User talk:Mcarrato69

Meh. You signing up for a RationalWiki account doesn't really move us one way or the other, Mcarrato69. This is probably because of your poor, obvious attempts at trolling or displays of unwelcome behavior. Maybe you should try to examine our articles and mission statement first, or take a walk outside. We realize that it's possible that you may be here in good faith, so we'll do our best to tolerate it. But don't expect us to get too excited. Our Newcomers' Guide may help clarify things for you.

DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 20:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet nor a troll. This site is pretty detestable from what I've seen so far, and I have no intention to edit here. I have registered an account for the sole purpose of creating a watchlist. Mcarrato69 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversions

May I ask, why are you reverting my edits on my own talk page? Is cleaning up my own talk page a violation here? Mcarrato69 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we generally do not approve of reverting information on talk pages unless there is good cause (vandalism, doxing, or harassment). If your talk page gets lengthy at some point, you can insert code for automatic archiving. Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK then, why the meh template? Mcarrato69 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? You wrote on your user page "RationalWiki is a joke. They profess to be protecting science, but in reality, they are as religious as any fundamentalist church. This site is loaded with pseudoskeptical mumbo jumbo and they guard it religiously." and are surprised with a "Meh" response? What kind of response did you expect? Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

So... you automatically assume I'm a sock puppet and troll? Disagreement is trolling? Is that the "rational" judgement? ;-) Mcarrato69 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(but you didn't answer the question, did you..) Mcarrato69 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I hit you with a "meh" because it's obvious that you wrote you userpage with the intent of eliciting a reaction. The "meh" template is used to demonstrate that it didn't work. If you're interested in actually discussing content, feel free to do so on the talkpage of the relevant articles. If not, then have fun being angry at us. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

More unfounded assumptions. Why am I not surprised? I was expressing my view on my userpage. YOU extrapolated. Apparently that's what you do here: extrapolate conclusions from weak, confounded, and incomplete evidence. I've already seen it on half a dozen article space pages, so why not on talk pages ;-) Mcarrato69 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, bud. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)