User talk:Greenrd

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Greenrd! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Good work

Good work with Operational independence‎. A missional topic for sure.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wasn't sure it would be considered such, but thanks for the endorsement!--Greenrd (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I should add, don't take my word for it. There has been some debate around here lately about what is or is not missional! I think the way article explores the manner in which an elected authority abrogates its mandate to paid, appointed, non-elected bodies, is definitely on point. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sysop

Since 2007 and no sysop? For shame!

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 POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

FGM

Good catch per Australian tribe and lack of evidence it is practiced. Misinformation definitely hurts the article! ShabiDOO 02:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul", representing a corporate entity called MALCOLM IEUAN ROBERTS

Your precious APRA can recognize climate change as much as they please; it makes no difference! They will stand no chance against the might of Australia's prime hero of Sciency Truths! *hails Hydra*

...

Jokes aside, though — a part of me genuinely hopes Roberts caught a breadcrumb in his windpipe right as he read those news this morning.

Regardless, thanks for helping to keep our WIGO feed up to speed! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Speak of the devil

I put this together today. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

This ain't Wikipedia, articles are not supposed to be NPOV. — Dysk (contribs) 10:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Did Nathan send you again to whitewash and try to delete stuff? Tobias (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already opened a discussion about Nathan's IMO dubious entry on that page's talk page - let's keep the discussion in one place.--Greenrd (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you knock this shit off?

It's getting really annoying AND disruptive. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What specifically are you referring to?--Greenrd (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine that like everyone else, they are concerned about the combined negative effect of your last hundred edits or so. :/ — Dysk (contribs) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I would remind you that RW does not ban people for their political views.--Greenrd (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We do ban people for trying to change RationalWiki to suit their own personal point of view when multiple other people have spent over a week asking you to stop and have reverted almost everything you have written in that time. — Dysk (contribs) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@D I just did a statistical analysis. I found that as of right now, looking at my last 100 article-space edits that I made before your comment here and the Coop, and treating my own corrections to my own edits as if they were not separate edits, only 13% of those that I had marked as minor and 28% of the major edits have been reverted (1 of them was reverted but then immediately un-reverted again by the same user, so I am not counting that as a revert). If we look at just the reverts that had actually been made when you wrote that comment, the figures were even lower - 7% of the minor edits, and 27% of the major ones. (But at least one of the reverts made after that point could theoretically have been due to people reading your comments and assuming that because, according to you, "almost everything" I wrote had been reverted, they should probably just blindly revert my changes to the articles they were watching as well, to be on the safe side.) So your comment that "almost everything" had been reverted is untrue, at least with regards to article space in the period you were referring to, and I would politely request you to stop spreading falsehoods about me. If I recall correctly, this is not the first time you have posted something misleading about me, either. Perhaps you were given these falsehoods by another person and you repeated them without checking them?

Now, having said all that, clearly, these figures are too high, and I acknowledge that, and I will aim to change my behaviour so that it's more like 2% or lower, in future. But please don't exaggerate. --Greenrd (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well my initial impression was "anti-SJW race realist" though it's true I didn't actually count the relevant reverts. — Dysk (contribs) 16:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You've been cooped. Again.

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

--MtDBogan  03:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press

The whole article is a load of nonsense written as a parody by Emil Kirkegaard who is now spamming it around twitter to discredit RationalWiki. WatchMaker (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Be aware

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

— Z 11:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)