None of the links on your user page work. That's because you did them wrong.
You can either type [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCarswell User Jason Carswell] or [[wikipedia:User:JasonCarswell|User:JasonCarswell]].
You can either type [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCarswell User:JasonCarswell] or [[commons:User:JasonCarswell|User:JasonCarswell]].
You can either type [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:JasonCarswell User:JasonCarswell] or [[wiktionary:User:JasonCarswell]].
- @Spud Thanks. I fixed it and added a page of stuff. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Reverend Black Percy - Hi. I love both the Corbett and Colbert Reports. But nothing is above being made fun of. I thought Rational Wiki was a good place for that. I am improving the Draft:James Corbett (journalist) and in my research I found (what I think is) hilarious edits made to the actual TCR deleted article. Because the James Corbett article needed more goat, I was trying to oblige. I was adding:
- Not to be confused with The Colbert Report.
- when I discovered you rolled it back. Please tell me why? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello! The hatnote was a good idea, I'll re-insert that immediately. Thanks for thinking of it. Regarding the other edits, well... Look to our other articles, generally. We rarely, rarely ever cover wikidrama, in the sense that we pay much attention to since-reverted edits to the TOW articles on any topic at all. I also didn't think your improvement to the lead made it much better. Keep experimenting, though — worst case, you get reverted. No bigge. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Reverend Black Percy - Also, I wrote the article(s), it was rejected at Wikipedia, then I posted it here. It was weakly goated. I cleaned it up recently after it came to the attention of James Corbett and others. Watch this video then read the TCR comments section (not the YouTube comments) for the full disclosure of my involvement: https://www.corbettreport.com/what-i-learned-from-the-propornot-propaganda-list/ So now I'm resubmitting an improved Wikipedia article, and sprinkling the Rational Wiki article with cheer. I'm not trying to be bad to RW, WP, JC, or anyone and I'm pretty sure that JC would get a kick out of it. I intend to share the revisions with him soon, whether he bothers to look or not is up to him. I do hope for feedback from him and The Corbett Report members. Some of them may even contribute (I was really hoping for more help from them). ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but I think it's relevant in this case. My edits to the lead focused the "humour" where it was more appropriate. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Reverend Black Percy - I'm unclear how to proceed. Should I give up here or can I continue? Would it be too much to ask to be able to finish editing it my way? Then in a day or few (depending how long it takes me to get through it) you can return and improve or butcher it as you like while I'd be happy it's at least archived. I'm curious, ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Here, I created you a draft article. In it, I restored the edits I had rolled back, too. In this article, you can work uninterrupted — you have the last say on what goes in it (within the limitations of the law and the community rules, of course). Finish what you started here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Reverend Black Percy - Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
If that's your opinion, man
But I wish you wouldn't call RationalWiki a "mainstream media brainwashed and dogmatic politically oblivious website" on your user page. I happen to think our interactions have been useful, and the reason I helped you set up a draft article was so that your changes would not be lost. You're free to condemn us as much as you please, of course, but I just hope that maybe that harsher judgement of the site was based on bad interactions with other users, perhaps from long ago. Just saying. It's a little bit of a letdown to read those words you pit against us and the entire platform, because honestly, they contribute to that type of polarity which you seem to be against. If you wanna call Wikipedia that, fine. The mainstream media that, also fine. But most of us are actually here (on RW) to help, and I don't think you're any different in that regard. Nuance is, after all, an important tool of the skeptic. Oh well, just my two cents. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not here to cause trouble. Like everyone I'm here to contribute on a forum at least willing to acknowledge alternative views, even if you use pejorative phrases like the CIA's disparaging "conspiracy theorist" term. It's embraced among the community as a badge of honour but outside it's usually an insult. James Corbett and Sibel Edmonds are occasionally long-winded and hyperbolic but they are doing vastly superior work of contextualizing and making sense of things than all mainstream media which intentionally provokes, divides, obscures, and works for the corporate overlords that control the government of our rigged globalized establishment systems. That's a mouthful but no less true. I'd be happy to consider rephrasing my sentiments if RW changes their approach of their own accord. They're not likely to create sub-classification scales of conspiracy analysts - say from "Moonbat Crackpot" to "Legitimate Griper" - but I'm not going to ask them to nor would I expect them to.
- When I first started I perused the Saloon and participated a bit. I was trying to explain stuff with basic historical examples to no avail. I got busy for a week and came back later to find the "ISIS=CIA" discussion archived. I didn't feel the need to dredge it up and provide examples of black masked men with western military arm tattoos and British accents. However I did laugh my ass off learning a new word - JAQing off. That term and others here are entertaining ways of shutting down conversation and supporting circular logic. But people are annoying.
- I completely concur on the polarity point. Everyone thinks they are right. No one is. I don't know of any but if you think of any tips, tools, or the like to bridge the "gap" I'm totally keen because it can be shared and applied everywhere.
- So far as I see it, the only certainty in my mind is that it's all of us against the elites' rigged systems of manipulation and exploitation and everything they do is to get us to fight each other rather than see behind the boob tube. We're groomed to accept a boss who exploits you without a say in the matter rather than have a democratic workplace. The more that boss is willing to exploit, the higher they rise, until they're not just exploiting in their industry but people are getting hurt or killed. I don't expect everyone will just give up their Prussian education of subservient drones, but maybe some will. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)