RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

User talk:Proxima Centauri

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>

RFC regarding topic[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Need_irc_club

Once again[edit]

Pleasepleaseplease spellcheck your contributions! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri (the mainspace article)[edit]

I've nominated Proxima Centauri for deletion because I didn't think it was missional. As you created it I thought I'd let you know. Christopher (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Politicization of renewable energy[edit]

Your edit seems to introduce a political bias at the top of the article on renewable energy, and I think we should avoid that. I suggest to move it to a new section, or remove it altogether since the overall article appears to be merely informative. --Cmonk (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not politically neutral and don't try to be. Christopher (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I know, but (a) your link doesn't actually say anything about politics; (b) the issue with climate change is the excessive politicization of the subject, and it seems counter-productive to me to start making US-centric political advertising on anything climate/energy related; (c) the quote itself seems to be more about the climate change controversy (which is why I thought it was appropriate in the climate change article). --Cmonk (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I personally agree that the quote deserves to go. Just saw what looked like someone calling for neutrality. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right that the quote on the top of the page was a bit Americacentric. I moved it to a new section right at the bottom. Perhaps other users can think of other ways to win support or renewables. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed the section, shouldn't it be more than just a quote? Unless there's some non-quote text I don't see the point. Christopher (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Why'd you readd it without discussion? Let's not start an edit war. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You did add a sentence so it's technically more than just a quote but I still reckon it's not enough. Christopher (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
See if you can add more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
So far all I've done is remove 31 bytes, I think it'll be forgotten about and remain a "section-stub" in an otherwise good article. Christopher (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is it OK now? If it isn't I'll try and deal with it tomorrow. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd still remove it but that's just me, there was a tyop but I corrected it. there's some weird grammar that, whilst I know exactly what you mean, I don't know how to correct ("steadily better able"). Christopher (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's worth keeping now though you were right to draw attention to problems. You encouraged me to work hard researching and developing the section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I reckon it's worth keeping now. Christopher (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your archive template[edit]

Goes <2> <1> <3> <4> <5> instead of <1> <2> <3> <4> <5>, any idea why? Christopher (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've no clear idea, there must have been some mistake or other. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be glitch caused by two different archive bots, or maybe a nonstandard manual archive. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)