User talk:Psychiclie

See also: User talk:Logicnsuch#Post-mortem

Chat it up.

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Psychiclie. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

Yeah, can you please not edit war? Thanks. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't edit war. I just posted a good video about the topic at hand. Psychiclie (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring would be reverting edits after someone undoes yours. Don't do this. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

What if my edit is a good edit? Because it is. Psychiclie (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not that funny as you think you are. Just stop. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm funny. I just posted a helpful resource. It's the whole 2 hour debate summed up in about 5 minutes with the best portions. What could be a better resource? Psychiclie (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been blocked. What the Hell? Please be more productive. Thank you. Psychiclie (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You were edit warring. The page you edited on is protected. You proceed to make the same edits on another page. And you edit warred there too. And you created a page on it. All this despite being told to knock it off. You get a block. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I never edit warred. I just put a relevant video on pages where the link belonged. What's wrong with that video I posted? Explain it to me. Psychiclie (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly added the same content after it was repeatedly removed. That is not only edit warring, but a textbook example of the term. As for what's wrong with the video... It's a video from a nobody on YouTube which contributes nothing of value to the articles it was added to. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't edit war. You edit warred. If I took something away, and kept taking it away, or did something wrong, THAT would be edit warring. YOU edit warred. The video might be from a nobody on youTube, but it is relevant to the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, and if it isn't in the article, then nobody will know it exists. Psychiclie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So? There are literally hundreds of videos of the debate in question, excluding the hundreds of videos responding to each side. Why do they matter? What compels me to care about them? A new argument? A new point of view? Why exactly should I care about this one video? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Because it has SMASH MOUTH in the background. DUH. Psychiclie (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So you like Smashmouth, so what? How does that make the video anymore relevant than a video of Doug Stanhope making jokes about the anti-immigration crowd? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, by agreed definition of what edit warring is, you are the one that's edit warring if you add a revision, someone reverts it, and you revert it, and the person reverts it, and you revert it again. The first time someone reverts your edit, it might be natural to try to revert back. But when someone protects the page, common sense should tell you that repeating the action (by editing the same information in a different page; recreating the page) is not a good step. If you want to add something to the page and someone reverts it, it's on you to engage in the talk pages. You have to justify your edits. It's on you to keep the edit. If you repeat the edit without further justification, that's edit warring. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm here, on the talk page, telling you why this is a good video and should be included somewhere on the main debate page, or on the Ken Ham page. It has SMASH MOUTH. Psychiclie (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've established that it includes music from a band you like. Again, so what? Why should it be in there article(s)? What purpose does linking it serve? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not like Smash Mouth, but their song, "All Star," is a facet of Pop Culture by now, and this video just so happens to be the ONLY ONE I know of on YouTube that mixes the two together. And it mixes them very well. Psychiclie (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We here at Rationalwiki aren't above the occasional joke, reference, or snide comment. But there are limits to that, and any attempts at levity should contribute to the overall message of the article. Linking to a video with no informational value in the main body text of an article interrupts the flow of information and adds nothing to the content or theme. Also, the video isn't that funny. Secondly, please keep in mind that RW as a community is very hostile to edit-warring. So if your edit is contested, talk it out with the other user on the talk page and come to a consensus like an adult. If you get involved in too many more incidents like this, don't be surprised if someone blocks you for even longer or even goes so far as to vandal bin you. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your article does not have a video with The Debate synced up to All Star, and so it should. It ought to. Again, I am discussing my edit on the Talk Page right now, and will not re-put the video on there unless it should be on there. I think it should be on there. It is a good collection of outtakes, and gives those outtakes a decent amount of levity. Psychiclie (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Your article does not have a video with The Debate synced up to All Star, and so it should. It ought to." You haven't stripped down to a purple Speedo and painted yourself green, and danced the chicken dance in times square, but you should. You ought to. Do you see the problem yet? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, so, if you think I'm not asserting MY argument well enough, then state why the video SHOULDN'T be on there. Go on. Psychiclie (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I already did, and you addressed none of what I said. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini He's talking to me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You haven't really said WHY it shouldn't be on there. You've just said that it shouldn't. Give me a compelling argument as to why it's not a good, well composed resource for the Debate page. Psychiclie (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to a video with no informational value in the main body text of an article interrupts the flow of information and adds nothing to the content or theme. You do read what other people post on your talk page, yes? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Off the top of my head... 1) it's from such and obscure source that it only has 11 views, one of which is mine, 0 likes, and 0 dislikes. i.e it's from a nobody. 2) It isn't informative, and I can actually find the full debate online, minus the musical audio if I so wanted. 3) I actually don't have to justify jack fucking squat, you do since you are demanding that the video go into the article(s). Hence you need to give a better reason than what amounts to "I want it to be so." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I'll bet you a 9-hour block that Psychiclie is the one who made that video. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini I'll bet you double that block that not only did he make the video, but that he is also User:Logicnsuch. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh damn, that would make a lot of sense. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This video DOES add to the content. It is both Relevant and humorous. It is obscure, but it is a good video, nonetheless. Nobodies can compose fine media as well. The video is rather informative, picking the most revealing quotes from each debater, and the musical track is a fine touch, considering how the rhetoric tends to line up well with the song. If you do not want the video to be in the article, please give me good reasons. The video is a nice resource for people who don't want to watch the whole debate, since much of it is fluff. I didn't make that video, and it's my first edit on here, but I think it's good to have on there. Overall, it's a fine video. Psychiclie (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If they didn't want to watch a debate, then why are they attempting to watch a debate? Your "logic" mystifies me. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, it's an abridged version that cuts out most of the irrelevant, boring parts. It's an Abridged version. Psychiclie (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... in the context of a debate almost the entirety of the actual debate matter since people might drop a line of thought in order to come back to it after making a point. So yeah, abridged debates are somewhat useless. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this video has the BEST examples of Ken Ham being stupid and Bill Nye proving him wrong. It also has All Star in the background, which I say is a big boost. Psychiclie (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)