User talk:Nerd/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Contents

Nationalism card[edit]

While I appreciate the contribution, it'd be helpful if you actually defined the term "nationalism card", because all you lay out in your change is that it's a tactic that is used. The meaning could be guessed form context, but why risk it? Ikanreed (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WIGO[edit]

Not a deal of point adding to an old WIGO no matter how good a comment. If it's not worth a new WIGO then a comment either on the talk page or the Saloon Bar is more likely to get attention. Scream!! (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Precise measurement is propaganda![edit]

Or... you know, let's not do that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd assumed it was sarcastic, myself. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was humorous Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I was just being sarcastic. But since you insist, I fixed it. Nerd (talk)

So...[edit]

Once Sanders drops out and endorses Clinton, will you follow him, or do you plan to throw a tantrum and go #NeverHillary? Typhoon (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

She has to earn people's vote. In other words, she must be able to convince people she deserves their votes. She cannot just say people must vote for her. That's what democracy is all about. Nerd (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, she's already earned the majority of votes in the primary, and is set to earn the majority of votes in the General election. What exactly does she have to earn your vote? Typhoon (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Citizens do not owe any candidate their votes. Each candidate must be able to demonstrate they are the best person for the job. Having said that, I think those who steadfastly refuse to vote for Hillary are somewhat extreme. They should keep their options open. However, I would not be so sure about her winning the general election, given the fact that Donald Trump has proven to be a formidable candidate and that she is currently under an FBI investigation. Don't count your chickens before they hatch! Nerd (talk)
I think it's overly optimistic to pretend that there's any chance for an indictment. And Trump is formidable only in rapidly creating one faux pas after another.Typhoon (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Her indictment remains a possibility as we speak so we should not rule it out. On top of that, the State Department's inspector general has come out criticizing Clinton for her use of private e-mails when she was Secretary of State. (I normally keep my private information unknown, so that was a goofy on my part. Thank you for pointing that out. :-)) Nerd (talk)
Your citizenship is relevant for this discussion, especially when it reveals that you're just another foreign BernieBro. Now we know that we don't have to waste our time explaining to you why Clinton isn't the Devil, since you can't vote anyway, and thus you're completely irrelevant. You being a foreigner also explains why you're so deluded to think that there is any chance for an indictment. Typhoon (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
You don't have a US passport therefore your argument is invalid? Pathetic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 20:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't be a retard, Arisboch. I asked him what does Clinton have to do to earn his vote, only for him to reveal that he can't vote in the first place, rendering this whole discussion useless. Typhoon (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
He didn't claim being able to vote, though. Many people from all over the globe discuss here about Hillary, Trump, Sanders and so on.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor did he bothered to tell me that he can't vote after I asked him that; he had to forget to log in for me to find out. Oh, and people from all over the globe were also phonebanking for Bernie (no joke) or even illegally sending him donations. It's no wonder that Bernie's loud internet fanbase doesn't reflect his vote totals, and this dude is just another one to add onto the pile of ignorant holier-than-thou non-voters. Typhoon (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and just FYI, Arisboch. I never said that he can't talk about the US election, so don't shift the goalpost. What my entire point is that I asked him about what Clinton should do to get his vote, only to find out that neither Clinton nor Bernie can get his vote due to him being a foreigner. He purposefully hid this fact, and had no intention of telling me that "oh, I actually can't vote at all, so your question is pointless". Typhoon (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, let's maintain some civility alright? I reserve the right to dodge personal questions to safeguard my safety and privacy online. By the way, Typhoon, you may want to reread http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct Nerd (talk)
Oh my, Typhoon has been naughty, since the Good Book Community Standards say the following:
Personal information about other RationalWiki users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information based on their IP address (even if publicly available) is frowned upon.
RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Privacy
--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 01:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 01:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kugelschreiber! I was also thinking of "We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors..." Please, Typhoon, stay calm and be rational!Nerd (talk)
This is one of the most-disobeyed rules here on this wiki.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 02:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Totally side with Nerd here. Arisboch, what Typhoon did was not something bad. What I did wasn't bad either, as you had volunteered the information. I disagree with Typhoon's points, but I'm willing to defend his ability to speak about someone's country location. I don't mind people knowing I'm in an American red state, and you shouldn't mind people knowing you live in Germany, seeing as you've admitted it already. This is an ideological, principled disagreement. PBfreespace (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Then go and ask people to make digging up personal information via IP adress lookup kosher, cause according to the community guidelines, it ain't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 02:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Typically, revealing location information about someone isn't something we prosecute unless it's harmful to someone. In Mona's case, it caused major harm, whereas in yours or Nerd's case, it's not harmful. It's not like I'm going to fly to your place and steal all of your alcohol.
My point here is that selective prosecution is a thing, and we use it here. It's really pointless to go around shaming people for stealing some harmless bit of personal information about someone, seeing as it hasn't been prosecuted lately. PBfreespace (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, doxing has been tolerated here, if it's doxing of people enough of the RW editors don't like, I know that.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 03:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Signing posts[edit]

Friendly reminder: use four tildes to sign your posts: ~~~~. There's a button in the toolbar above the edit window you can press that will insert this for you. --Ymir (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Nerd (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, ask away.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Nerd (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders article[edit]

So here's the thing. I just don't have the time or patience to battle Typhoon and her unhinged devotion to Team Vagina at the Sanders article. But I will support you in insisting on preventing her from turning the whole thing into a neoliberal, Hillary Clinton campaign brochure. She's utterly impossible and totally devoted to Hillary solely because of gender, which I find perfectly disgusting and even evil. She will edit war, and most people end up letting her have her way because it's too time-consuming and difficult not to. I will support you in not permitting that. But I'm not going to spend every day here myself undoing her bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. Probably something should be included about what happened in Nevada. But the version she had put up was beyond preposterous.---Mona- (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks like we align on this one and are conversing in a civilized manner on a talk page instead of verbally abusing one another. I was laughing at the phrase "Hillary Clinton campaign brochure." You are right. Typhoon's edits are simply too tilted towards Clinton. Some of us, including myself, were trying to make the relevant articles a little more nuanced and thus more appropriate for RW. But Typhoon was having none of it. She insisted that some of the things we wrote are "stupid pedantry," which is simply misleading at best. Facts are facts. We should simply report them as they are and update them as necessary. Some commentary is also acceptable here on RW but what she has been writing is simply too extreme. You are also right about her readiness to edit-war. We may have the numerical advantage but she definitely has more time and greater motivation. Nerd (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's really funny to see you guys accuse others of being extreme while you both wallow in #NeverHillary extremism. Like, your goal is to turn the Sanders article into a "Bernie Sanders campaign brochure", but that's fine with you, and so are mona's constant vagina insults. Typhoon (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would be happy to discuss specific issues with you on the relevant talk pages, provided you are willing to engage in a civil discussion and keep those articles appropriate for RW. Nerd (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, is it "Never Hillary extremism" to oppose a candidate that has consistently supported destructive wars in the Middle East, has been paid millions of dollars by Wall Street to speak in front of bankers, and constantly changed political positions to suit the popular view of the day? Is that extreme? Or perhaps you are extreme for supporting such a bad candidate! PBfreespace (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Google Searches for Hilary Clinton[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to contact you about your WIGO: Elections post concerning Google searches about Hilary Clinton. Would you mind having a look at this article from Vox regarding the issue? I think it refutes the claim pretty well, and wanted to bring it to your attention before I edited the entry.

Hello and welcome, Jagulard! I have taken a look at the Vox article you linked. It indeed has an interesting counterclaim on this topic. Please go ahead in include it. Let the readers decide. By the way, please sign your name next time using four tildes like this, ~~~~. Nerd (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, and for the reminder! Jagulard (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates[edit]

Bernie is counting them too. "we must take that energy into the Democratic National Convention on July 25 in Philadelphia where we will have more than 1,900 delegates." <-You should go and shout at him that until Superdelegates vote the number "1,900" is incorrect. Typhoon (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears our count is inconsistent with what they have at the New York Times. Here, the pledged delegate count, superdelegates are added separately in the total delegate count, of Bernie Sanders is just over 1800, as you can check for yourself. Nerd (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
He's almost, but not 1900 as he claims. Sanders counted the superdelegates, and you're intentionally ignoring this just to continue your lame edit war. Typhoon (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Swinging insults will not help you case, Typhoon. I have always maintained that we should not include superdelegates because they will not vote till July 25th. Sanders either made a rounding error or was inconsistent here. I am no more responsible for his actions any more than he is for mine. Nerd (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Coop archive[edit]

In case you missed it; that coop vote is about the name of whoever visits the page. Not you, lol. You weren't even a member when that stuff was being written if I'm not mistaken. But regardless. It's just a joke. Like on my user page, at the top, it will say "Welcome" and read your user name. Same function. So leave it be. :D

Thanks, Reverend! But just so you know, I have been a member since early 2015, before that stuff was written. Incidentally, I made one contribution on that same day (February 24) that is nothing out of the ordinary, which is why I freaked out asked what on Earth have I ever done to them to deserve such a treatment. Coincidentally, it mentions Ted Cruz, whose page you are editing. Ha ha ha! Nerd (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Early 2015, eh? I signed up in May 2015, but I don't recall seeing much activiy from you until this past month or so. But that's just me. And yeah lol... here's Ted Cruz' father reacting to his son opening up about his goals as president: "When you lowkey know your son is the Zodiac Killer". ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Let this be proof. You are right. I have not been that active — making no more than two contributions per day — till very recently. I have become more knowledgeable than you could imagine. Nerd (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't strike you down and make you more powerful than I could possibly imagine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough[edit]

United we stand, divided we fall. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You have my support. Nerd (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Please give it by voicing your concerns on the talkpage linked above. Please do what you can to compile links and evidence for her behaviour. Please don't let her silence your story. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:51, 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)

Sigh. Cut it out[edit]

You already ruined the Sanders article. Unless you want to get doubled-ended by Ty and myself, keep your spam to that page. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
[Bit late] Interesting that Plutoniumbs claims that someone is spamming.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm only putting the stuff that they keep deleting without a convincing reason back. To them that's spamming. Nerd (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What a bunch of dolts. If you copypaste the same phrase on 3+ pages in the hope of making it stick, then yeah, "spam" is a fair approximation. As JE so "helpfully" pointed out, I've been busted down for a lot less. With less warning.

To be candid, I've been generous with you, because collaboration is necessary to keep the wiki 'honest'. And I'm generally happy with the current state of it. Just include a citation (no editorials, please) and we're golden. Spam, and it gets reverted. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks and intimidation won't help your case, Plutoniumboss. If you dislike what I wrote, simply rewrite it. Do not delete. I have already explained why I keep putting back. Nerd (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Ad hominem! You lose by default! I accept your concession! We're done here! Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm so scared!
Serious.gif
Nerd (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Game theory[edit]

Consider moving this vote. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Nerd (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to my comment on the devil's advocate article?[edit]

Since it's been over 12 hours and it took you all of 4 minutes to revert me. Methinks someone is more interested in the status quo than rationality. Or perhaps just too lazy to take the time to justify their actions. 110.22.123.142 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

*Gasp* And you thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki! Poor thing. Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Read that essay carefully, before you starting making lazy accusations. Nerd (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Rationalwiki has nothing to do with it. The point is if you can revert in four minutes why can't you respond? It's common on wikipedia too and I find it quite obnoxious. 110.22.123.142 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not always active on RationalWiki. Besides, other editors have already responded. Nerd (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Venus Project[edit]

You don't need to protect a page when it's one BoN edit warring. Drop a "friendly" warning on their talk page and block them if they persist. --Ymir (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Ymir! Nerd (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

We should look wether AfD should point to "Article for Deletion" or to Alternative für Deutschland

I fixed it. Nerd (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Ayn Rand will privatise you last.
What's that supposed to mean? Nerd (talk) 03:02, 10 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.

I doubt I am ready for such responsibility, Reverend Black Percy. I'll be back in kindergarten next September. But I appreciate your support, and you certainly have mine. Nerd (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)a

LLoyd Pye page[edit]

The talk page got spamed and I my have inadvertently deleated a comment you made, sorry Evaluate as you are so inclined Purebread who? 03:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Purebread: Er, you're the one spamming it with bizarro stuff about horses and sheriffs. I honestly thought you were intentionally putting gibberish there, so I thought I'd get in on the joke. But apparently you're serious. According to your comments you intend to rewrite the article to defend a pseudoscientific idea that a skull is from aliens (or something). Good luck on that one. Leuders (talk)
I think you mistook me for someone else. I never wrote anything on that talk page. I only reverted a questionable modification to the article itself. Nerd (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlawful Banning[edit]

Why did you block my account BenGarrison for 3.14 months? I didn't harass a single person, all I did was upload an image. Go buy a dictionary. —SamHyde (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for admitting that you and Ben Garrison are the same person. That counts as harassment because you posted a disturbing image involving Joris. Our Community Standards permit an extensive block against users who harass others. Nerd (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually Nerd, SamHyde/BenGarrison only uploaded the image once, so its not harassment. Go read https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/harassment. You just unfairly banned him/her. —Windmill of Friendship (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, right. The meaning I am using here is "to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct" (Merriam-Webster). Nerd271 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Passion of the Snark[edit]

Hey, pal! Can't believe I read that report and wrote what is basically a word for word debunk. Having done so, on the other hand... You mind sneaking a peek? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going call this WHOdämmerung but it sounded too much like "For Whom the Bell Tolls". Nerd271 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Tell me honestly: Are you satisfied with the condition of the article? Because it sure seems like a personal beef. Like, we had a disagreement in the past, and now one of us must always revert the other, no matter the reason. That's an attitude I run into all the time these days. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the point. I could not care less if we disagreed in the past. Such is to be expected. I checked the code of the previous revision by me. Goldman Sachs is mentioned only once. You said that sentence is not necessary, but reverted my rephrasing of a sentence. What's going on? Nerd271 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
With due respect, it cannot be dumbed down any further. I added the bit about Goldman CEO Blankfein. Another editor saw fit to mention Goldman by name again and again in the header. I trimmed it back to the original state, as the article is already heavily stacked against Sec. Clinton. You reverted my edit in less than a minute, forgetting to check for links to Goldman, almost as if it were a knee-jerk reaction against a particular candidate (or editor), and not a good faith edit at all. (P.s. It was more like a compromise than a concession... Oh, Lordy. Do I have to link you to the delegate count again? ) Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I checked the code once again. Goldman Sachs is mentioned explicitly only once. The same goes for Blankfein. And yes, it was more like a compromise than a concession because she did take on board some of his policy proposals. So his endorsement can be considered a trade-off. You said you have problems dealing with other editors. Maybe you should not assume their motives and assume good faith? I pointed out why I thought you were confused, did I not? Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't think you would like to improve the article. I do, however, remember that you issued me a threat. Nerd271 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The same goes for Blankfein. The two are synonymous. You issued me a threat. Spoken like a real Sandernista. You were waging a two-sided edit war against Typhoon and myself, which was unwise. There were no threats, it seems like common sense. It's a moot point anyway. I have not acted on my 'threat', nor have I had any dealings with Typhoon. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Lloyd Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, so it makes sense to find out how many times his (last) name is mentioned, no? Besides, it was you who suggested I should look for his name as well. Or have you forgotten? "There were no threats." Oh, really? "I have not acted on my 'threat'." You think I don't know you tried but failed to block me? I was "waging a two-sided edit war" against you and Typhoon? Last time I checked I was not the only one who disagreed with Typhoon. Quite frankly, given the fact that you like name-calling other editors instead of engaging them in a civil manner, I am not surprised that you "run into that attitude all the time these days". Nerd271 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Plutoniumboss Troll Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And here's bear daddy to the rescue. Can't talk without him present. "Quite frankly, given the fact that you like name-calling..." Oh, honey, I've been biting my knuckles this entire time. I was trying to start a dialogue here. If anyone is being overly defensive, it is yourself. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Were you? I was trying to have a polite discussion with you. But if you can't help being rude, bug off my boat! Nerd271 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Auto-archiving[edit]

Archivist can work just fine with the {{welcome}} thingy on top of the page, but for some reason the bot occasionally skips pages during runs.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I reduced the number of days before archiving to 14. Do you think that would help? Nerd271 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It should, but the bot is a bit random.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see. This is not urgent so I think everything will be OK. Thanks! Nerd271 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, pal[edit]

I've been binned. The election articles are yours. Feel free to stop reverting my edits without cause or explanation. Annnnnnny time now. Plutoniumboss (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because I disagreed with them. It simply does not matter to me that you are involved in a Chicken Coop case or put in the vandal bin. Nerd271 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I find that hard to believe, considering how inconsequential those edits were. At any rate, this is becoming a pattern. The community won't stand for this sort of thing. (Btw, Goldman Sachs is still linked twice. Obviously you are suffering from poor eyesight, and not pursuing some personal agenda.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:13, 16 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)

For physics and mathematics! I shall go to war with you, brother! Glory shall be ours! Nerd271 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
*Batsignals* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
And so, the Trojan War begins. Let's try not to take 10 years, shall we? Athena help us all. Nerd271 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thx[edit]

Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, mate! Thanks for your constructive criticism. Nerd271 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

JG[edit]

Don't discard the draft; if you intend to post it, posting it in essayspace makes it clear that it's opinion, and it can then be reviewed by other RatWiks (and the board) for any errors. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! Do you have any idea how much new material I was preparing and how much reading I had to do in advance? And now you prefer to brush everything off. Nerd271 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Nay, nay, not brush it off... Rather, you're being spurred to source what you're writing about JG to perfection. You're doing Dog's work, son. Dog speed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, as luck would have it, I have at hand an annotated version of the complete and extant works of Archimedes as well as a modern textbook on introductory analysis. I also read the links posted by Annquin, for which I am grateful. My range-finders were locked on target. As my freedom knowledge dispensers were loaded and about to fire, Captain Cat ordered the ship to turn around and steam away at full speed. Nerd271 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your car is being towed[edit]

There, got your attention. You might wanna look at the history for the Social market economy page. Also, revdel. I don't know how to do that yet. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not me who first added that bit. I only fixed a minor spelling error. That person committed a malapropism. Nerd271 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean revdel? Nerd271 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
He means that nice big button labeled "Change visibility of the selected revisions" on the Fossil record. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That's revdel? Then I suppose I've already done that! Also; the issue at hand was that what appeared to be you (Nerd) had added a segment with a source to a .pdf, but that link was to C:\[some name]\etc... Aside from not working, the user who uploaded that thus gave out what is likely his first name. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems that I was the one who made that edit because I corrected a spelling error immediately afterwards. I can assure you, it wasn't me. Believe me! This level of absent-mindedness is above mine. That, I can assure you. Believe me! Nerd271 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course I believe you, buddy. I was just stressing this so you wouldn't risk doxing yourself, especially with our very special friend (the subject of your latest essay) looking out for us (and you especially). He's already stalking you on that math forum, you know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder! My mask occasionally slips off. :-)
By the way, I just looked through the Recent Changes page and the Block List. The Internet is full of weirdos. Nerd271 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
...and we attract'em, like flies to honey! Or dog****... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I see what you did there, Father Mackenzie. All the crazy people, where do they all come from? By the way, I just reread JG's email to our Primordial God Trent Toulouse. He claims that the entire paragraph is false. But a some Internet search reveals that it is all true. His reputation is at stake? Oops! Nerd271 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, even the anti-semitism? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Is truth a defence in libel cases? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Reverend Black Percy: I originally took that bit out because John Gabriel the commentator on CNN might have been a different one. But no. All of that paragraph turned out to be true, even if it was not cited. Take a look at this, for example. Nerd271 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Laurogeita Hamabost: It'd better be. Otherwise the justice system is deeply flawed. Besides, if he wants to make a fool of himself in public and give RationalWiki some more attention from the public, let him do it. As long as we keep everything we say reasonable and supported by reliable sources, we have nothing to fear. Nerd271 (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Jump to about the three minute mark of this video. And yes, I consider this a problem. But if I knew how to solve it, I'd have already run for public office. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You'd have my vote! Also, love me some Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Th hug.gif another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Yes, my feeble jew" is worthy of a cquote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Also guys, don't miss the chance to add your {{dftt}} template to here, for the chance to win a keychain! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Saw you added stuff to Fun:The world as a RationalWiki talk page. Thanks for that Th hug.gif.-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I know a bit about history. I will edit that page once in a while. :-) Nerd271 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Miles Mathis[edit]

I was in the middle of a bigger edit on that page, hope I didn't edit-conflict-negate any of your changes. I think I covered them in my most recent change. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out! I encountered no edit-conflicts. Keep up the good work! Nerd271 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Humpback whales[edit]

There are lot more than 411 humpback whales left (at least 80,000 according to TOWWikipedia's W.svg), did you mean a different species? Christopher (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for the late reply. The article specifically mentioned that number. If you know for certain the article is wrong, please tell them. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The link doesn't work anymore so I can't check whether they made a mistake or you misread it, there are definitely more than that though. Unrelatedly, when patrolling a talk/debate/forum edit that doesn't have a signature could you add the unsigned template? I'm specifically reffering to this. Christopher (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! Nerd271 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

NHS in the UK[edit]

Sorry, you did a cock-up here. Despite the name the NHS is actually a regional responsibility not a national one. The NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland comes under the countries' relevant countries' department of health, and not the national Department of Health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#Organization Euromec (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! (I am wary of people who confuse England with the UK.) Nerd271 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember[edit]

to mark vandalism you undo as patrolled. —ClickerClock (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Texas Church shooter[edit]

You really don't want to believe that the church shooter was a fervent atheist. If the shoe was on the other foot, and a rabid Christian shot up an irreligious convention, would you be here saying "oh, he probably wasn't a Christian, I need more sources then the multitudinous sources available" and so on? --101.181.112.248 (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said any of that. You did. I only objected to your use of The Sun as a news source. Nerd271 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot edit[edit]

That "cowpoke"person did something to to Bernie Sanders page that locks me out. This is why I so seldom participate here. It matters not what facts and quality of citations one has. Partisanship trumps the "rational." (shrug)--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan No worries. I have unlocked the page. Nerd (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can add multiple categories with the same HotCat edit[edit]

Click the ++ thing. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Nerd (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Just tried it on the page Louis Pasteur. It worked like a charm. :-) Nerd (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

On Military-industrial complex, you changed this sentence:

  • "The public obviously gets the raw end of the military-industrial complex. Taxpayers don't always get their money's worth on weapons." (old version)
  • "Taxpayers obviously gets[sic] the raw end of the military-industrial complex because always get their money's worth on weapons, unless there is an ongoing all out war." (new version)

Just to clarify, was the "because always" part meant to say "because they always get..." or "because they don't always get..."? I assume it's "don't" but I thought I'd check to be sure. CowHouse (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, mate! I fixed it. I forgot to type "do not". Nice catch! Nerd (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unlock[edit]

Hi can you unlock the Cal Cooper article, I was the user who created it. I would like to edit and improve the article, thanks. DangerZone (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@DangerZone It has been done. Have fun! Nerd (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Moderator nomination[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. CowHouse (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @CowHouse! I will think about it very carefully before making a decision. Nerd (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Complimentary hug[edit]

Thanks for endorsing me! Th hug.gif No this doesn't make you special.-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 (Grins) The pleasure is mine. Nerd (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

WIGO.[edit]

The video you linked to is not of snow falling in the Sahara desert. Comrade GC (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Silly me! Fixed it. Thank you for letting me know. Nerd (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the server is a little slow here. But it seems to me an anonymous editor fixed it first. Anyway, the problem is resolved. Nerd (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Moderator election results[edit]

See the results here. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Congrats!—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @FuzzyCatPotato and @CheeseburgerFace! But I will wait till that slight technical problem is resolved before celebrating if I win. :-) Nerd (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Proof of a Flat Earth[edit]

This excellent video proves it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xM9S4QiEHEY-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 Science does not prove that anything is true. It only rules things out. The difference between science and pseudoscience is that pseudoscience proves whereas science disproves.
This thought just came to me. It is possible to compute the gravitational field of an infinite plane (via a direct application of Newton's law of universal gravitation or by Gauss's law of gravity). The answer will be in terms of the mass density of the plane. (Spoiler alert: It's constant everywhere. You get the exactly same result for an infinite electrically charge plate.) One can then compare this to the mean density of Earth obtained by other methods. Perhaps you are aware of the Cavendish experiment, which not only yields a value for Newton's gravitational constant G but also the mean density of Earth. Nerd (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 A cat farting out rainbow? How about an ignoramus visiting a national laboratory? Watch his face during the demonstration of eddy currents. Nerd (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Intelligence? That's the greatest enemy flat-Earthers have!-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 I'm a very stable genius. You seem to be of the opinion that I am typing while intoxicated. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no problem. Believe me! I assure you. Nerd (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You seem like a legitimate stable genius, totally nothing unstable or insane about you!-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You are hereby invited...[edit]

To join my new political party!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Thank you for your invitation, mate! Nerd (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lomax and Cold Fusion.[edit]

Can we legally sue Abd and his blog? Or at least bring cyber-stalking charges against them? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Our legal guidelines have nothing to say about this. But I presume actions, if any, will have to be taken by the RationalWiki Foundation. Nerd (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My new theory for the shape of the Earth[edit]

Maybe..just maybe it's actually round? That's a scary idea!-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 That could certainly work. Please see here, and here. Nerd (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Wait, the Earth is a minimal surface?-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 Yes, indeed. But the true story is slightly more complicated. You probably have seen spherical droplets of water on waterproof surfaces. Those are in static equilibrium. Earth was formed by a self-gravitating ensemble of debris, whose pieces are rarely, if ever, at rest. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Earth, when finally formed, is static. The Earth is rotating about an axis, so there is an equatorial bulge, making it an oblate sphere. Our lord and savior, the incomparable Sir Isaac Newton, whose mind is most divine, calculated it. When it was verified by an (Italian?) astronomer going on an expedition in the Lapland, the philosopher Voltaire quipped, "You prove, in a desolate place, what Newton knew without leaving his place." Nerd (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You study physics?-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! May I ask what you study/research? Nerd (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Not physics ;(-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific? There are many branches of science out there. :-) Nerd (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I would but the evil scientist conspiracy to cover up evidence for creationism is preventing me from doing so.-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Does that mean you specialize in one of the life sciences? Nerd (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes I wish I’d picked something with a bit more math.-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Never fear! There are mathematical biology, bioinformatics, evolutionary game theory, biophysics, medical physics, biomedical and pharmaceutical engineering, just to name a some fields of the life sciences that require at least some mathematics. A poster I saw at home school concerned the physics of virology. On the other extreme, you could become a (pure) mathematician. Nerd (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Th hug.gif-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome Award[edit]

A close up of an awesome, amazing goat's face.

Awesome Award <p style="margin-top:0;line-height:0;">for</p> <p>Nerd/Archive1</p> <p style="margin-bottom:25px;">Reason: being awesome</p>

ClickerClock (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@ClickerClock Thank you! But could you please be more specific about which parts of my contributions this award is for? Nerd (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Your contributions to the articles! —ClickerClock (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Guns in Chicago[edit]

Would gladly love to use it to improve the article. It's pretty much perfect material for this site. Too bad it was posted in 2017 before I realized it so I had to get rid of it :P БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 01:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for yr video[edit]

That video made me realize that if I truly want to understand the universe, I should pursue physics. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@ClickerClock Glad you enjoyed it. Have fun learning! Nerd (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes and references[edit]

Greetings Comrade Nerd!!! Since you've been going through old articles and cleaning them up, would you mind terribly if we both separated notes from references? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Comrade @GrammarCommie! That would certainly be worth it, despite taking a bit for time, at least for me. From Russia with love, Nerd (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You alive?[edit]

You haven't edited in a while, are you retired or something? Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 03:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spriggina Thank you for reaching out. I'm busy preparing food, water, and ammunition to fight against a projected Communist invasion of the free and civilized world. Epidemics emerge in a quasi-periodic manner and the Red Virus is no exception.
But seriously, I just needed a break. Nerd (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. If you'd like, I have some tips on building protection bunkers courtesy of my buddy Hoxha. Really though, glad you're all right. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 17:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

CNN WIGO[edit]

Did I place the link in the wrong WIGO or something? I'd honestly like to know. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! But I think analysis suits WIGO Blogs better. Nerd (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case I shall repost it in blogs. I thank you for getting back to me so quickly on this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No problem, mate! Keep up the good fight against the Red Menace! Nerd (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's always a slippery slope[edit]

Well I guess we have count geothermal energy as nuclear power now! —Kazitor, pending 03:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, I have thought about renewables for a while now. Yes, geothermal is nuclear, alongside bio, solar, wind, and wave. (Tidal is purely gravitational.) Heck, fossil fuels can count is nuclear, too. You're right. We need to draw a line somewhere. By the way, I have learned that nuclear energy is arguably renewable. (Please read the "Energy policy" section of the United States. Nerd (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
True, I have previously drawn the conclusion that pretty much everything comes from the Sun, but didn't link that back into nuclear power. I'd say draw the line at whether the source directly involves nuclei. Keyword: vaguely-defined "directly." I have previously read that breeder reactors are so efficient that they can be classified as renewable; today I found this Wikipedia article on the subject. —Kazitor, pending 03:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor I share you views completely; 'direct' involvement of nuclear reactions should be the dividing line.
Excellent article! And they told me nothing good ever came out of Alabama. Oh, yeah? Roll tide! My book also says one can extract uranium from seawater. It's just that the economics may or may not be favorable, hence the various estimates of the amounts remaining. (Something similar holds for fossil fuels.)
You might be interested in this bit of awesomeness from the Land of Lincoln. The future is nuclear! Nerd (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Cut that shit out.[edit]

No really. You should know better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Watch your language! Don't you want a calm a rational discussion? Nerd (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Not really. No. Rational discussion is fine, but I don't find calmness helps in the face of intellectual dishonesty. If you choose your positions based on tone, you end up with worthless articles packed with sea lioning. I'd rather you actually go back and read some diffs in depth and see the bullshit you've having creep in. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, tone is very important. While we make no pretense at being neutral, we cannot forgo objectivity. That means a moderate and thoughtful tone. Think of your textbooks. (Jokes are fine, but should be in good taste.) And in order to be objective, we need a broad perspective. If you have issues with any of the changes, talk to the editor who made them. There are men who think of women as inferior, and there are women who think of men as inferior. Both groups should be condemned. It does not make sense to give that much attention to the MRA, who have their own page. Nerd (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The editor in question is a drive by, and your just adding garbage. There's no real argument to had here. There's no "broad perspective" to "maybe feminism is about hating all men". Hope that helps. (I know it doesn't) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, a single extremist and misandrist who claims to be a "feminist" does not represent feminism. If you think that piece of information can lead the reader to confuse feminism with misandry, you can clarify. No need to cut the whole paragraph out. That page is about misandry as a whole, not the MRA, who again, have their own page. Yes, we need a broad perspective. Nuance matters. One of the fun things I learned in AP English and Composition.
Oh, and that guy is not a drive-by vandal. He has been here since the beginning of the year. He also cites his sources. Nerd (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh my fucking god you're actually a moron. What the hell kinda brain defect do you have where you don't recognize the obvious intent of phrasings focusing on her being a feminist. I am now insulting you. You are an idiot if you genuinely believe the two sentences you typed.
do. you. understand. implication. and MRA shitheel has taken a steaming dump of dishonesty on an article and you're stuck well actuallying yourself into missing their obvious fucking goddamn intent. How are you this dumb? HOW?
(Ec) antifeminist youtubers are not sources for god's sake. Fuck this. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You have failed to put up an argument that could convince not only me but a few other editors. So now you resort to insults, as you admitted yourself. Oh, boy! Nerd (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Murica[edit]

R u from Murica ? — Unsigned, by: 86.161.36.84 / talk

Learn English!! Bloody foreigners ruining our once great language... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Comrade, our heritage the English language has always been great. It's just that some people are failing to use it properly. Nerd (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ya. — Dysk (contribs) 21:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
im back. God bless Murcia — Unsigned, by: 86.161.36.84 / talk
Also God bless Mercia. — Dysk (contribs) 23:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If this deletion interests you[edit]

Just informing you that I nominated the Trump category for deletion, since I thought that might interest you. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 01:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Thanks, mate! Nerd (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

J.G123's contributions[edit]

I've looked through them and the edits always had problems. Any reason you're patrolling them? I looked through the logs, and it seemed like you're patrolling them. This edit for instance, I found problematic because it removed an entire sourced statement on Limbaugh's success and also removed the specifics on polycystic ovarian syndrome, which is important to understand Fluke's case for birth control, and the case does refer to polycystic ovarian syndrome; multiple sources mention it, so why remove the specific referral to that condition, I don't know. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Apologies. I was skimming thought for potential issues, but could not detect anything problematic. Perhaps I should be more careful next time. Nerd (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
What kind of potential issues were you looking for? Just wondering. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Obvious vandalism. Nerd (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The magic of \tfrac[edit]

Compare \frac{3}{4} to \tfrac{3}{4}. See the difference? tfrac is much more appropriate for simple fractions, e.g. when the numerator and denominator are just single numbers. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 22:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I am aware of that code. But I prefer to see things big. They're more pleasant for my eyes. :-) Nerd (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
To each their own; personally the way it spaces the lines above and below isn't pleasant to mine :) —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 23:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Elections[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @DuceMoosolini. I will think about it. Nerd (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancap changes[edit]

Those changes look suspicious because they're copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia article on Ancaps. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I randomly selected passages for comparison. Although they were not identical, they were too similar for comfort. If it's suspicious, give it a Mk 48 ADCAP! Nerd (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Could care less[edit]

I'm not going to edit war with you but "could care less" is perfectly valid idiomatic English, even if it is something of an Americanism.[1][2][3][4][5][6] --Gospatric (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You, too, Merriam-Webster?! No!!! But logically speaking, how could you possibly go lower than a (global) minimum? If you care about something, you can care less about it. If you don't care about something at all, how can you care less? Anyway, thank you for getting back to me. Nerd (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Nerd on this one. I hate "could care less". Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't like it much either because of how easy it is to assume it's the opposite of "couldn't care less" which actually means the same. Also try putting into Google! "I (or he, she, etc.) couldn't (also could) care less" - phrase of care - informal 'used to express complete indifference'. — Dysk (contribs) 14:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
On the spectrum of caring a lot (MORE)<------>caring not at all (LESS), I can't go further than "caring not at all", i.e. I couldn't care less. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

State of Jefferson[edit]

FWIW, I used all caps in citing the sign because the sign was in all caps and I was putting it in quotes. If you're specifically quoting something you're supposed to do it verbatim, including spelling errors etc. (though you can modify with ellipses and brackets), so since they used all caps I did so too. I realize the rule's become a little flexible re. all caps, so maybe I didn't need to be a stickler about it. I just wanted to mention why I used all caps; I'm not a big fan of them myself. Peyre (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A quandary for you.[edit]

You have in the past mentioned that you have an advanced understanding of astrophysics yes? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie If I said something to that effect, I misspoke. I can only claim to have above-average knowledge of physics because I take collegiate courses. Having said that, if you have a question, ask away and I will try my best to answer it. Nerd (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me if I come of as ignorant. Is it theoretically possible that the Big Bang is the result of matter being ejected through a theoretical "exit" to a black hole from another universe? (similar to how black holes have been observed ejecting massive streams of radiation by astronomers) That is to say what if matter went in one end of a black hole, gathered together until it reached critical mass, then was ejected out (through the barrier of known reality) a second end of said black hole?
PS: Yes I am aware that this theory runs into the problem of infinite regress. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No, the math does not work out for that. The hawking radiation streams from black holes come not from matter being ejected from a black hole, but virtual particle pairs forming on the edge of the event horizon, with one of the pair falling in and the other shooting out. This creates a "negative" energy space, not unlike an exciton, that is consumed by the black hole annihilating some of its mass, and (critically for physics working) conserving energy. These virtual particles, however, would not be a point of near infinite density, as our cosmic background radiation measurements suggest the big bang was, but a fairly uniform distribution of energy.
I know it's tempting to suggest a closed universe hypothesis, the infinite cycle of death and rebirth is appealing, but I don't think this particular conjecture aligns with the empirical data we've got. The 4d event horizon hologram hypothesis might be up your alley though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed when you said "The 4d event horizon hologram hypothesis might be up your alley" where you referring to this? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Will get back to you soon. Please stay tuned for the next episode of Justice League. Nerd (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie You seem to be of the impression that black holes are cosmic vacuum cleaners sucking up the matter around them till they are full. This is not at all the case; black holes can keep growing and growing. Under certain circumstances, black holes can eject matter into space. If by "massive streams of radiation" you mean the relativistic jets along the axis of rotation of a black hole, then those are not made of matter from inside the hole, as far as we know. Although the true nature of these jets remain a mystery, a number of hypotheses have been introduced to explain them. One of the most popular ones is the Blandford-Znajek processWikipedia's W.svg. The answer given above gives an interesting qualitative overview of Hawking radiation, a "good bedtime story," as a guest lecturer for my thermodynamics class said. However, the picture of particle pairs on the event horizon is not the best one. This PBS Space Time video explains it better. It is a matter of boundary conditions, Fourier analysis, and scattering. Nerd (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are thinking of the interior of a black hole as akin to a wormhole, this arises because of a coordinate change. The Schwarzschild solution has two singularities, r = R_{s}, where R_{s} is the radius of the hole, and  r = 0 . The former can be removed by changing your coordinate system. One way to do this is with the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinatesWikipedia's W.svg, which exhibits the wormhole-like property of a black hole. Nerd (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then my (admittedly amateur) theory holds no weight. Well it was worth a shot anyway, and the basic logic behind it was sound, at least from a layman's perspective. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Never fear. Learning is a life-long process. Nerd (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Before I forget, a mathematics professor of mine, who took a course on general relativity as graduate student, told us that when we you study that subject, "Get ready to change coordinates!" He was showing us how to solve certain equations by substitution when he made that casual remark. Professors say the finest things. Smile! Nerd (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Add entries to the bottom[edit]

This is why I discourage others from making polls... —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 04:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Sorry, mate! It said to not add a new option between existing ones, leaving me with two choices, the top or the bottom. I picked the top. Nerd (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk about something other than a flat Earth[edit]

Because there is a more interesting topic: the faking of the moon landings!-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 I'm afraid those were real. Even the Soviets, who were no fans of the imperialist capitalist potatoes and masters of propaganda, had nothing to say against it. Had they really been fake, the Russians would have gone screaming at the U.N. Headquarters in New York City by now. "We will bury you and your lies," they would say. On the other hand, have you seen this video? (I posted it on the Saloon Bar also.) Nerd (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh no! Facts! I'm melting!-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@DiamondDisc1 If I am not mistaken, diamond does not melt; it vaporizes. Anyway, this might interest you. Why is the Earth round but the Milky Way flat? I love PBS! Nerd (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
r/whoosh-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Em and en dashes[edit]

According to some stuff I read back whenever, em dashes should not have spaces (I think thin spaces are okay) and en dashes should have normal spaces, as well as being used in ranges.

So this — it's wrong. But this – that's fine. And, uh—this is too.

And this - well that's just horrible, so it's good you didn't do it. —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 00:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! Nerd (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, using a dash incorrectly is still many times more preferable than using a hyphen. *shudder* —Kazitor Kazitor sig pic.png 01:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, you have one in your signature. Ha! Nerd (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for Removing That[edit]

I saw it last night and thought it was in bad taste now, So thanks. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, mate! That page was written by disrespectful jerks. (If you disagree with him, fine. But really?) Please help clean up if you have time. Nerd (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a baby.[edit]

But of course. Perhaps people would actually listen to you if you weren't so confrontational? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth If you want to see for yourself what happened, feast your eyes here, and here. He admitted that he is tempted to abuse his powers. This is also relevant, as are this, and this. Regarding those two last links, he jettisoned basic decency just over a slight disagreement. It turned out that we all were on the same page more or less. (CheeseburgerFace did a fine job moderating.) If I had no problem interacting with so many other editors except him, maybe I'm not the problem. Nerd (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Ikanreed is correct in one respect; arguing for a more academic tone over a snarky or confrontational one on mainspace could be construed as tone policing, and it is perhaps unwise to give authoritarians the benefit of the doubt. But Ikanreed was WAY out of line with his ad hominems on you. While I am generally of the opinion that anyone with a user right above Autopatrolled who claims they have never thought of abusing their powers is a liar, Ikanreed's attitude is part of the reason I don't trust techs with mod powers. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't do thought policing. Just because someone thought about doing something does not mean they will do it or threaten to do it. Self-control matters here. There is a difference between tone policing and calling out insults and harassment. Why should we listen to those who cannot keep it civil? Frankly, it's not worth my time. May I remind you that we were in more or less the same page.
I do think we should make our articles not just objective and accurate but also professional. It is not a good sign if much of what we have to offer is "snark" and some facts; we cannot be a reliable source that way. If someone needs to resort to verbal abuse against those who disagree with them, they aren't being rational. Nerd (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
According to our own article, the "tone argument" can be used to justify verbal harassment, which of course is unacceptable. Nerd (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(EC)My own policy of snark vs professionalism is that whichever gets there first wins. Like it or not, snark is an established part of RationalWiki, and that's not going to change until the Community Standards change (hint). I'm also still reviewing the edits to the McCain article, so I won't comment on that for a while. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would be very careful with "snark" or humor. What's funny to some could be offensive to others. If it is the latter, it may constitute an ad hominem attack, which is a poor debate tactic. We should focus more on truth-telling and fact-checking. Let the facts speak for themselves. Why would people want to come here if much of what we do here is lecturing and offending?
It is irrelevant that "snark" has been at RW for a long time. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. We do something because it makes sense, not because it has been done for a long time. My policy is that objectivity and professionalism trump all else. Some jokes can be added here and there, as long as they are benign. Nerd (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not an appeal to tradition if it's actually codified (RW:SPOV) into the wiki's policy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. But there is this cautionary passage.
However! Dear editor, you are probably not as funny as you think you are. RationalWiki is neither Uncyclopedia and especially not Encyclopedia Dramatica. Be funny, and not just stupid. Avoid overused jokes, obscure in-jokes, anything childish, and anything hateful. The snark must support our site missions (as outlined above), not obstruct them. Snark should never get in the way of analysis, and snark cannot substitute for analysis.
That last sentence is crucial. Nerd (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a baby.[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

@Ikanreed, if you lash out at Nerd again, I will block you. I allow any sysop to do the same. Knock it off.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

my bad[edit]

Didn't mean to put that on that line. thanks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Nerd (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You're no fun[edit]

n/t. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I am a very serious person, yes. Nerd (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm reporting you to the humor police. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wee-woo wee-woo... Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to get in the car... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Some 'twerps' do need be made a point of (for being too disreputable/annoying) - even if for only a few minutes. Anna Livia (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia So block them temporarily then. Nerd (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Signalling disapproval of such persons - especially as there were several inappropriate postings - and everybody should try permabanning once. :) Anna Livia (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Alert[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. — Dysk (contribs) 03:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dysklyver Thank you! I will think about it. Nerd (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I just noticed you were engaged in a tenuous edit war with James Earl Cash. Please do not do this again. You should know better than to edit war. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Once again, I tried to engage him in a respectful discussion on the talk page. But results have been disappointing... Anyway, I called in the mods. Care to weigh in? Nerd (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't justify edit wars though. James Earl Cash's behavior is in wrong, but if that person is edit warring, you should try getting a mod's attention, not to the content of the article, but the clearly wrong action of edit warring. I know you tried getting mod attention and got called out on it for trying to rallying them, but perhaps if you just said "mods I am edit warring with someone", I do hope you're not going to get the same response, and either way, you'll get attention sooner and they can take the appropriate action and lock the page or at least block for a while, anything to stop the edit warring. Correct me if that's exactly what you've done and still got called out for it.
I'm going to weigh in in a moment, though I can't help being really skeptical about the whole Kavanaugh nomination and I just can't trust Fox News eve if Fox News is telling the truth. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario So this is what happened. Please verify this for yourself by checking this section of the talk page. Cash and I (mainly) got into a disagreement over how to best write the introduction. So I started that conversation thread. Unfortunately, we failed to convince one another. He started calling me this and that. An edit war broke out. I thought about calling the mods and incidentally, Lankaster suggested the same thing. I did just that.
Please be aware that the lead section contains no references to or citations of Fox News. The section that mentions it is not in dispute. Nerd (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's get it clear, it's only the lead paragraph that's in dispute? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. (I hope it doesn't spread.) Nerd (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I added my opinion in the end, since that's clear. Thanks. We should have the opening paragraph be a pretty plain summary. Let's have your revision as the opening paragraph, and we can go into detail about the rest + editor opinion in the body of the article. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for you input. Could you please explicitly state the version you prefer over there as well? Thanks! Nerd (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

He listed fucking every white place on the planet[edit]

And declared them to be the only good governments. The whole thing was race baiting, and that was just one phrase to highlight it. It's not okay to do that kind of super racist dog whistling. 9 hours is generous. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? He also lists Japan and (South) Korea. Nerd (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Not everyone who thinks Western-style democratic governments are "the shit" (in a positive way) does so because of racism you know. *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Too bad he included literal dozens of countries with "western style democratic governments" in his arbitrary label of " Africa, the worst region on earth, that's what's wrong". Fucking hell you're glossing over obvious racism. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but added his new comment after the block was lifted. Like the IP user stated, not everything has to be about race. But OK. Keep in mind, though, that you do not need to be a Western country to enjoy a vibrant Western-style democracy. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are examples, as is Israel. Nerd (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Africa is kinda known for having massively corrupt governments. It's pretty broad-brush to generalize Somali-style anarchy to the whole continent, but then no one ever claimed Gewdiwhatwasit is a global expert on politics. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, we don't ban people for making overgeneralizations or ill-informed statements. But nine hours is just a good night sleep, so I will not unblock him. Nerd (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I won't unblock him this time either to avoid a conflict. Blocking is explicitly for edits harmful to this wiki. Misinformed opinions does not qualify.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Two points I would like to add to this discussion. One, most of the more notoriously corrupt countries in Africa are partly that way due to imperialistic European inference. And two, Russia has a western style democracy, but they're notoriously corrupt and authoritarian as all fuck. (This will also be added to the saloon discussion.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @GrammarCommie But hasn't Europe stopped colonizing Africa? Is Russia really a democracy or an oligarchy? Please enlighten me, Comrade! Nerd (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While Europe has indeed ceased colonizing Africa, the effects of what has already been done will likely take decades to fully heal. If indeed they ever fully heal. As for Russia, one could argue that they are a Oligarchic democracy, given that they display behavior consistent with both modes of governance. Further, the country has had very heavy cultural leanings toward authoritarianism, regardless of the current government. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I dunno about "ceased colonizing". One could compare the foreign aid going to corrupt regimes to the alliances of old between European colonial powers and African rulers. And there's also a lot of Western ideology being disseminated through education(which isn't necessarily bad, mind you). But it seems China is quickly replacing Western powers in terms of political influence. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, one needs to be careful about giving aid to a foreign country. One has to make sure it goes to the people who actually need it, not corrupt government officials. But come to think of it, I find it rather strange that European countries are providing international aid when many of them are burdened with substantial public debts to the point that the viability of their welfare states could be questioned. I agree with your point about China. I will add that China is luring many developing countries (and Greece) into debt traps. They offer "easy" loans, in the sense that financial-disciplinary requirements are not particularly high. But when you fail to pay back the money in time, they get to own a piece of critical infrastructure. But much of the money does not go into hiring locals; it goes to Chinese contractors. Malaysia has recently decided to halt Chinese funded construction projects for precisely this reason. Nerd (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't call current European (and American, we're not innocent either) political shenanigans "colonization" since none of the powers are actually sending citizens over to the affected countries to live there. More I would call it political interference, same as said powers are guilty of doing to each other from time to time. As for China I'm not surprised at their latest scheme, it's exactly what I would expect from a country with a long history of imperialistic governments and ambitions. I also wouldn't advise under-estimating Chinese influence, given that they are currently one of the two major powers currently looking to take the U.S.A. position as sole superpower. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Whatever happened in the past, no country is colonizing any other country now, at least not in the traditional sense. I'm a bit uneasy about what China is doing now in Africa, South, and Southeast Asia. You are right, @GrammarCommie, that it would be foolish to underestimate China. Are you thinking of India was the other potential superpower? What do you know? Humans exploiting each other. :-( Nerd (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

True (re:1st sentence of Nerd & GC), but it's important to keep in mind that's how much of the old colonization got rolling: unequal political alliances. A conflict breaks out, you call upon help from your powerful ally, and suddenly you have foreign armies all over the continent while you've been reduced to irrelevancy. On that note, I'm curious how things will turn out in Syria. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
India has the potential, but last I heard (to be fair it was over four years ago and India is easy to overlook, which like China we shouldn't) they still had some hurdles to overcome before they could marshal the influence needed. I was actually referring to Russia who, via covert operations, has been steadily trying to tilt the international gameboard in their favor. This is primarily evident with their attempts at election tampering, getting in bed with potentially friendly parties from countries that long been hostile to Russian interests, and assassination attempts. All these seem to point to Russia attempting to gain enough influence with the U.N. to have their international sanctions lifted and be able to call the shots on the international stage without being too obvious about it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
An addition to my previous comment: Based on the information currently available, it would seem Russian operations have met with mixed success. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting point. If Russia were to become a superpower again, she would have to do so via rather unconventional means, as you explained. At present, giant Russia has an economy no larger than that of tiny South Korea, despite having three times the population and a vast amount of natural resources, and is not anywhere near as competitive. Russia's military is formidable, but lacks the capabilities needed for power projection. Her sole operational aircraft carrier looked as if she was running on coal. Give that ship new engines! (Ironically, Russia has at least one nuclear powered icebreaker.) India, in my view, is a far stronger candidate for the title of a non-US superpower, alongside China. Although she is behind China—India introduced 'economic liberalization' policies in the 1990s while China opened her markets in the late 1970s—she is catching up fast. Like China, she has her own respectable space program and an improving domestic military-industrial complex. A large population means a large manufacturing base. Neither country can build enough infrastructure, at least for now, though China has some "ghost towns," or forests of skyscrapers that are uninhabited. Nerd (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


I just want to add that this discussion went more or less how I expected it would have if I had taken on GC's role. Ariel pedantically changing topic over and over and over and over, and ignoring the underlying massive racism of "Africa, the worst region on earth, that's what's wrong". Don't get me wrong, there's real stuff to talk about in the history of Africa, but regarding the original statements, there was never any real ambiguity. Stuff like that needs to be toned down, reconsidered, and not pandered to with debate centered on its bigoted premises. All this discussion of why parts of Africa have problems ignores just how shitty what was actually said was. How sweeping and obviously bigoted such statements are. The complexities of the situation present a chance to ignore just how egregious the simplistic sweeping generalization is in its character. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right[edit]

It isn't nice to make jokes about the tragic fact that every year, million of poor people are forced to live in the USA. And even worse, many of them are brainwashed into thinking that's not so bad after all.

I can tell you haven't learnt anything from all the policy discussions going on right now. Nor have you actually read the Blocking policy, though that's not at all surprising. 60.242.108.125 (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Except the very first paragraph says people should not be blocked if they are engaging in a conversation in a productive manner. You're not doing that; you're just trolling. Nerd (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
And the very next page says "Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages", nothing about self-proclaimed "trolling". Certainly not for three months! I'm inclined to believe that it's not ban evasion if the first ban wasn't valid anyway. Even then, ban evasion is only a short-term block. Y' know, a few days?
But hey, feel free to continue banning IPs, maybe some potential user will find themselves unable to edit the site and decide to leave. Then you've possibly saved them years of their time that can be devoted to something easily better!
Don't lie to yourself about why you banned. Going by its severity, you clearly just can't handle anyone daring to speak ill of your favourite country. Certainly a great reason to keep other people away from here. Follow your own advice some day? 220.244.203.53 (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! We are allowed to block people for trolling. It is in fact one of the default options. You are not a new comer. You have been here for quite a while; I looked at your edit history in the first IP address. That was not the first time. No, if you are unable to engage in a respectful and productive conversation, you are not welcome here. Did you say you wanted to leave and never come back (LANCB)? Why haven't you? Nerd (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You made a new friend[edit]

Birdman is now your new friend. You should probably spend some time with him :) Alcyon007 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please consider the correction of a factually incorrect article about me[edit]

Dear Nerd, I am writing you because a few weeks ago, an article about me (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dalibor_Jur%C3%A1%C5%A1ek) appeared on Rational wiki. This article contains some factually incorrect claims, to which I demanded corrections. I have written on the article Talk page, where I have specified the claims and given my arguments.

However, I was met with being labeled a „liar“, „denialist“, but my arguments were not addressed. I have also contacted the mail legal@rationalwiki.org, but there was no answer (the e-mail box seems to be defunct, as my e-mail was not delivered). As you are an active RationalWiki SysOp, I believe you are competent to enter this process and correct the information. I hope we can engage in a fair and open discussion.

PS. I have also contacted the user Spud.

Thank you and friendly regards, and wish you a Happy New Year --Dalibor.jurasek (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope[edit]

Not unnecessary. I reverted your edit deleting a huge chunk of my description, I'd prefer to discuss it here rather than undergo an edit war, but part of RW's mission is to provide snarky humor, so while your personal preferences may differ, don't unilaterally delete snarky content. Discuss why you think it should be deleted, and if the mob agrees or disagrees with you, you would take action or not take action depending upon the consensus that results from the discussion. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 18:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have read that article in full. And the bit that you are contesting is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Furthermore, it counts as commentary, not news. That is clear by first reading.
As for snark, we do not add snark for the sake of having snark. It is of marginal importance only. This is, after all Rational Wiki, not Snarky Wiki. Nerd (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to revert, then. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WIGOs, especially in the World section, should be concise and professional. Commentary and snark should be left for talk pages and articles. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! I will remove it. Nerd (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I begrudgingly remove my complaint, even though I still personally disagree with y'all, the mob differs, and the function of this site is ultimately of more importance than one's personal opinions. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Il Duce beats me to the finish line. You're fast, man!
@Don Juan I'm not sure if we are really debating opinions here. Nor do I think that is particularly helpful. We are just discussing whether or not a piece of commentary belongs on a particular page. Nerd (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump articles[edit]

I would suggest writing a brief summary of the contents of branch articles and use the Main template to direct readers to them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A fine suggestion. Thank you! But feel free to jump in. I'm getting a bit tired. :-) Nerd (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That will not be possible, due to the fact that I'm currently editing from my phone and will likely continue to do so for most of the day. When I get back to my computer I'll see what I can do. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries. There is no deadline here. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

On Brain Waves[edit]

So I read that electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space. Is this the same for brain waves? How far outwards from their source can they actually extend? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing two different things here. The electromagnetic field of your brain is not the same thing as brain waves. Using the right equipment, neuroscientists can detect this field. But the equipment has to be close to your brain in order to detect it. It's basically a helmet. Far away, the field weakens to the point of imperceptibility, drowned out by, for example, the Earth's own magnetic field.
Variations within this electromagnetic field can be converted into graph that looks like a seismograph. This is what people mean when they say brain waves. Depending on your activities, there will be different recognizeable brain wave patterns. Nerd (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Lest I forget, yes, electromagnetic fields extend indefinitely in space, but they tend to get weaker away from the source. In physics class, on runs into idealized cases such as an infinite sheet of charge, whose electric field is everywhere constant because you cannot escape an infinite sheet. Such idealizations are useful approximations in some cases, such as in the middle of an electrostatic wipe, but their limitations should be recognized. Nerd (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Does each field have an equal amount of strength and intensity? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Which field? If you are talking about an electromagnetic wave, then its intensity is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude of the oscillating electric field. If you are talking about a neural wave, I have no idea. Nerd (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you unban yourself[edit]

Never ever ever ever ever "decensor" people accusing other races of being animals. I don't give a goddamn fuck about your reasons. I don't want to see it. You're wrong and need to stop. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

He's all yours[edit]

It's enough of a pain playing whack-a-mole with multiple troll accounts without you undoing blocks before checking what's going on. He's all yours, goodnight! — Unsigned, by: ‎Avida Dollars / talk / contribs

And how do you know he/she is a troll or a sock puppet? Nerd (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Feynman.[edit]

I wish to dispute two changes to the Feynman article. One, the section concerning Feynman's "dating tips" to put it politely. As woo based beliefs these "tips" are within RationalWiki's purview to analyze and criticize, regardless of who holds them. Secondly, I feel the section concerning the Manhattan Project should be restored as a brief summation, with the bulk of the content moved to the main subject article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Done! Feyman's "dating tips" weren't dating tips. He talked about them, how he learned, applied and abandoned them. I read that book in full actually. It was hilarious but that part was just weird. That part will have to be rewritten. Nerd (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case the article should more clearly reflect his renouncement of those views, preferably with more sources for that section. Thank you for your understanding on this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you happen to have access to a library? Could you help fix that bit? My plate is full at the moment. Nerd (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I found a PDF of the book in question for use in sourcing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! Happy reading and editing! Nerd (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Deripaska[edit]

You might want to just delete Deripaska entirely from the Trump-Russia page. It seems like a possible red herring at this point. Bongolian (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Done! Just for the record, before deleting mentions of Deripaska, I have not touched that section at all. Nerd (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

When your cheer-leading for what's soon to be a massive war gets thousands or millions killed[edit]

Will you have the self-reflection to realize A. That's what you were doing today, and B. that you're partially at fault? Don't answer this question now, wait until January 2020 when you can "rub it in my face" how wrong I am. Set a reminder on your phone. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I will answer your loaded question now. I was not supporting foreign military intervention at all, only oil sanctions. I further pointed out that such sanctions incentivize the transition towards more environmentally friendly energy sources. Nerd (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(There's going to be a foreign intervention, it might be a proxy war through brazil, but it'll happen. We're gonna do another war for oil thingy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(What's that lonely parenthesis for?) It might happen, but I don't support it if that's what you're thinking. It is possible that Trump might push for an intervention in order to distract public opinion from his many scandals. We all know that Trump is no fan of renewable energy. And while we are at it, I think the U.S. should, in addition to imposing oil sanctions on Venezuela, eliminate all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. It will be a little discomforting at first, but it will be worth it. The market will respond; renewable energy is already booming in the U.S. despite Trump's attitude. But we will have to wait till 2021 for that to happen, in all probability. And then, there is increasing interest in mass transit. Let me know if you want some reading material on that topic. Nerd (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(Typo). It's gonna happen, and every word of "hooray we're backing the guy who declared himself president, take that shitty dictator" innately backs the coming war. I know there's gray area that's not explicit, but the lines are getting drawn so fucking hard right now, and they're very neatly painting that gray area to be backing their near-future shit. "How dare they arrest the dimplomats they declared Personae Non Gratae? We must rescue them." seems like a likely follow up, e.g. Don't worry about it now, get back to me in a year. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It could, but like I said, I don't support foreign military intervention. Your initially calling me "cheer-leading" is inaccurate. I have already explained my views. I hope I have been clear. Nerd (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand, but think about being like "Saddam is bad" in January 2003, it was accurate, but it's hard to separate from the fairly obvious attempts to ramp up a war, even though he'd been bad for years, and worst decades ago. The middle ground is not always a middle ground. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not so hard, actually. The ones cheering for war were also reliably repeating the propaganda about WMDs and Saddam supporting terrorists. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
And I don't want to muddle the water with conspiracies I cannot back up, but there seems to be a fair amount of truth-stretching going on with respect to Venezuala, and the US's stance. And the lying is a central part of what has my Iraq War senses provoked so much. I'm a bit stuck on what's actually fucking literally, provably true in Venezuela. It's actually very hard to find genuinely verifiable stories with real sources about the shit going on there. Major reporters posting videos from 2008(which were real protests against Chavez, mind) as if they're from yesterday, multiple credible, sourced allegations that Human Rights Watch(which is usually a fairly trustworthy source about non-Israel problems) has fabricated or drastically over-represented stories of abuse of power there. It's a mess and even basally relevant questions like "what exactly was illegitimate about the boycotted election?" are terribly terribly hard to answer in a meaningful and demonstrable way. Credibility chains suck ass way more than usual. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very good. So you understand that just because I dislike a certain dictator does not mean I support regime change by means of foreign military intervention. Nerd (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Stopped Clock Edit[edit]

You're right. I can't confirm that other oil companies engage in misinformation campaigns. Thanks for the clarification.108.80.8.77 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for contributing! Nerd (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have confidence that you do...[edit]

I am confident that you have seen and understood Cantor's treatment of cardinal numbers, transcendentals, etc. I don't think it is typical for physicists who cluster in the applied mathematics sections. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a bit of a stretch, even for me. We briefly covered Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers in real analysis and the history of mathematics, enough to realize that infinity is not a number, and that there are many different orders of infinity, the greatest of which does not exist because given a set of any order of infinity, one can construct a set whose cardinality is even greater, and the motivation for Cantor's work, which was Fourier analysis.
You are correct that physicists studying under the (North) American curriculum typically do not have to take real analysis. Keep in mind, however, that in some other countries, such as Germany or France, calculus at the university-level is analysis, and theoretical physicists from such countries are extremely well-grounded in mathematics with uncompromising rigor. Back in the Napoleonic era, the very best engineering students were sufficiently prepared and were indeed encouraged to become research mathematicians. I'm not quite sure how things are now. In the U.K., various topics in physics, such as fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, and special relativity are taught to mathematics undergraduates. My point is that the levels of mathematics used by physicists varies from person to person, and country to country. So I do not think it is pedantic for us to correct Tyson for this. Nerd (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

You asked "What's the 'fault'?" in my addition to the NPOV on Wikipedia section of "Neutral Point of View": [7] What I was getting at was trying to suggest that sometimes Wikipedia follows POV neutrality to a fault, taking NPOV too far and into Balance fallacy territory. Might be that I said it very clumsily. Peyre (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thank you for clarifying. Nerd (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bryan See[edit]

Don't bother trying to reason with him. He won't listen. I tried, and it clearly didn't work. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You're getting pretty full of shit[edit]

I don't know what is rotting your brain, but how on earth can you simultaneously go "taxes are bad, it's sparking debate even among dems" and then "her proposed social programs are bad because they'll raise deficits" and not realize how you're contradicting yourself? No "Aha" moment, even as you put two directly antithetical concepts side by side and back both of them.

Jesus, Nerd, whatever right wing bullshit you ate as you aged made you real goddamn good at not thinking. I know it's not good to hero-worship politicians and all, but you've descended into an alternate paradigm where you refuse to actually acknowledge the meaning of the very same words you say when ignoring them lets you make one more attack. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Read this, Reed! If there is a problem, you are welcome to come here and discuss in a civil manner. If you cannot do that, go somewhere else! I'm getting sick and tired of your abrasiveness. Nerd (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting sick and tired of your disingenuous right wing bullshit that treats fact like a play thing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That is patently false! I made sure almost everything I said is backed up by at least one reputable source or a primary source. Check the sources and see how well what I wrote correlates to them. That's what they are there for. Nerd (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that's nice, but did you read what the problem I described was? I was fairly specific in this case. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Could you explain yourself better? I'm merely reporting what the sources say. (Mind you, I carefully selected them.) Perhaps, I'm being inconsistent. But there is a further possibility that the person or people I am reporting on are inconsistent. Like I said, check the sources. Nerd (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

Are you an admin, by any chance? I'm very new here, and I'm trying to find my way around. Also, what's the point of this site? I read your Donald Trump page, and it seems like this site is very liberally-biased... Libertarianmoderate (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Libertarianmoderate I'm an a "system operator" or Sysop. But that title does not mean much, frankly, because it is granted to anyone who has been here for a while and proves themselves to not to be a troll or a vandal.
Our objectives are:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
I would be lying if I said this website does not have a liberal bias. However, I am not the sole contributor to our page for Donald Trump. My recent edits are mainly organizational in nature. I am focused on his infrastructure policies and his connection with Russia. (Please see my personal page and my edit history.)
Since you mentioned on your personal page you are familiar with Wikipedia, we use the same software here, albeit an older version. Nerd (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela[edit]

The stuff I put in about the socialism argument wasn't saying the argument itself is valid, just acknowledging that people like to make it to dismiss socialism as being inherently bad. FWIW I don't think the argument is that compelling. So I think it should be restored just to discuss that people on the right like to compare things they don't like to Venezuela. Jinx (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics pdf.[edit]

Twice now (possibly more but I have no indication of such) a BoN has requested that their... let's call it "idea" be posted on this site as a reputable model to physics and astrophysics. In both known instances they have linked to this pdf, which first goes into railing against existing theories (never a good sign, generally indicates crankery and woo-woo) then delves into what is either technobabble or physics technical knowledge that goes over my head. Would you be willing to take a look? (Warning, pdf creator denies Hawking Radiation. Warning, terminal stupid may be enclosed, read at own risk.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics pdf.[edit]

Twice now (possibly more but I have no indication of such) a BoN has requested that their... let's call it "idea" be posted on this site as a reputable model to physics and astrophysics. In both known instances they have linked to this pdf, which first goes into railing against existing theories (never a good sign, generally indicates crankery and woo-woo) then delves into what is either technobabble or physics technical knowledge that goes over my head. Would you be willing to take a look? (Warning, pdf creator denies Hawking Radiation. Warning, terminal stupid may be enclosed, read at own risk.) ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie A couple words on science in general before I give you the answer. (Patience, my friend!) Criticizing existing hypotheses, theories or models is not necessarily problematic. Indeed, a good way to understand them is to study their limitations.
With that out of the way, let's jump right into it by examining the five critical assumptions.
1. We do not know that the Universe is infinite. We do know, however, that the Universe is definitely not static. The statement that the Universe is "static overall even as it is dynamic within" is literally wrong. I thought by "tired light" they mean the cosmological redshift, but it turned out to be something else entirely. In any case, it fails to predict observed results.
2. Black holes do exist. We have evidence for many of them now. We are even trying to take photographs of them. Digging a little deeper into the paper reveals the author fundamentally misunderstands black holes. These are not cosmic vacuum cleaners. Their gravitational pull only becomes inescapable if you get too close. In fact, if you get far enough away, there is no need to invoke Einstein's field equations of general relativity; Newton's law of universal gravitation works just fine. Astronomical observations of the orbits of stars about the black hole at the center of the Milky Way reveal they are elliptical.
3. After Hawking discovered his eponymous mechanism for radiation emission in 1974, other people have approached the problem from different angles and derive the exact same answer. Hawking's original calculation considers quantum field theory and statistical mechanics in curved spacetime. A more recent paper from the 1990s did it using quantum tunneling. Therefore, we have very strong theoretical evidence for the existence of Hawking radiation. What we lack is empirical evidence. Hawking radiation is so weak it is a Herculean task to detect. In many cases, the Hawking radiation of a black hole is overshadowed by other things, such as X-rays by the accretion disk. However, I recently learned that someone detected the analog of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes. It does not mean that Hawking radiation is real; it only means that we have some circumstantial evidence for its existence.
4. Anti-gravity has never been detected. Even flying objects obey the laws of gravity. Whoever wrote this has a fundamental misunderstanding of heat and therefore the kinetic theory of matter. Heat is the internal energy of the system, such as a gas inside a closed box, due to the random motion of particles making up that system. A related quantity, temperature, is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules of a system. We know neutron stars exist by astronomical observations. The supposed "anti-gravity" that prevents a neutron star from imploding is known as neutron degeneracy pressure. As the Pauli exclusion principle in action, it prevents any two neutrons from occupying the same quantum state.

5: Halton ArpWikipedia's W.svg was a respected astronomer and prominent critic of the standard Big Bang cosmology. I am not an expert and so cannot comment on his technical work. Nerd (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your "tidy up" of Christchurch massacre[edit]

Any particular reason your are removing my comment about it only taking 6 days? It is a statement of fact after all, one commented on by many people around the world. — Unsigned, by: Aloysius the Gaul / talk / contribs

Was it a mosque or a church? Anyway, that was not in the article. I searched. If you want to include it, add another article. Nerd (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Christchurch is the name of the city the Mosque is in - a typo and nothing more. It is also my home town. — Unsigned, by: Aloysius the Gaul / talk / contribs
My condolences, good kiwi!
Anyway, you can put the "six-day" thing back with a source. Also, why undo the clarification? What on Earth does "sorts out its guns laws" mean? Nerd (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How about this for the source: the article is from 21st, the massacre was 15th - 21-15 = 6!Aloysius the Gaul 04:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you want to use "basic arithmetic," it should be  21 - 15 = 6 , not 6! = 720. Accepted! (What the heck with US-centric comparisons these days! Each country is different, damn it!) Nerd (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
have you always been an argumentative jerk...lacking in basic comprehension of an English sentence? or is this just for me?Aloysius the Gaul 08:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you mentioned "basic arithmetic," it's fair game. Nerd (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahhhh[edit]

so you like more of the greco/modern elements blend. I problem with Washington square is that doesn't go as heavy on the greek design as I would've liked. This is probably due to some safety concerns mayhaps. Anyways,cheers. 24.126.244.107 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the people who design modern train stations today want to also accommodate transit riders in addition to long-distance train passengers. To people in a hurry to the next subway station, bus or streetcar stop, your intricate interior design probably does not matter too much. If I am not mistaken this Greco-Roman style is known as Beaux-Arts architectureWikipedia's W.svg. Anyway, I'm glad someone finds my architectural tastes interesting. Nerd (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Subreddit Confirmation[edit]

Are you u/part-time-stupid on Reddit? RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Yes, I am. I was about to contact you directly here on RW in case you thought that message on Reddit was fake. Thank you for reaching out to me! Nerd (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Should be good now. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the music[edit]

It's very soothing. Normal Dude (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Science related question[edit]

Is the following statement applicable only at the atomic level? By merely observing a phenomenon one can affect the outcome. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Awards[edit]

A close up of an awesome, amazing goat's face.

Awesome Award <p style="margin-top:0;line-height:0;">for</p> <p>Nerd/Archive1</p> <p style="margin-bottom:25px;">Reason: being awesome</p>


HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
For going above and beyond the call of duty
Nerd
Contributions to Trump-Russia connection

I'm super impressed by what you've done with that article, and I'll happily vote for gold once the time comes. Well done! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Thank you, Il Duce! Nerd (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. Bongolian (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Holydaze[edit]

Could you do one for Remember June Fourth? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini It has been done, Il Duce. Check it out here: Template:Holydaze/0604. Nerd (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)