User talk:IveBeenFrank

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, IveBeenFrank!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled (you seem sane, plus I don't want to keep patrolling your edits)[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 POWER — and these external tools:


Use four tildes, not three. That way your comments are also timestamped. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

--Goatspeed. Happy Holidays!🎄CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎄My experiments 19:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

MGTOW TV[edit]

I have stated the reasons why I am editing you have been very biased and have not contributed anything. — Unsigned, by: Eric.the.erich / talk / contribs

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. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Further BoN stupidity[edit]

You mean "misrepresentation", right? Twodots (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


Please don’t use the insult manchild. It is very misandrist and promotes the gynocentric idea that society should expect more of men than they do of women.--Eric.the.erich (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nah chief. I say it how it is. Manchild doesn't mean that men have to do more than woman, merely that they're failing to meet basic, human levels of responsibility and decency. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what you are saying, but how do you explain the idea that when a man has non conventional “nerdy” interests he is made fun of, but when a women has those interests she is viewed as “sexy” and “attractive”.--Eric.the.erich (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
They're both viewed as nerdy and weird by the majority. The only people who are attracted to nerdy girls are nerdy boys. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My Gynocentrism Article[edit]

Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my gynocentrism article to a draft, it had enough content in there to be considered an article and it has even more content than We Hunted the Mammoth. — Unsigned, by: Eric.the.erich / talk / contribs

There are standards of quality for newly created articles. In the past, this wiki was more lenient with allowing topics to directly enter mainspace. This why there are many stubs hanging around, like the article you referenced. Now, articles have to make certain metrics of quality regarding length, relevance, and complexity. Otherwise, they remain as drafts. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My MGTOW TV page[edit]

What? We’re not doing this again? Your the one who keeps reverting my edits. All I’m doing is adding more. I’m sorry I’m not keeping the article the exact way you like it but please don’t just revert my edits. Add to them. You can even edit them if you want but don’t revert the edits that I have put hard work in.--Eric.the.erich (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I, and the majority consensus, sees no value in any of your edits. If you wish to make them, provide justification on the talk page. You've already been told this, so I'm just following the previous standard. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Your edits converted the page into an advertisement for the site, and included a lot of irrelevant material. For example, the "other platforms to check out" section is completely irrelevant. Wordpress? Are you kidding?
I suggest that you discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Christmas bashing"[edit]

I was unaware that pointing out a segment of the population's dislike for their religious holiday's use to sell shit, which they feel detracts from the actual religious aspect was "bashing". Despite my anti-theism, people being upset of the commercialization of their religious holidays seems perfectly understandable to me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

My use of the word "bashing" was not directed towards you. I happen to share that opinion. I suppose I could have been more clear as to who did the "bashing," but I thought the use of names and specificity would be needlessly hostile and only fan the flames of drama. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
That's understandable. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

On edit warrer[edit]

You are unblocking someone prolifically using a VPN, someone who is trying to get people into race arguments, and insisting he was not a VPN user, please stop. Additionally Oxy and Circ came to this conclusion before me. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. I can only see one other use of a VPN, which made one post, while the user was blocked.
  2. I've went through all this IP's posts, and I can't see anything that falls under race-baiting, racialism, or racism.
  3. Again, just because three people think one thing doesn't mean they're right.
I refuse to have an IP that is at least willing to write paragraphs and interact seriously blocked without an appropriate cause. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
They've posted under at least three IPs, in a small time period for a small three day ban by Oxy and Circ, this is not good faith wiki usage (VPN usage), and so I banned for ban evasion Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For giving into the demands of an obviously bad-faith BoN[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

If you had seen how the aforementioned edit-warring proxy user made absurd accusations of KC being a sock of me and mocked me in an obviously bad-faith talkpage shitpost that has since been reverted by moi for cleaning up after him, you would have seen that this user was only trolling us. Do not give in to the demands made by such unsavory characters; just because they are persistent little buggers in their edit-warring does not mean that giving in to them is the answer. --Goatspeed. Happy Holidays!🎄CircularREmail2.gifasoning🎄My experiments 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Why am I not surprised? Oxyaena Harass 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Don't think so! Scream!! (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not? He references a far-left schizophrenic editor, which he often describes as Oliver Smith. Only Mikey has shown this level of obsession with Oliver Smith, along with calling him far-left, slanderous, and schizophrenic, leading me to conclude anyone using those words and commenting on the talk page of a racialism-related article is Mikey. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Please block any accounts with Emil Kirkegaard, Oliver Smith, John Fuerst etc in name - Mike has been creating fake accounts on here of those people and several others for years. You can find the same impersonations on his Wikipedia sockpuppet archive, e.g. 2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:246 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Ps. OpenPsych is Kirkegaard's creation hence Mike's obsession with it. 2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:246 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

This is a formal notice that you are hereby banned from interacting with User:Oxyaena.

Specifically, you are banned from doing the following actions:

  • Edit their user talkpage. This extends to subpages in their userspace and essay talkpages.
  • Reply to them in discussions. Participation in the same discussions is still permitted, but direct responses are not.
  • Reference them anywhere on RationalWiki, directly or indirectly.
  • Revert their edits in any shape, way or form through the mediawiki interface.

Violation of this sanction can be enforced by any sysop with incrementing blocks and attached talkpage notices. Repeated violation may result in another Chicken Coop or ATIM case being raised against you with the potential for further sanctions. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you wanted to appeal this you’d probably be successful, based on the overwhelming support for lifting CorruptUser’s ban at rw talk:all things in moderation. Not urgent as Oxy’s currently “retired”, but I imagine it’d be nice to not have to constantly worry about the ban if she comes back. Christopher (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

About Tax Foundation[edit]

Actually, they aren't that biased. In fact, the Washington Post, the other source I posted is, according to MBFC less reliable and more biased than them and both are labeled as "high credibility" sources. I agree that they have problems, but I don't see why we can't use them here. GeeJayK (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, considering two of the board members were former Republican politicians, and another was John McCain's chief economic adviser in his 2008 campaign, I disagree. But it's not just that: The New York Times describes the organization as conservative, and economist Paul Krugman has repeatedly argued that the foundation is politically motivated, producing incorrect or misleading studies, in particular studies that seemed designed to tear apart then-President Obama's American Jobs Act. Furthermore, a former employee wrote in a New York Times column that the Foundation deliberately produced studies and designed scoring and analysis schemes to paint an exceedingly positive picture of the Republican-proposed Rubio-Lee tax plan, detailing both how the organization created such metrics, their motives, and why they were inaccurate and biased. And if you still aren't cued in on their political biases, the Foundation publishes yearly studies on reforming America's tax code, and all of the suggestions are solidly conservative: reduce taxes on the wealthy, remove or severely curtail the inheritance tax, and ditto for the income tax, all while increasing taxes on the poor through an expansion of flat taxes. And if that wasn't enough, the organization was founded by the chairmen or presidents of General Motors, Standard Oil, and other international corporations with the express purpose of monitoring "the tax and spending policies of government agencies." They clearly have a political affiliation, and an affiliation that seems to push them to compromise their intellectual honesty. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'll be frank (no pun intended) this sounds a bit of a genetic fallacy to me. I know these stories very well, but again, I believe MBFC is the best source to say if they are reliable or not, and they do claim that the Tax Foundation is a good (indeed, better than the Washington post and NYT). Also, despite the wordy article, they're just using data to argue. They do have a solid academic theory to back these claims, even if we don't agree with everything they say, and it's very hard to say that they're wrong on this one considering how they're using data from the IRS.
I like Krugman, I really do, but trust me, his column on NYT is reallyu bad. I have his book on International Economics here and I check it almost every week, usually more than once a week, but as a journalist he just ain't that good. I can provide some exemples if you wanna know more. GeeJayK (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll edit it again with some changes, if you still don't like it ping me on the talk page of the article. GeeJayK (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can use IRS data, it's the conclusions that they draw that compose a study. The fact is, the Foundation has repeatedly, deliberately, used data and specific interpretations to push political viewpoints, rather than having politically-independent research derive policy conclusions. As we all know, anyone can make an interpretation - using official data doesn't make that interpretation any more correct. They seek to justify conservative policy, in many cases creating methods of scoring or rating bills or laws that favor conservative positions. I haven't heard of MBFC, and their website looks very unprofessional. Venturing further, it appears that their founder and manager has no experience in media analysis, and much of their ratings are on an amateur/armchair judgement. The Poynter Institute, an actual academic school that also specializes in fact-checking, calls its methods unscientific and amateurish. In fact, it appears the founder/editor/manager's only qualifications for this site is a bachelor's in communications. I don't see why MBFC is the end-all be-all, or outweighs the evidence of partisan wrangling detailed here. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, as far as I know, conservatives are the ones that criticize Media Bias/Fact Check. Indeed, if you Google them you'll see that most if not all the criticism comes from the right. See their page here on RW for instance. Of course, there's some reasonable criticism, but I'm not convinced that they're wrong on the Tax Foundation. I also don't believe that the 2017 TCJA was capable of changing so much the structure in the US, which was, according to the OECD, the most progressive in the world. GeeJayK (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That source you linked seems fine, but I think it's important to make the distinction within the Income tax article itself between progressive taxes and the effectiveness or level of redistribution measures. As the article says, the US has the most income taxed in the upper bracket, but its methods and levels of redistribution within the larger government (which most people think of when they hear "progressive income tax", since for better or worse people aren't economists) are far less than average for OECD member states. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Nor does the source claim that the US collects a larger dollar value of taxes than any other country, which also needs to be clarified within the article. Most people think of greater total taxes with progressive income taxes. Come to think of it, we need a progressive tax article...IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with what you said. Would you mind make the edit yourself, however? I just don't time to do it right now. Also, we do have Progressive taxation, but it's amazingly bad, there's is not one single source. GeeJayK (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get around to it. I've got a couple important things coming up, but I can lay the groundwork in the meantime. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)