Krupp is a valid historical source. Some of his claims may be disputed but so are some of the things that were said by Christopher Hitchens, John Lukacs and so forth. Do you have any historians or primary sources asserting the contrary? You may have been right it would have been better not to cite those sites, just wanted to show sites that referenced Krupp and confirmed what he said. The regular English Wikipedia also references the excommunication decree for what it`s worth,, (at least more than if Conservapedia said it of course). I understand your caution. I have a copy of the book at home actually. It directly quotes the excommunication decrees of the German bishops. I will try to find the drect texts if that`s ok, maybe we could discuss this further on the talkpage of PositiveChristianity. JohnLogan (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I found some additional sources used by the regular Wikipedia on this issue.
Confirms some dioceses prohibited Nazi Party membership and refused the sacraments to Nazis.
John Cornwell affirmed this much:
"Into the early 1930s the German Centre Party, the German Catholic bishops, and the Catholic media had been mainly solid in their rejection of National Socialism. They denied Nazis the sacraments and church burials, and Catholic journalists excoriated National Socialism daily in Germany's 400 Catholic newspapers. The hierarchy instructed priests to combat National Socialism at a local level whenever it attacked Christianity."
Obviously Cornwell is not an historian and a highly disputed figure but he is often supported by Pius critics so it does seem relevant here, especially since Christopher Hitchens relied on him quite a bit. Here is an additional source that is more specific, the Fulda and Freising conferences decided excommunication was needed in 1931.
I will also try to find Yad Vashem`s sources on this. JohnLogan (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I restored the revision based on the additional sources but have no desire for edit warring. If you have sources to the contrary please prove them. However the English Wikipedia confirms that the Fulda and Freising conferences excommunicated active Nazis. This was also attested by Donald J. Dietrich. Please debate with me further if you wish on the talk page of the article. JohnLogan (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Look, you seem like decent if a bit earnest, person. Krupp sounds like a well meaning person from what I've read of him. But, there are certain realities that cannot be overlooked. Firstly, no, the Vatican proper (as in the upper Cardinals and the Pope) did not excommunicate the Nazi leadership. That would have been a form of aggression by the church, and the church was officially neutral during WW2. Vatican City, being a semi-autonomous city-state doesn't have the military capacity to withstand an invasion, and is reliant on Italy to provide military aide. Given Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, it would have been unwise to openly challenge either power. It is also an unfortunate truth the Vatican was antisemitic as part of its official church doctrine. The whole "the Jews killed Jesus" thing... Though they were not alone in that regard as western society as a whole was much more antisemitic at that time. Finally, there is the fact that in the post-war years the church was notoriously stubborn about removing antisemitic doctrine from its teachings. Given I am writing this early in the morning without coffee there may be a some things I've missed, but at best you've got a scenario where the Catholic church didn't formally pick a side and as a result of both that, the news that they knew about the holocaust, and their post-war stubbornness to clean up their doctdrine, they ended up with a serious PR mess. That's at best. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


What's with the hate boner for Styxhexenhammer? You seem very angry at him, very irrational108.208.14.123 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than when you show up to concern troll, or just outright troll given the aggression in most of your comments, I don't think of Stickyhooker888 at all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I resume editing?[edit]


Hello. My ban just expired, so I was wondering can I resume editing? I promise never to welcome users again. Dino ((contribs)) 00:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your block expired and you're free to edit. We appreciate your not welcoming spambots. Bongolian (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@DeanHinnen Here's the thing. It wasn't that you "welcomed users", it was that you seemed to be going through the account creation log and copy/pasting a welcome template without really looking to see if they'd any edits yet, or if so of what nature. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)