User talk:Patty Pat/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive I.


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Patty Pat!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • and can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!

As per Oxyaena last year. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


Plutocow (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocking police[edit]

Hello, please review our blocking policy. "Non-obscene human vandals can be blocked for up to 1 day, depending on how annoying their edits are." We generally try to avoid blocks of IP addresses for more than 3 days unless there's an ongoing problem. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Patty Pat (Yap with me) 19:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


Not everything the right-wing dislikes or fundraises about can be called a bogeyman. Take it easy please.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I was trying to re-arrange a category. I guess I was caught in the moment. Oops? No excuses for me though…Patty Pat (Yap with me) 01:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, for some input, what shouldn’t be considered a boogeyman. I’ll be willing to remove some things. I don’t want things to escalate with other users.Patty Pat (Yap with me) 01:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Good question! This is my take, and only one opinion:Traditionally a bogeyman is a frightening figure from mythology, usually a proxy for the devil, a real monster. Politically a bogeyman should be someone who inspires fear or simply concern in the party to whom it is addressed: Hilary, Biden, Obama, Soros, for example. Cancel culture is an idea that the RW finds annoying, but they think it is funny when lefties dogpile other lefties, etc. Geta Thunburg, at the end of the day, is just a young woman, and nobody is really worried about her, though the RW is annoyed by her harangues. Maybe GOP women think AOC is a devil, otherwise she is the object of misogynistic aggression.. I would say general subjects or categories and unintimidating people are not well described as bogeymen. I hope that helps.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian uses bogeyman for ideas also, such as "critical race theory is the latest bogeyman of the far right." Ariel31459 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I might want to delete extraneous additions, but I also think other editors could accuse me of whitewashing. I guess I’ll see what I can do.Patty Pat (Yap with me) 04:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


you removed a fuck ton of stuff and its still fucking huge. you sure a less considered and altogether more brutal approach is not called for? a machete rather than a scalpel? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about doing a vote on the article with chance of possible deletion, or further purging and a revision to make the article more up to date? I’m willing to let myself, and potentially other users try to do a makeover, or do the nuclear option. We gotta see. User:Patty Pat (Yap with me) 01:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Because nobody has officially done this yet...[edit]

Thanks for trimming the Denlinger article. I often talked about doing it but the damned thing is just so intimidating...-Flandres (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Patty Pat 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, the reason I did this was because such a massive article only made it seem like he was right and the original author had a serious, borderline unhealthy obsession with trying to debunk everything he says, which, according to Denlinger, is a trait of demon possessed people. It only seems fair to reduce that article to make it seem less validating, and less right. Not to mention, some parts don't need that much attention at all. Patty Pat 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually thought of moving some of Denlinger's Islam takes to Alberto Rivera's article because that is where the claim kinda originated. What do you think? Patty Pat 00:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


Ask me anything on this talk section. Patty Pat 00:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why so much edit on delinger.[edit]

Archive Star (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's because the article had to be trimmed down because it was seriously bloated. It was full of excessive snark and redundant statements that are either irrelevant, or repeated. Not to mention it could also validate Denlinger. I've seen videos of his going after us calling himself the most attacked man on the site and wondering why they aren't going after Robert Breaker or whatever. He also believes that anybody trying to pick apart his videos are actually demon-possessed. It's just that the only way to really beat people like him is to ignore them or they're going to get the impression that they are actually right. I might be condescending or passive-aggressive, but I don't know. Patty Pat 14:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)