User talk:Johns

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from User talk:John66)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

Please be more conservative with the save button

It's unnecessarily difficult to track page changes when you're hitting the save button every five minutes on minor edits. Thanks! Spriggina (xerrada) (contribucions) @ 22:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


Block evasion is for people evading short term blocks, ur looking at Mikemikev so that's ban evasion because he's banned. Some might be Smith but he's banned too so it's irrelevant and can be treated the same. Just FYI on ur recent block reasons. EK (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Be aware

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

— Z 11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What's with the deletion?

What's up with that deletion of the Fróði whatever talk page? The subject of the article (and presumed writer of the comment) may be a total pseudoscientific nut, but the actual content of the article does nothing to prove it. In short, the deleted comment was at least partially fair and deserves to actually be considered or left dangling unanswered. The article in question should, in my opinion, be deleted or improved. MarmotHead (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The comments were by a banned member/neo nazi troll Michael Coombs who likes to impersonate other people and that is why they were removed. There have been many discussions on this website about his sock-puppets. The discussion has been to be ban and delete his comments. Johns (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I see how the second comment from FD2 (which I hadn't seen until just now) fit the bill, but the first one didn't. The first one made a reasonable point that our evidence for pseudoscience was weak. He may be a real nut, but he presented what looks like legit science at a nutty conference and he follows some assholes on Twitter. That's it. That said, you did delete the first comment, a perfectly reasonable comment from someone who gave no evidence of being an asshole. Meanwhile, once my grumpiness resolves, I may recommend an overhaul or deletion of the article so that it either better proves his wingnuttery or just ignores him as irrelevant. MarmotHead (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the original talk-page commenter you were talking about called "Sanitiser" was also a sock-puppet of Michael Coombs [1], an account that has been indefinitely blocked. Every account on that talk-page was Michael trolling, he has been doing it for years and years on this website on all of the race articles. I don't care if his comments looked legit, they were not legit. His agenda is to cause disruption here. Per policy we can remove Mikemikev's trolling on this website at any time. There has been a consensus vote to keep all the stubs/articles on race pseudo-scientists. I don't think any of those articles are going to be removed. Other users have already voted on that and they get high-Google traffic. Johns (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
"Yay!" I say with heavy sarcasm. I have the dilemma of proposing to delete something weak and, simultaneously, find myself agreeing with racist trolls. Ugh! I also have whiskey ... MarmotHead (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


I've nominated you to serve on the rationalmedia foundation due to the quality and frequency of your mainspace contributions

More below You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That template is a bit confusing, you can accept or decline here Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Conduct question

What's the proper way to deal with a situation where someone doesn't accept what's been agreed on a talk page (or in the AFD in this case), but also isn't willing to discuss their reverts? You probably know what issue I'm referring to. --Tetrapteryx (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)