User talk:JorisEnter/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 September 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, (new)(back)



New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, JorisEnter!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hallo en Welkom ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Goeien- ehh... avond! JorisEnter (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

MSITB is a necessary article! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm currently doing most of the editing in my userspace (or whatever it's called) so that I can write stuff there and copy it into mainspace when I feel it's good enough (also prevents having fragmented bits of the book in the mainspace article). I'm planning on doing more articles about Dutch creationists, such as David Sörensen, Peter Scheele and the newly founded Logos Institute. It'll take some time though (especially since being a first-year physics student implies having close to zero time left for non-physics activities). JorisEnter (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


Aangezien je blijkbaar niet compleet ontspoord bent heb ik je gedegradeerd tot conciërge sysop. Zie ook de sysop guide. — Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Gezien je edits bij PVV, Geert Wilders, e.d.: [1] Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Prachtig artikel. Zou best goed bronmateriaal zijn (ook vanwege de externe links) voor de pagina's over Wilders en PVV. Doet me ergens denken aan een essay over Wilders dat ik een jaar of wat geleden schreef.JorisEnter (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Nog eentje. Ik word niet betaald door De Correspondent ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Say, as multilingual Dutch speakers among each other, which language do you like best? (talk) 16:15, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Wait - you're Dutch too? --JorisEnter (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not from the Netherlands (as in, the country), but I speak the language. *waves hands mysteriously* (talk) 16:24, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
For some reason I fail to get the hint. Could be Belgium or the Netherlands Antilles (which are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands). If by 'which language' you mean 'English or Dutch': I honestly like both of them quite a lot. Latin is cool too, though. --JorisEnter (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I generally like to keep things a bit mysterious. ;) (talk) 16:48, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
I find that some phrases or concepts are much easier to express in English, and that some others are much easier to express in Dutch. Sometimes these are really mundane things; for example, there is no word for "sibling" in Dutch, or there is no word for "gezellig" in English...
One definite disadvantage of English is that there's no standard spelling or grammar (unlike Dutch), and that British people don't know what you're on about if you use "Americanisms", and that American people don't know what you're on about if you use "Britishisms", and lets not even mention the Australians! e.g. pants vs. trousers, brackets vs. parenthesis, crisps vs. chips, sidewalk vs. pavement, etc. This has been a source of confusion on more than a few occasions between me and my (British) girlfriend... Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I use Americanisms and Britishisms indiscriminately. The same problem occurs when trying to speak Tweants (as WP calls it), so I just avoid it (using two different varieties will probably make somebody feel offended). --JorisEnter (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I've experienced this too. For example, I've found there's no clear equivalent of 'awkward'. "Genant" comes close, though it matches more with 'embarrassing'. I generally prefer English over Dutch, at least on the internet (for some reason). I don't really agree about standardized spelling/grammar. There are standards, there's just multiple versions to choose from (and the differences aren't that big/numerous, overall). Well unless you bring textspeak into the picture, but let's not... >.> And aye as to Americanisms and Britishisms, though differences like that are kind of a given with any language occurring across geographically separate regions (sometimes the geographically separate isn't even required, just look at all the Dutch dialects). As for other languages, Latin, Greek and Arabic seem cool too, though my knowledge of them is very limited (still dunno how you're supposed to pronounce that 'ayn sound). (talk) 17:19, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
"Ongemakkelijk" is the best translation I could find for "awkward". You're quite right about the lack of need for geographical separation: some people (not me) can apparently judge where in their town somebody lives purely by listening to their accent. --JorisEnter (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, accents. I fear those are mostly lost on me. Maybe it's my bad hearing, but I find it very hard to distinguish between any of them. And yes, "ongemakkelijk" seems like a decent translation, thanks. :) (talk) 17:44, 8 January 42016 AQD (UTC)


All references before a sidebar don't show up in the <references/>; so you never want to drop them in the middle of the page... This is a long-standing bug that someone ought to look at at some point :-/ Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That sucks. Somebody should indeed figure out what's going on. We could at least include a {{biology}} or an {{evolution}} navbox at the top of the page, I suppose?JorisEnter (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I figured out a solution for the problem, perhaps David will fix it, perhaps not :-/
The reason I removed all navbars for now because they were in the way of the images; they were being pushed down and not in the "correct" position. IMHO good images are more important than navbars... I proposed a solution in the bar for the inordinate amount of space that navbars take up. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks interesting. Navbars indeed take up way too much space now (although they make good fillers if an article is short or has no top illustration). --JorisEnter (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


What's wrong with redirects? And are you fixing all those links by hand? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup. --JorisEnter (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I've fixed all of them now.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Documentation ...[edit]

... is as important as the actual template. PLEASE make sure that templates are fully explained before using them. Pippa (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding topic[edit]— Unsigned, by: FAMAS / talk / contribs 15:38, 24 January 2016

in reply to vandalbinning[edit]

this user's attempts at asynchronous communication with the userbase of rationalwiki is undermined via the action. which users this user will perform communication with via talk page is of a personal matter within the userspace and not a ground for vandalbinningFAMAS (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Protecting false claims against me[edit]

Tell me, is RationalWiki's community in the habit of keeping clearly false information about other people on their pages without any explanation because they just don't like the person being attacked with such claims? Certainly seems like that is the case right now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

awaiting removal from vandalbin[edit]

when the removal will occur?FAMAS (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but given that so far you've made 2 worthwhile edits, it's probably not going to happen until you've made plenty more worthwhile edits. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all you should learn how to properly use the English language. That includes correct use of capitalisation. As you also may have noticed, you can make edits while binned - just not too many. Show us that you're actually capable of adding something substantial, rather than just making hardly readable posts on a rather useless forum and spamming even more useless links to it on people's talk pages - then, maybe, I'll unbin you. Clear?--JorisEnter (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Queex and JorisEnterthis user notes that vandalbinning is for those who perform vandalism via edit function and this user's capacities of english language usage as of this writing is contraindicative of improper usage as to the nature of the usage of words by this user. users of rationalwiki who may have participated in freenode irc channels in the past may have noticed chats by this user. there is also of note the assume good faith policy and innocent until proven guilty policy requires that users not start off in vandal bin and thus any requirement to "prove" this user is not needed to be kept in bin is made moot via the lack of actions which require any putting in the vandal bin.FAMAS (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You started posting (/spamming) links to your 'forum' on people's talk pages without any request from them, and continued to do so even after being asked to stop. Make some good edits (i.e., not whining about the vandal bin) and I'll be happy to unbin you. If you want 'evidence' of your 'guilt', have a look under your user contributions. They're full of your spamming other user talk pages.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus, if you ever use that unbearably pretentious 'this user' language again, I'm going to straight up ban you and see if anyone else cares enough to unban you. Get a grip. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocking for simple wandalism....[edit]

Try not to do that. Use the mop and bucket, and bin 'em only if they are persistent. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Ik had je een paar weken terug een mail gestuurd. Heb je die gezien? Je hoeft niet te reageren, natuurlijk ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Kan me niet herinneren dat ik een mail heb ontvangen. Ik zie er ook geen in mijn mailbox om eerlijk te zijn, maar ik heb "enable mail from other users" wel aan staan.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, volgens mij verliest het systeem hier en daar wel eens een mail. Heb ik al een paar keer problemen mee gehad, maar zoals gebruikelijk wordt daar niet echt iets mee gedaan :-/
Hoe dan ook, het ging over User:JorisEnter/Logos Institute opening conference; het leek me wel grappig daar naartoe te gaan. Ik zie inmiddels dat je soortgelijke plannen hebt. Ik weet niet of je iets ziet in een soort mini-RW conferentie? Ik heb nl. geen zin daar de hele dag alleen rond te struinen :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Het was idd mijn plan om daarheen te gaan. Ik had wel zin om me te vermaken met creationisten die menen dat ze iets begrijpen van natuurkunde en "d vragen waar jongeren mee rondlopen vandaag de dag". Als ze daarnaast ook een gratis lunch aanbieden ben helemaal verkocht (student en zo). Als jij zin hebt om daar ook naartoe te gaan is dat natuurlijk mooi; kunnen we daarna wellicht een leuk verslag plaatsen op de wiki.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

this user is seeking for a way to perform private messaging in rationalwiki[edit]

not all things can and should be talked about in the open. impossible to reply to this message easily while in vandalbin. all in the subject.FAMAS (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't do PMing here. You can email, but that's it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. That's not a heading. That's an entire text. (totally not an Obi-wan-Kenobi reference)
  2. There exists this thing known as the Shift-key. Use it.
  3. What did Queex say again about you calling yourself "this user"? (hint: see a few threads above)
  4. Rather than continuously whining about your binning, you might go and make some actual constructive edits. And what the hell did you not want to talk about in the open?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
this user notes the message left by aginghippie in the talkpage about binning only when persistent cases occur, not "all users start of in bin by default".FAMAS (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Evidently, you haven't even read my message. Really mate, if you refer to yourself as "this user" one more time or leave out all the caps, I'll be more than happy to ban you anyway. You have made perhaps one useful contribution to this wiki, and for the rest you're just being a nuisance.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page and blocking my account?[edit]

Hi JorisEnter. On Feb. 23rd I published a page on Noah B. Mamet, which you deleted, and then proceeded to block my account on account of vandalism. I don't understand why this happened. The page had reliable sources as listed on Wikipedia: Can you please advice? Shanewarwin12 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea but you're not blocked now. The above message is not a minor edit; please don't flag such edits as minor in future Pippa (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It was an off-mission lazy copy/paste from wikipedia, right down to templates and categories we don't have. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Just looking at the subject of the page: it was prolly 'cause he's not worthy of an entry on RW, being a somewhat insignificant and not terribly controversial figure - see our community standards (Oh and it's advise if you're using it as a verb) Pippa (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Political corruption, like sponsors buying themselves into the position of ambassador, seems pretty missional. Whether this specific individual is notable enough in that subject matter to warrant their own article is more questionable. Shanewarwin's article on the guy was just a shoddy Wikipedia copypasta, though, so it's kinda obvious that it'd be deleted. (talk) 15:10, 25 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Whether this guy is missional or not does not really matter. Literally copying an entire Wikipedia article, however, is not how things are done on this wiki. We're not some sort of Wikipedia mirror site, after all.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

the relation between citations and rationality is that of a proportional[edit]

without citations to verify statements, statements become of unknown veracity with the possibility of being forgery or opinion by the original editors of statements, ergo, citation rule should be enforced, with more force than the other wiki'sFAMAS (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly in favour of referencing statements. The way you phrased it was silly, however.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
negative. it was made in an honest effort of showcasing what makes rationalwiki rational (what unknown percentage of it) and is to be upheld at all costs.FAMAS (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Honest effort or not, that phrasing was bad. It looked like a joke.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
What citation rules? They are not strictly required here.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted CSA edit?[edit]

I notice you reverted my edit to the child sexual abuse page almost immediately after I made it. I was replacing a link that leads to a 404. I also could not find any evidence for the claim that the page was allegedly a reference for (that gender ratios of perpetrators and victims of CSA are proportionate to the incidence of homosexuality) so I changed the statement to reflect my source (male perpetrators [regardless of victim's gender] are overrepresented, while female perpetrators [regardless of victim's gender] are underrepresented).— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Hm. You're right. Try to provide a better edit summary next time thouh (if you say "replaced dead link", I presume all you did was actually replace a link, not rewrite a good chunk of text).--JorisEnter (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Abortion is mass murder"[edit]

Gross statement, but not revdel-worthy. I've undone it, unless there's a good reason.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


With {{pri}}, it's not really necessary any more. The HotRate gadget is a bit outdated. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps somebody could add the {{pri}} thingamabob to HotRate then?--JorisEnter (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech time![edit]

You're a tech! Don't break anything important.

The tech support page is at TECH.

If you happen to know JavaScript, it'd be great if you could edit MediaWiki:Gadget-HotArticleRate.js to use a combination of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{pri}} (both on mainpage) instead of {{bronze}}/{{silver}}/{{gold}}+{{rated}} (first on mainpage, second on the talkpage). The gadget isn't widely used, so it doesn't matter if you temporarily break it. Thanks!

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(I'm)Armless and Harmless[edit]

... was an obscure pun (and was a response to the IP being blocked). (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Mothballing Andy[edit]

Hey Joris! I just tossed a cpmothball onto the Andy article, not because I was certain it belonged there, but - quite the contrary - because I wasn't certain it'd belong there at all. Although the template is named "mothball", that doesn't actually mean the article that has it is mothballed per se; the text on the template visible to our readers just points out that the Conservapedia-focus is not necessarily our main focus anymore - which is true. It also provides helpful links to other parts of the site and so on. But again, maybe it doesn't fit on a front page article. I won't be readding it, but I'd support its re-insertion if another editor would take that upon themselves. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, {{cpmothball}} is mostly used for the couple gazillion articles on very obscure CP-related things. There are a few "important" CP articles (Andy, CP itself, CPan relativity) that are important enough not to be mothballed (Andy is still a crank, for example, even though CP is largely dead).--JorisEnter (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Gold star[edit]

Congrats!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, big applause buddy! You earned this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys!--JorisEnter (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I like your quote[edit] Ana Achúcarro. It's a great quote, actually. Makes you think on the experimental nature of reality and so on. Though, I'm going to be annoying by adding the word "atleast" before "once". Because, you know, all we can say inductively is that it's happened at least once. ^^ All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Good one. Achúcarro was giving a lecture on cosmology to us first-year undergrads and this quote came along. Thought it was nice so I wrote it down and it's still hanging on the wall of my room.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sweet! The only question, then, is - can this experiment be replicated? ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, we are part of this universe, but if we want to replicate the 'universe experiment' we'd have to get outside of it. Better not tell this to The Spirit Science though - no doubt he'd make a bullshitty video about it.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I think our best bet is either to consider an infinite universe as an experiment from which a quantifiably infinite amount of scientific data could in theory be extrapolated (assuming it's truly non-quantifiably infinite) - that, or just observing enough to such a degree of precision that we're able to run computer models that (in the spirit of the epistemological stance on knowledge known as "tracking theory" - which I happen to find the least bad among the epistemological positions) simply mirror the universe perfectly. I'm not saying these are good options, I'm just clasping at straws here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech time[edit]

If you wanna try to make a filter so that this stuff gets blocked, that'd be rad. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Creationist articles[edit]

Hey buddy! I was wondering if you'd seen that the mob seems to agree on both this and this fairly large merger. Being a guy who can clearly handle editing very long articles, and who has an interest in creationists and their nutty claims, what do you say about helping me start performing said mergers? In case you're looking for a good project. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but (unfortunately) I'll be spending most of this weekend learning for my Optics exam next Monday (after which I'll spend most of my free time learning for a Calculus test on Wednesday, making homework for Diffusion on Thursday and Classical Mechanics on Friday, plus a weekend mostly used for working on a paper for Planetary Systems the Monday afterwards). If I happen to have some free time (when I'm bored and don't feel like doing any more optics) I might try to work on that merger.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your censorship is very intellectually dishonest[edit]

If you don't like a position, downvote. Don't censor. If a Sanders supporter was arrested for a political sign, you'd be advocating police discipline I feel. TooConservative (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Don't ban BoN's for no reason, it's a waste of time and will eventually lead to you losing sysop. (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Now hello there, mr Bon-come-from-nowhere!--JorisEnter (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello; you might want to review the guide to blocking available in the help section on the left. (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing to gain from banning IPs, but this seems to escape you. (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't wear yourself out[edit]

Hey buddy, you should probably relax a little at the coop. The things people do here that are useful is editing articles. Right now, you're just tempting the mob (and the trolls). And I don't want to see you get bitter and demopped and such. It's too easy for anyone, editor or troll, to go in as a new random BoN and just mess with you. So please - let's bring this back down to the level where Weasel re-mops you and we can let this stupid Coop case pass and get back to editing articles, which is what is important here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban evasion[edit]

All of us, but especially you, are entitled to know why the "ban evasion" reason is offered at the block feature. If you did it wrong, there's no reason you cannot simply have it explained to you why, as well as how and when it is proper to block for "ban evasion." As far as I can see, de-mopping you and taking your tech capacities away, especially absent a coop case, was an abuse of authority.---Mona- (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Submitted for your consideration[edit]

They reverted us. Now we may vote. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


That was going to get stupid really fast and all I can do is revert the edits. Deletions are much better for that sort of... "content".B4Xiphos (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


It isn't 100% necessary to delete comments on my talkpage like that. Just saying. As an aside, after reading your userpage, I preferred The Grand Design to Brief History. Acei9 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

While I preferred the content of The Grand Design to Brief History as well, the latter is what got me into liking physics.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You'd be the exception in that case, Ace. Not saying you're wrong, of course - it's your talkpage. But poor Joris has been doing an outstanding job reverting doxing trolls for days or even weeks now. So give the guy a break if his gut reaction is to revert when a newly registered, suspect username goes in and swears on somebody's talk page. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. I first picked up Brief History when I was 13 but didn't understand it properly until a reread when I was 15/16. I am reading The Upright Thinkers by Leonard Mlodinow at themoment - he co-wrote The Grand Design. Very interesting. Another book I read which got me interested in Cosmology was The Five Ages of the Universe. A bit dated now but a damned good read. @ The Rev - I am giving him a break, was just making a comment about it. Acei9 22:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I first read Brief History (in Dutch) at 15 but didn't understand it as well. Bought it half a year later, together with The Grand Design (in English this time) and reread it; apparently, reading it twice makes it much easier to understand (that, or my understanding of physics had improved over that half year). I'm currently reading Ideas and Opinions by Albert der Grosse, but simultaneously reading Clausewitz's Vom Kriege and Cicero's De Finibus doesn't really make it go any faster. I've still got Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality on my shelf to read, as well as Hawking's selection from the works of Einstein, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ace Neat; I didn't mean "give him a break" in the sense that you were reprimanding him.
@Both of you Out of the above mentioned titles, I've actually only read Brief History - though I never understood it half as well until I ordered the special illustrated version (which now hangs out in my bookshelf). Mlodinow is a very interesting thinker, anyhow. I'm currently reading Bill Bryson, myself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reading list. I tried reading Penroses' Cycles in Time but was very heavy going. Interestingly it was in Cycles in Time Penrose discussed his theory that other univrses collided with ours and which was later shown to be supported by observational evidence. Ahead of his time in that regard.
@The Good Rev - Big Bryson fan myself. A Walk in the Woods is one of my favourites. Acei9 22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, I first read the illustrated version and then the smaller, hardly illustrated, paperback version (this may have had something to do with the fact that the former (which I had originally read from my school library) was something like €80 or 90 at (the Dutch equivalent of Amazon) while the English paperback version was less than 10). The bookstores here in Leiden offer a good supply of second-hand books of all kinds, including plenty of physics-related stuff, so I won't be running out of things to read any time soon!--JorisEnter (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
One of my guilty pleasures is getting pissed and watching cosmology lectures. Not most peoples idea of a relaxing night in. Acei9 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You can leave my talk page alone, too, if you don't mind. And blocking a user for 3 months for 3 edits? Seems a bit heavy-handed to me. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

talking without blocking[edit]

I think we'll probably disagree on this whole sock-blocking thing, but it's probably more a matter of degree than being on the opposite sides. Still, I'd never block for infinity and you'd probably never block for <5 minutes. I'm willing to allow well-behaving socks of dickheads to keep on participating while you prefer something more absolute. Your approach may be more strictly rules-following than mine. That's cool. Range blocks? Then we're on opposite sides. But that's just one thing. So, from my perspective, you'll be a hardass at times and, from your perspective, I'll be a pushover at times. The rest of the time, we're cool. MarmotHead (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I think permabanning someone for making a single not-so-nice comment is indeed a bit too much, this guy has a history of sockpuppetry, doxxing and harassment. Just expand the block log to show 500 items and you'll see that the bottom of the page is covered in blocks made on 22/23 March. All those IPs and names were his accounts that tried to spam pictures (or links to pictures) of one particular person. Nuance is good, but DMorris has shown himself incapable of being nuanced, and in my opinion he should be treated as such.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Join the coalition?[edit]

A grand combination is about to take place- a grand unity between Fat Aardvark and Paravant. Fat Aardvark shall be the military strategist and Paravant shall assume his old role of dictator.

Join us.— Unsigned, by: MLC2 / talk / contribs 13:16, 24 April 2016

Fat Aardvark[edit]

Honestly, it might be worth just letting his posts stay and his accounts remain unbanned (unless they start to genuinely spam all over the place). It's clear that banning doesn't stop them, but they're mostly harmless. What say you? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New template[edit]

Working on a new message (scroll to bottom) for trolls, are we? Looking good! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well quite frankly it already exists, I was just trying it out. It's the {{warn-v}} below the edit screen.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My template creating and editing rights[edit]

Why don't I have the right to create and edit templates yet and when will I get that right? -- PK2 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So I know we got off to a bad start...[edit]

Why not bury the hatchet eh? Also lets be on first name terms, nice to meet you I'm 4ardvark— Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatTomato / talk / contribs 09:05, 30 April 2016‎

Hey Joris[edit]

The bot doesn't seem to like it when the archive template is on one line. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


I can just bot-replace all {{talkpage}} with the Pibot thing, instead of you doing it by hand. If you want. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well now I have something to do, at least. That said, I should probably start washing the dishes.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Chrome add-ons[edit]

I think what happened was the Chrome Drumpfinator made me accieentally edit the entire Trump page to say Drumpf. Sorry. Tm122 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


You have new messages at user talk:Peter Chastain –Autopatrolled

GMO denial.[edit]

Joris the amount you know about GMOs wouldn't fit the ingredients list on the side of a cereal box. Stop acting like a poser, as if you had some experience with the world. You haven't a clue.

You have no idea who to believe or what to believe. You don't know anything about how science works and you especially don't know anything about GMOs. You just got this rigid, narrow-minded mentality. All you've done is split people up stupidly and say "these guys are all right and muh science, while these are all idiots". Dismissing all safety protocols and genuine concerns because you're so desperate to appear on the orthodox side.

Stop making a fool of yourself and acting like a pseudointellectual. You could be doing real damage. SuperInfinity (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Irony. Anyways, nothing you removed had anything to do with the "orthodoxy": you removed comments from Penn and Tiller which were added as snark and you removed concerns about how people will starve because fearmongering and ignorance led to food being destroyed for being genetically modified. Neither of these edits involve safety concerns.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 19:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
How in the world is this - removing navboxes and snarky quotes - helpful? Besides, you asked me not to talk to you again - and here you are, talking to me. I actually took the time to talk to you, but I won't bother to do this the next time you vandalise the GMO page.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Done with file deletions. Withoutaname (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That math thing you posted[edit]

Did you finish it? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I recalled that my professor noted that "if you find yourself doing some ridiculously complex derivatives to calculate an error, you are probably doing something wrong." He meant that most errors should be estimated, which I did. Worked out pretty well, I think.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds practical. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty accurate. Sadly, Wolfram Alpha didn't understand my query.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Banning / binning annoying people[edit]

You really do have to stop that. Unless they screw up the articles or talkpages (eg, messing with formatting or spamming), then let them be. Who cares about another shitposter? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, he messed with my comments multiple times and edit warred over it. That's what I call binworthy.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's people like Conscience that end up causing all the problems on this wiki. Regardless of what they might bring, which in the case of Conscience is very little, they end up causing fights and riff-raff. Conscience belongs in the bin as a warning until he can show that he has something to add to this place. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Bullshit. Has he had conflicts with anyone other than you three? Is it possible he's not the problem here? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes he has. I kindly refer you to my coop post. Who was it again that started yelling "Go away. Jesus fuck go away" or something along those lines? (or simply have a look through his contrib log.)--JorisEnter (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
He mocked FCP in his third goddamn edit even though he's never met him, swore at him in his 4th, clashed with a BoN, attacked JorisEnter and Emerald City Wanderer, attacked Owlman for no goddamn reason, attacked Zero, and all in just under 3 weeks. Ridiculous. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
What he said.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

To make it simpler:

  1. Asshole != vandal
  2. Breaks pages = vandal

Conscience is type 1 (in the extreme), not 2. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I could live with Conscience not being in the bin. I still have not heard a reason why he should have a mop, however.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
These people come over here and deliberately skirt the rules to avoid being binned whilst being as much of a disruptive asshole as possible. I'm sick and tired of it, and it needs to stop now. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Joris: Everyone gets a mop. Castaigne gets a mop. *shrug*
@Pb: Just ignore him. (Or, like me, call him an idiot occasionally to see how much he stalks recent changes.) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not fair. We have the power to stop people like this from continuing their disruption. This person is dragging me away from actually doing constructive editing in mainspace. I could settle for: wait until he does something reasonably construed as vandalism, then insta-bin. That'll work. Pbfreespace (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"Any user who is not a vandal or troll is generally "demoted" first to "autopatrolled", and then to sysop by current sysops.", to quote the CS. "having been here" !-> sysop rights.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's just an approximation. You're free to demote essentially anyone to autopatrolled or sysop as you see fit. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What if at least two other people don't think he's fit to become a sysop? Does Weaseloid get to shout something along the lines of "don't you dare demop him or you're next"? (hilariously, Conscience himself whined about you being a dictator, and about a lack of consensus)--JorisEnter (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed FCP, I think you would agree that many of the sysops here are 'arseholes in the extreme', however it doesn't disqualify one from sysop status. Don't let that stop these two clowns from trying to lecture an editor who has been here from before they graduated primary school. (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Just think of sysop as a basic right, granted to everyone who's not [1] a constant, malicious vandal (see above clarifications) or [2] a bumbling idiot who breaks things. Doesn't really matter if 2 or 2000 people don't want them to have sysop -- they should get it. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with 139's point about sysops, if not their unnecessary vitriol. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake YOU please stop[edit]

Stop harassing editors. You and not better because you are a tech. Stop creating rules. Taba (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What the actual fuck.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What am I supposed to stop? Taba (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop the obfuscation. Pbfreespace (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Pardon? You're not making any sense. Taba (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Who "we" is[edit]

"We" is the creative way this account was designed to talk about myself: alternating between first-person and the first person plural? Why? Because when Tyrannis and I first discussed "creative sock ideas," we thought it would be interesting if I talked about us in such an original manner. Nothing more, nothing less. Yellow (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Very user:conservative of you. The person / people running this account approve. (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I/we also approve. No true skeptic claims to know the identity of the person/persons operating this account or 139. 弗雷德里克博士怪人:對於我們即將看到下一個,我們必須悄悄地進入到天才的境界。Olé olé olé. Conscience (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are Rational[edit]

You should present all the facts. Not cherry pick to make literalists look bad. Conservapedia is a bigoted site which calls a ll supporters of evolution atheists and distorts the facts, but surely you are not going to do the same, are you?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Read what I wrote and take it to the talkpage.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Creep shaming[edit]

Out of curiosity, why did you revert my edits here? I understand the previous bit, where it could appear I was blanking the article, but what was actually happening was that the filter had mistakenly identified the text as harmful (as per my post to DG's talk page) and I was trying to, piece by piece, ascertain the offending phrase. The bit you added back in with your final reversion was straight-up virgin shaming, and counterproductive to the article. (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's called "snark".--JorisEnter (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It's bigotry and it completely undercuts the message of the article (see talk page). We can be humorous without punching down, and one's sexuality should not be used as a cheap punchline for the lowest common denominator. (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"Most importantly, the snark should support our site missions (as outlined above), not get in the way of them. Snark is not a cover for hatefulness, shoddy research, or thin analysis. A witty comment or two, added into a factual analysis, can help highlight the more ridiculous aspects of a crank belief or organization, while keeping the reader entertained. "
Emphasis mine. (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the News[edit]

The race ended. Stop being a bitter moron. Typhoon (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, Typhoon, it is still not yet over. As things currently stand, neither candidates can officially defeat the other without the help of superdelegates, who will not vote til July 25th. We are not a live blog, and so should not predict the outcomes. Rather, we should only state the facts as they are and update them when the time comes. Nerd (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My User Talk Page[edit]

I think my deleting that section of my user talk page is justified. The conversation was getting too abrasive for my taste. Besides, here is a quote from the RationalWiki Community Standards. "A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal." Nerd (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Something something space aliens[edit]

Check it, out a thingy! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mouth-frothing tirades[edit]

Yikes! Angry with Immanuel Cunt Kant, are we? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I fear I'm rarely very stable.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Why's he called a pissant??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You should ask Bruce, Bruce, Bruce and Bruce of the University of Woolloomooloo.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
What the fuck? Are you making a belated observance of the American "Weed Smoking Day" 4/20???--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC) 23:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
*sighs*--JorisEnter (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
LOLz. I think a link to this poem in the image caption is needed.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 00:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy nav tomfoolery[edit]

Hi Joris! What's with the new number one, eh? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The old categorisation system added Category:Philosophy to every page that used {{Philosophy}}; I've added a switch that, when set to 1, adds Category:Philosophers instead. This way, there won't be that many articles in the philosophy cat that are already covered by philosophers, which is a subset of the former.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok! Just don't make it say "Pissants"! ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm... *evil plan comes up*--JorisEnter (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That's really good - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

MRA admin?[edit]

I thought this was RationalWiki, not a MRA website. Why are you even an admin?— Unsigned, by: Redsjw / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty bullshit, since they're complaining that Rational Wiki is publishing an anti-feminist article, not that it's "not being rational". (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
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 indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
This was agreed on the AfD vote.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Should I really believe that the admins decide to replace a feminist article by a misogynyist and completely biased one? --Redsjw (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Not the admins, the community.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No, just your very skimming interpretation of what the community was saying, as people have pointed out on the article's talk page. (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough[edit]

United we stand, divided we fall. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The above rallying call could be phrased - how much are you willing to invest your voice and your reason in the above discussion to help ensure that I, your friend and colleague, isn't driven off the site by a toxic user? Because those are sadly the stakes. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, Nerd has already voiced his support, and Owlman presumably will; if this turns into a coop case, it'll at least be 4 against Typhoon - who is known for edit warring and general POV-pushing.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the good people of this community, which I love, will see fit to tell the difference between me (and all us productive editors) and Typhoon. Our gentle tone of voice to other users, our concern for the community, our assumption of good faith edits and the uncontroversial nature of our edits is like day and night compared to the toxic, solipsistic , suspicious, and ragingly abrasive Typhoon. I have no doubt. But we must rally. All it takes for the edit warrior to triumph is that good editors stand idly by and do nothing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Coop vote on Typhoon[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please give me ninja status[edit]

As suggested on my talk page, it would fit my primary focus in editing. First I do small (e.g., reference) fixes; then, I then remove the page I have edited from my watchlist (the list of pages I was interested in).User000name (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What's a RW Ninja, by the way?Nerd (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ninjas can switch bot mode on and off at their liking, which is useful for people who go around making lots of small changes.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

New name?[edit]

So you want me to name the category a different, more accurate name? Internalized Sexual Stigma? Sexual Stigma? Internalized homophobia? LGBT self-hate?ClickerClock (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It had two capital letters, where there should only be one. As you may have noticed, I have already created a new Category:Gay homophobes, which does fit the conventions for page/category naming.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.ClickerClock (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delta "Function"[edit]

Since you are also a student of physics, I would like to ask for you opinion on this matter. We have a page on Dirac's delta function distribution that happens to be factually incorrect. On its talk page, some editors have voiced their doubts that RW needs this page. However, we do have a page on Paul Dirac. Do you think we should re-write that page and link it to Dirac's page or should we have a vote on whether or not it should be deleted? Thank you. Nerd (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I still have a trauma of that lovely integration over delta functions. To answer your question, the delta distrifunction might be mentioned on Dirac's own page, but as far as I can see it is not particularly relevant to RW's mission. I'll put up an AfD vote for this.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We spent a considerable amount of time discussing elements of the theory of distributions in a course on partial differential equations; it is a complicated subject that can only be properly discussed in a course on higher analysis. So I think I can understand your trauma. Please but up an AfD vote. I will update Dirac's page soon. Nerd (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Please note that is in violation of the previous coop case against me and needs to be removed forthwith. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly isn't. You got demopped, not de-autopatrolled.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
PBF and Nerd disagree with you. I myself would prefer not to be accused of violations in a kangaroo coop case. So it would be best to be obedient to those two worthys' opinions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with JorisEnter, having gone over that coop case. Pbfreespace3 obliged your request to have your status as an autropatrolled user removed. (I merely acted as a messenger in the link you posted.) JorisEnter gave it back to you. Check it for yourself. Nerd (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Then it's just PFB. However, it doesn't matter. I myself would prefer not to be accused of violations in a kangaroo coop case. So it would be for the best for it to be removed. Immediately. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consult a moderator... Nerd (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


I just noticed how bad you pwned me. Boy are you a sharp kid! It would never have occurred to me to drop an unresponsive template and declare victory, but your rhetorical skill knows no bounds and I learned a valuable lesson today. No wonder people say you look like an assistant professor, Assistant Professor Joris Enter! I'm sure you'll make tenure soon! Conscience (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


I need to know why you think E Wig is a Conscience sock. If we can prove that account is, then the "Yes" options will have a 2/3 majority. Otherwise, it will fall short of that, and a ban will be impossible. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lemme see...
E.Wig had been pretty much inactive since 2007, making six edits in a little less than nine years' time, and had made zero edits in the past 1¾ years. (see their contributions) Suddenly, they come back for a coop case against a user whom they can't possibly know. It could of course be that E.Wig is simply a drama-loving person, but why did they not do anything (vote or comment) during the dramafest last April? (which, by the way, also involved a coop against me) Note that Conscience wasn't active then, and only started editing in early May, when he started whining here. In the relevant coop case, E.Wig was the first person to vote for my demopping and for Conscience's mopping - strangely without giving any justification at all. (as Aeonian noted, multiple accounts returned during that coop - twas a rather interesting situation) They then left for a while, only to come back and leave another unsupported vote (on the same side as the actual Conscience account) and add the useless point that I was "ignoring the goat votes" (which I indeed did - because they should be when it comes to counting votes).
We are left with two scenarios:
  1. A user who has been almost inactive for about nine years suddenly returns to vote on a coop against someone have probably never heard of, and is too lazy to justify their edit - all of this in a coop case that was already strangely full of socks and randomly returned users;
  2. Conscience has an old sock - which is quite likely for someone who claims to have been watching this site for a long long time.
Your choice.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Do I have your permission to repost this on the coop page? PB (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You do.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Game theory[edit]

Hey buddy! I noticed you've voted both for the perfect punishment (vandal bin) and also for the weakest punishment (warning, not even "strong") for Typhoon in the Coop. I'd just like to point out that if you retract your "Yes" vote from the weakest option (perhaps going for a "No" vote on the weakest option instead) and simply let your Vandal Bin "Yes" vote stay put, then that vote is likely to win. The rules are now specified: All "Yes" votes count. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Reverend. Assuming each vote counts separately, Typhoon will either get a warning for be put in the vandal bin, or both, given the status quo. Nerd (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Both of you: Please see the question raised by me here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way[edit]

Joris, considering all winning "Yes" votes will be enforced, you should consider adding your "Yes" vote to the 1-Week block punishment as well. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)



The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


As you're young, new to the internet, and foreign, I'll explain some words for you: Spam is unwanted advertisement; shill is self-promotion under a guise; flood is repeated or excessive posting; derail is off-topic posting; hijack is when the topic is overwhelmed. As I don't read this site often and the watchlist email option wasn't checked by default, I couldn't see the newer revisions that are now deleted/hidden and I wonder what was in them and if they broke policy.

Will you not protect this talk page? as the subject is important and ongoing and rather suspend any accounts who offend policy. Apparently Kroms made the libel and misrepresentation that I'm a Mikemikev sock puppet, when I already made my online identity known, and I'm rather well known on the sites I post on. That edit must be deleted or reverted and Kroms be punished.

I want to make a new post in that thread for this new video, as of today, of a professional the page doesn't examine: Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Richard Lynn and Stefan Molyneux (not that I believe Stefan). I had meant to mention Lynn in the talk page but forgot, and was surprisede when this interview came out today. Lysdexia (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Watch out, Joris! In case you missed it, this person was banned from Wikipedia. Here is why. Nerd (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
For reference, Richard Lynn is mentioned 4x on Racialism. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Ahahaha. That, and the other guy is Stefan Molyneux. Jesus baby-whipping Christ what a crank link suggestion from Lysdexia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nerd: I had noticed Lysdexia's behaviour, both here and on WP.
@Lysdexia: Two points.
  1. I protected that page because Rome Viharo-related trolls had spammed it several times with stupid complaints that contained doxing.
  2. Fuck off.
--JorisEnter (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I really find it hilarious that this person claims to be a scientist elsewhere on the Internet. Her answers are cheap entertainment at best. She belongs to a class of idiots who at first sight seem to be well-read but turn out to be an outright charlatan at a slightly closer look. But then again, ego often comes hand in hand with ignorance. Nerd (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Whining enclosed below[edit]

Could you use ninja powers for housekeeping runs, to avoid filling up recent changes, please? --Ymir (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Regressive Left[edit]

I'd really like to put my own edits in there at some point.
Also, I'd like to point out that the reasoning Typhoon gives is pretty dang cogent and it seems the only people who disagree are Kugelschreiber, Aneris, and Aeonian, all of whom have...agendas regarding the issue. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Agendas...--JorisEnter (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Dude, it's not a conspiracy theory to know Aneris and Aeonian's particular agendas. Just look at their last 5000 edits. As Kugel continually sides with them, I am required to assume by logic that he share's their peculiar views.
But that's beside the point. Can you unlock the page so us adults can get on with it? --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Fuck off.
P.S.: Should someone move this stuff to the article talk page, since it looks as it it belongs there, IMNSHO.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Remember that Typhoon and Castaigne2 do not have an "agenda regarding the issue" and are perfectly neutral. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Don't bother, since it's clear that Kugel is going to revert everything without discussion, even though I have been quite punctilious about trying to have productive discussions on the talk page regarding it, and receiving nothing but bully and brag in response to questions. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kugel doesn't have a mop either. He was demopped by FCP for edit warring with Typhoon one day ago, and while this demop should have lasted for just one day (expired about half an hour ago) I'm not particularly eager to remop him with all the shit that's going on right now.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind. --The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with him having a mop or not. He refuses to have a discussion on the matter, so we'll just simply let him have his way. There's no point to anything else. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Calm down, sister catharine[edit]

Somebody made a joke about me, I thought it was funny, I join in the fun. What, exactly was inappropriate? Burkean (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you put it on the page itself not on the talk page, where comments belong.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you have a problem with some other person saying they didn't do it? It is because I signed my name? Or said I was Burkean? Burkean (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments don't belong in mainspace, it's as simple as that. Can you show me that someone else posted something on the page? If so, it should be removed, obviously.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
If you look at my comment that you deleted, somebody made a joke (a funny joke) that I did 9/11. Then the author said "I certainly didn't do it". I thought it was a funny joke and was playing along. I was trying to put differences aside and seek out some humor. So I said "nor did I. Hi, I'm Burkean" and signed my name so that everyone knew it was me. Is this really a problem for you? Don't delete what they put I enjoyed being mentioned. It's about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The page is a half joke thing. Were you not held enough as a child? Burkean (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It took me a while to find out what you were ranting about, but it seems you fell into the {{USERNAME}} trap. That template displays the name of whatever user is reading the page. The bit below ("I didn't do it") was added in this revision to the (now deleted and merged) page on 9-11 conspiracy theories. Please be a bit more careful in reading the page.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's July 6.[edit]

Don't archive June yet. That is just silly. If you want to archive older stories do so, not the entire month. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't you tell Joris Enter what to do. He's always right. He's tried archiving several WIGOs since the first and it's always you meddling old guard getting in his way of wikignoming his way to being the most useful and powerful editor RationalWiki has ever known. Conscience (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Troll--JorisEnter (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Advice: you edit this site like it's a shitty job and you're bucking for a promotion to middle management. Take it easy. Conscience (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
"Incremental edits" made me think of you, dear Assistant Professor. The vast majority of what you do is utterly pointless, but "useful" when you don't have to exercise judgment, though one wonders what you get out of if until they look at how you treat people you disagree with. You seem like a tremendously unhappy person. Conscience (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bugger off Cucksucker[edit]

Why am I not allowed to create an artikle about an important topic like Boycott Divestment Sanctions?

Of course if your overlords at Hamas were to write an artikle on that you would kiss their feet before you continue to write irrelevant shit about video games. Bloody bugger. I thought the purpose of this wiki was to expose anti-semites not to do their dirty recruiting work. But since that Mona Bitch (wait I take the word "bitch" back; I don't want to insult female dogs - nobel beasts, unlike her) showed up and shitted all over Palestine you are too eggless and spineless to let your anti-Israel narrativ be challenged. Fuck yourself with a rusty spoon bugger. (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That bugger IP62[edit]

Thank you for taking strong actions against that person. They want to make the articles they touch neutral when facing us. However, they showed their blatant bias in this particular occasion. Nerd (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

They also showed that their intentions weren't particularly good directly above.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes! Such a fine style of debate. Nerd (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypatia of Alexandria and Emmy Noether[edit]

We do have an article on Hypatia of Alexandria, which you link to on your user page. It does not seem to mention the sexism she had to deal with explicitly; I can add that in the near future. Speaking of sexism, do you think we should add an article on Emmy Noether? Her struggle with sexism is even better documented, not least because she had famous proponents. Nerd (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Electric field[edit]

Since you are the only active user who is a fellow student of physics, I am going to keep asking you questions. I hope you don't mind. I ran into that RW page today. Actually, I edited it long ago but almost forgot. Incidentally, we do have a page for electromagnetism, into which I think this one should be merged. What do you think? Nerd (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see neither of these two pages is particularly great, and to be honest we don't need separate pages for them. I think it's pretty obvious that they should be merged, but I'll put up a vote at RW:DUP just in case.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnail sizes[edit]

Can you please stop putting 165px or other arbitrary sizes in the image specs within articles, and remove it from any pages you've added it to. What looks right on your monitor or device won't be right for everybody's. That's why users can select what default size they want thumbnails to appear in their preferences. For this to be effective, images on page should just be set to "thumb" without specifying a size, unless there's a clear reason for them to be a fixed size (e.g. making text within the image readable). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 165px is also the width of the navsidebar. Images that aren't that size look kind of weird when there's a navbar directly underneath them.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Then don't put a navbar directly underneath them. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Am I missing a "sarcasm" sign or something? Navbars exist for a reason.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
So do user preferences. This is a feeble reason for overriding them. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Any article that has an image above its nav should always be set to 165px when possible, to make sure it aligns with the navbar. And regarding user preferences - the vast, vast majority of our readers simply visit the site without doing any type of "Preferencing". We ought to cater to their needs, primarily. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
^ This. Besides, 165px is not even an option in the preferences.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
And regardless, if we're trying to make any type of argument against "arbitrary image sizes", that means we're making the argument for inherently aligning navbars with the one single image above the nav bar. Say, a portrait or what have you. I see no compelling reason to accept Weasel's change to the status quo as things stand now (never mind the fact that we're atleast 2 editors to 1), and so, it is proper we return to said status quo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The status quo at this site has always been that users can set the thumbnail size in their preferences, and that all thumb images should be this default size unless there are good reasons for them a fixed size, as I stated above. It's you guys are changing this status quo, completely illogically as a workaround for bad page layouts & mismatched template sizes. If this is such a big deal for you guys, why not look at making the template width match the default image size rather than manually changing the image size on hundreds of pages & overriding users' ability to control how the site appears to them? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Any type of novel improvement to how we handle this stuff is interesting and could be raised on the Tech talk page. That, however, is not the same as semi-randomly removing already functional image alignment from just some images on just some articles. I know your intentions are good, and so are mine (and Joris'). Perhaps place a suggestion for this new approach at Tech? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing "semi-random" about it. I spent around an hour & a half of my weekend taking the 165px parameter out of all pages I could find it on via the search function (which tends to have a few days lag) and JorisEnter's contributions over recent days which included a bunch of these changes. I see now you've now undone most or all of this work. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Something along the lines of "we've spent a good deal of our last few months making small changes to numerous articles, including setting images to sizes that look a lot better with navbars directly underneath".--JorisEnter (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That, and: a handful of other editors have also been helping us do this (if we consider the mobocratic aspect to all this). There have been zero protests (until now). Also Weasel, I will re-iterate: I know you have the best of intentions. As do I. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem of image and templates widths not matching (to the extent that it's actually a problem at all) is most easily solved by: 1) not stacking images & templates above each other, & 2) making the default template width match the default image width - something that could be done with minimal effort by amending the master navbox template. Your alternative solution of adding fixed width parameters to images on hundreds of pages is ridiculously labour intensive & I still no justification for not honouring user preferences, something that's a longstanding feature of this wiki & many other MediaWiki sites. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ninja magic[edit]

Hi Joris! I set myself to bot, but my edits still seem to show up in recent changes. Am I doing something wrong? I've never used my ninja until now, and I don't want to clog the recent changes feed. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For some reason reverting doesn't fall under bot mode. If you use rollback while in bot mode, the edit will still show up in RC - presumably whoever made this thought reverts were important enough to be shown in RC either way.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks buddy. I'll use undo, then. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You MAY have already won![edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but unless you manage to extend the nomination until 1 October I'm pretty ineligible for the Board.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit?[edit]

She IS known as that. I would put one of those reference thingys in there, but I don't know how to do that. What is it with wikis and bully administrators? Itallian Princess (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what? You're a fucking idiot. Screw you, RationalWiki, and Wikipedia. Itallian Princess (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hacking the planet?[edit]

Hi Joris! Quick question - why do you paste huge chunks of formatted text onto people's talkpages, when you could just as well just use the {{welcome}} template? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm using {{Welcome}}, but also substituting it (à la {{subst:welcome}}). I prefer to substitute talkpage templates for some reason.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
But... but... It makes people's talkpages look like butt! ;__; Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Good point. {{welcome}} is a bit too big to be substituted indeed.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That too. And just for the record, I learned how to use templates at the site when somebody - think it was FCP - gave me the welcome template. So we should prolly use that instead of "custom code", just for the added bonus of helping newbs get a hang of templates. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing with the thing[edit]

Top of the morning to ya, buddy! I've got a quick question for you again - this thing "HotCat" (or as I'd wager to call it, BlazingMouser) - what is it really? A bot? What is its function- replacing categories or something? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

HotCat is a gadget (you can enable it in your preferences, together with things like HotArticleRate) that allows you to easily add, remove and change categories. I could of course try to explain how it works, but TOW has an entire article on it.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank ye kindly! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I dun did it[edit]

I sysop-protected the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association article. Feel free to extend - as far as this sysop's concerned - if troubles continue. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll see what happens when the block I issued to BenGarrison expires. If he's just a sock of Pamdanz, neither of them will be able to edit.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There should be an auto-block on anyone using that name. Obvious 4chan trolling. Petey Plane (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Which name? What's the reference? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
BenGarrison aka Ben Garrison. It's an old 4chan meme. Same with TheRealMoonman. Assuming it was the same user. Petey Plane (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful online![edit]

People know your name and what you look like. That can be annoying at best and dangerous at worst. No, seriously! You don't wanna look at that manipulated image. Nerd (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The invisible talkpage[edit]

Hey buddy! You mind helping me out by paying some attention to this? I've been trying to get people to care, but they're all too busy smonking with wed. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

TAA Text[edit]

You reverted some IP vandalism on the AmazingAtheist page. That IP didn't, but I'd like to actually discuss the text in question. Does someone really need consent to be looked at? Saying this person thinks ogling is OK and then saying you can't consent to it implies that this person is somehow endorsing a grave social crime. I think that it could be rephrased to be a little less hostile to the subject. Do you agree that the wording is a little too strong? PBfreespace (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I re-instated the edit. Ogling doesn't need anyone's permission. I'm not saying it's fucking well-mannered to ogle, I'm just saying you don't need written consent from anyone to do it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good day, Joris![edit]

All's well and all swell I hope? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course! I'm currently on holiday in Prague so my edit rate is quite a bit lower than normal, but I can do the occasional bit of work here and there. I must say that the Kent Hovind page looks particularly nice - which it should, of course, as Hovind is one of the most visible creationists around.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Next up, William Lane Craig? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please be seated[edit]

Good evening, Sir. I'll be your waiter this evening. Tonight's specials include;

I'll be taking your order shortly. Just don't fill up on bread! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A live muppet show to go with the fine dining. Enjoy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A bot would help[edit]

I see you're updating the new "webshites" category. I'm not sure how to but if you can it would speed things up to have a bot automitically include all "Internet hate sites" as "Webshites". ClothCoat (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TBQF that wouldn't be necessary - Category:Internet hate sites is already a subcategory of Category:Webshites; if any IHS pages have Category:Websites on them that should simply be removed. I'm currently editing from my phone - and HotCat is truly a godsend when doing so - but when I'm back home in a few days I'll have a look.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok Godspeed then. ClothCoat (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Echo, echo, echo...[edit]

Hey pal! I might as well ask you the same thing. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, we apparently had the same idea - I already replied on FCP's talk page.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's continue the discussion there, shall we? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Lunch-lady Joris; do ye hav' any GREASE!?[edit]

...Because I was wondering; how do I Bronze an article? Time for me to learn those buttons, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Simply add {{bronze}} to the page; if {{rated}} is on the talk page, the first parameter should also be set to 1.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh my fucking God, how did I not make a "Lunch-lady JORIS" joke?! I'm an ass! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I made the joke now ha ha never mind Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This might be relevant to your interests[edit]

For space! And science! And junk. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Burning the midnight oil[edit]

Hi Joris! I've been missing you on the site. Why are you up so late editing? You're not still on vacation, are you? Everything quite allright m8? Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, came back from vacation last Friday and it's the introduction week for first-year undergrads here in Leiden so I'm kind of busy helping at my fraternity. I'll have a lot more time to edit after this weekend, I hope - but we'll see.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Fraternity? Drinking or sabre fighting? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Heheh. While Leiden is indeed often stereotyped as "frat boy city" (and not entirely without reason, as the oldest and probably most prestigious (don't tell UtrechtWikipedia!) is bound to attract a bunch of elitist pricks), in the Netherlands "fraternity" (or more appropriately student societyWikipedia) denotes a whole range of student clubs, including mine (we're essentially a bunch of nerds and book-lovers who like to get together at least once a week to listen to a lecture on some random topic and have a drink afterwards).--JorisEnter (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice to meat you, can I reach your male?[edit] which I mean; nice to meet you, can I reach your mail? which I further mean: if I were to use the "email user" function on this site, mailing via said form, would I reach you on the other end? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, since DG updated the e-mail last month (or the month before that, not entirely sure) this should work (until then 90% of emails simply got stuck somewhere in the system).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Just gave it a shot. As you can tell from the contents of the email, it's not anything that I'd like to discuss openly for (relatively minor) reasons of privacy. Also, you could reply with a "yes" or a "no" here, since I rarely check my e-mail (but I check everyone's talkpage instantly, lol). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The appropriate (though rather late) answer would be "not yet", I guess.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough! When "it's done", take "the steps I suggested"? (This mysterious exchange is going to be quoted out-of-context by cranks as evidence of Illuminati involvement at RW, I bet!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
[dressed in dark robes] "It will be done." [curtseys and walks away]--JorisEnter (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I knew it! another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
*Performs our secret handshake* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So much for giving the benefit of the doubt[edit]

  1. Press link
  2. Queue music

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for attempt to correct horrible article.[edit]

I attempted to inject truth into the GamerGate article as it is crazy biased against reality. I take it my options are to either write in complete agreement with the article or be blocked and banned, to try to be objective and Rational and get blocked and banned, or to write in the same style as the article but defend a different opinion Rationally and be blocked and banned. The current wiki page is both against community standards and the bronze medal requirements, and the community standards led me to believe that the wiki welcomed content and productive changes. What's going on?

Thanks.— Unsigned, by: / 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 indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.
Also, I would really like to know how "the current wiki page is both against community standards and the bronze medal requirements" - in fact, the article is currently being considered for silver rating, so if you think you have a case you might want to go over to that talk page.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So does game work or does it not?[edit]

If it works, and people are saying it doesn't, then that's a form of denialism. Dr. Carson (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you claim works? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's kinda like when my sister explained why she slept with a guy by saying, "He knew all the things to say to get a woman into bed." She explained why she didn't sleep with another guy by saying, "He was so girl-stupid." I.e., he didn't know what to say/do that would've made her feel more attracted to him.
Is the phenomenon she (and many other women) have described, in which one guy is able to get a get laid by saying/doing certain things, while another guy doesn't say/do those things doesn't get laid, real? To say that it doesn't exist, is to be a game denialist.
I would have to ask game denialists: if you see one guy who is handsome, has a good job, and is a "nice guy," who behaves respectfully toward women, but can't get laid (even though he'd like to); and then there's a guy who's short, bald, ugly, and works at Taco Bell, and treats women pretty much like shit, but gets laid all the time by attractive women, what is the difference between them, that is causing the first to be celibate, and the second not to be? I don't know how one would answer that question other than to say "game". Everything else, like "being confident" or "making more approaches" is an aspect of game, so falls under that umbrella. Dr. Carson (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
"I would have to ask GROUP I ASSUME EXISTS..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)