|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:RationalP
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, RationalP!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Bongolian (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't remove stuff without talking about it[edit]
When you're removing information about the pseudoscience that people promote, we'll usually revert it. Removing information already in articles is frowned upon unless it's unsourced and a cn template has been up for a long time or it's vandalism. Please do not remove it until you've reached an agreement on the talk page. Also, ew, genetics. That's like the worst part of biology. Well, and biochemistry. L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, that's not how and should editing work ("Avoid edit wars. If an edit you make is repeatedly reverted, or someone has otherwise objected to it, then discuss it on the article's talk page. It is the best possible way for editors to reach any sort of understanding or compromise"). Secondly, I do not give a damn about your consideration about genetics and biochemistry, if anything, I could tell the same thing about you - ew, when someone has such a viewpoint about this disciplines, it tells much about person's integrity and rationality.--RationalP (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I'm suggesting that you do. Jeez, have you ever heard of a joke? L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Basically you do not understand the process of editing - 1st edit (their) - 2nd revert (my) - 3rd discussion (mutual) - 4th consensus (mutual). Sorry, joke-not-found.--RationalP (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- You never read what this website is about: debunking pseudo-science. Yet you show up defending racialism which is a pseudoscience. You won't ever change the consensus here that your irrational racialist pseudoscience is actual science.Zeros (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not care what some ideological bots think about when they obviously do not understand the difference between science and pseudo-science, that I did not defend racialism anyhow.--RationalP (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You showed up defending Kirkegaard & Piffer who are both racialists. This strongly suggests you are yourself a racialist and its clear from your language and activities here you are ideologically driven. Normal people might edit something like astonomy or cats, instead you come here to fixate on controversial or fringe topics like "race and IQ". Kirkegaard is also a pedophile apologist who wrote he supports child rape, are you going to defend him on that as well?Zeros (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Pedophilia Zeros (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- "This strongly suggests you are yourself a racialist and its clear from your language and activities here you are ideologically driven" - that's defamation, personal attack, and exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, what you write is pure nonsense bullshit. When you start a discussion in such a way that you also make presumptions that an editor is also going to defend pedophilia you already discredited yourself because you know that you already lost the discussion, or do not have a will and good faith intention (which is by the way violation of Wiki policy) for a normal and rational discussion.--RationalP (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- And yet you accused virtually everyone who disagreed with you on Piffer's talk as being "radical left wing", "ANTIFA", "ideologically biased" etc. Hypocritical much? What was that about "exceptional claims need exceptional evidence"? You defame and post misinformation about others, but when someone points out the fact you're an alt right troll, you don't like it.Zeros (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- "This strongly suggests you are yourself a racialist and its clear from your language and activities here you are ideologically driven" - that's defamation, personal attack, and exceptional claims need exceptional evidence, what you write is pure nonsense bullshit. When you start a discussion in such a way that you also make presumptions that an editor is also going to defend pedophilia you already discredited yourself because you know that you already lost the discussion, or do not have a will and good faith intention (which is by the way violation of Wiki policy) for a normal and rational discussion.--RationalP (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Pedophilia Zeros (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You showed up defending Kirkegaard & Piffer who are both racialists. This strongly suggests you are yourself a racialist and its clear from your language and activities here you are ideologically driven. Normal people might edit something like astonomy or cats, instead you come here to fixate on controversial or fringe topics like "race and IQ". Kirkegaard is also a pedophile apologist who wrote he supports child rape, are you going to defend him on that as well?Zeros (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not care what some ideological bots think about when they obviously do not understand the difference between science and pseudo-science, that I did not defend racialism anyhow.--RationalP (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You never read what this website is about: debunking pseudo-science. Yet you show up defending racialism which is a pseudoscience. You won't ever change the consensus here that your irrational racialist pseudoscience is actual science.Zeros (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Basically you do not understand the process of editing - 1st edit (their) - 2nd revert (my) - 3rd discussion (mutual) - 4th consensus (mutual). Sorry, joke-not-found.--RationalP (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I'm suggesting that you do. Jeez, have you ever heard of a joke? L̤̈ÿ̤n̤̈n̤̈R̤̈ (̈ẗ̤ä̤l̤̈k̤̈)̈ (̈c̤̈ö̤n̤̈ẗ̤r̤̈ï̤b̤̈s̤̈)̈ @ 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Question[edit]
Did you read RW's racialism article? If so, you should understand racialism/hereditarianism is pseudo-science. You're pretty much a crank to come here arguing this stuff is "rational" like how a creationist argues young earth creationism is "rational".Zeros (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Spare me of your pseudo-intellectualism and irrationality. Instead of writing bullshit as racialism and hereditarianism are not mutual synonyms, you should read a bit of most recent scientific research (if you're not already ideologically indoctrinated and outdated): for e.g. Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings (2015), Socioeconomic status and genetic influences on cognitive development (2017), Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence (2017).--RationalP (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I already responded to your irrational cherry-picking of sources on the OpenPsych pseudojournals talk. You were also refuted about Piffer not being a racialist on his talk. Racialism and hereditarianism are the same thing. You aren't ever going to find someone who applies the hereditarianism position to only countries - "hereditarian" cranks are always race-obsessed with "Blacks", "Whites" etc and apply their dodgy research to entire continents (this shows in Kirkegaard and Piffer's writings). Zeros (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- When an irrational cherry-picking person as yourself accuses other of the very same thing - sorry, it does not work, in psychology that's called psychological projection. Once again, you are intentionally making the exclusive ideological identification between racialism and hereditarianism, and as current and future intelligence research will advance with you ideological indoctrination will intentionally be against hereditarianism in general on in regard to human intelligence although it is already proven, most blatantly in the case of twins. Please, you can stick with your irrational ideology in your fictional safe space, and leave science for adults and rational thinkers.--RationalP (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nice straw man again, Mr. pseudo-intellectual. The "hereditarianism" on racialism only pertains to population/group differences. That is the only thing RationalWiki disputes; read the following quote from Lewontin, concerning between group heritability. Twin studies are completely irrelevant since we already know heritability of IQ is high for individuals.Zeros (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- When an irrational cherry-picking person as yourself accuses other of the very same thing - sorry, it does not work, in psychology that's called psychological projection. Once again, you are intentionally making the exclusive ideological identification between racialism and hereditarianism, and as current and future intelligence research will advance with you ideological indoctrination will intentionally be against hereditarianism in general on in regard to human intelligence although it is already proven, most blatantly in the case of twins. Please, you can stick with your irrational ideology in your fictional safe space, and leave science for adults and rational thinkers.--RationalP (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I already responded to your irrational cherry-picking of sources on the OpenPsych pseudojournals talk. You were also refuted about Piffer not being a racialist on his talk. Racialism and hereditarianism are the same thing. You aren't ever going to find someone who applies the hereditarianism position to only countries - "hereditarian" cranks are always race-obsessed with "Blacks", "Whites" etc and apply their dodgy research to entire continents (this shows in Kirkegaard and Piffer's writings). Zeros (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Block[edit]
@Spriggina first and foremost, nowhere on any Wiki is given such expiration time for the first block, especially in the case of "alleged edit warring" and "w(it's written with v)andalism", and "alleged rudeness" being a response to others rudeness. Secondly, you need to note the editor and provide the evidence on which claims the block was made - give the evidence in which I "vandalized" RationalWiki! Thirdly, you do not ignore others rudeness because they are supporting your ideological agenda. Your block is unsubstantiated, it is pathetic, an attempt to push away someone from editing RationalWiki. For example, your revert, so, basically, you support irrational postmodernism on RationalWiki? You intentionally ignored the discussion on the talk page in which I cited quotes from notable scientists, while what did others? Where are their arguments? No one bats an eye on this Wiki that all the sock accounts, or a majority of editors, are not even capable of constructive and rational discussion. This wiki became a ridicule of its own name.--RationalP (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- I unblocked you. By the way, "wandalism" is a neologism on this site. CowHouse (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Where in the world are you getting the "you need to provide evidence of vandalism" from? We have never sourced every single block, nor do we have to discuss removing terrible edits on the talk page as you seem to think. We can clearly look at your edit history: all of them have either been engaging in flame wars, listing PRATTs (not a bannable offense, I'm just listing everything so you don't go on another semantics tirade), and making pages related to racialism, as well as Jordan Peterson, slightly to much worse by whitewashing them under the guise of "removing bias," even though it is made abundantly clear that RationalWiki is not NPOV. You have absolutely no right to complain about my ideological agenda. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- You cannot block someone without any valid argument, an ideological admin cannot block someone because subjectively does not suit their perception, that's ideological censorship par excellence. That's what happening at Google and Twitter, leading to lawsuits. I already said my point about articles related to racialism.--RationalP (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- RationalP is an alt-right troll. His first edits were vandalising/removing content from Davide Piffer and also complaining about the Emil Kirkegaard article - so he showed up to defend known racialists and neo-Nazis and was also defending pseudoscientific theories about racee & IQ. His other replies are all snarky, constantly accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being an "SJW" or "postmodernist": notice his language terminology is straight from the alt-right glossary. I don't see RationalP as a constructive editor.Dr. Witt (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Dr. Witt One small correction, RationalP has never accused another user of being a "SJW", and
they never commented on the Emil Kirkegaard article. Check their contributions if you don't believe me. CowHouse (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) - OK, I just realised you said complaining about the Kirkegaard article, not actually editing it. So I might be wrong. CowHouse (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The best part about some left-wing lunatics is that you find things about yourself nobody knows, as saying goes, only God knows what. It is pathetic nonsense, it only proves the point I hit the ideological nail, they are SJW and postmodernists with alt-left language terminology, who despise when someone describes them for what they are, and yet dare to declare others, for what I am not, as alt-right, a troll, vandal, defender of racism, neo-Nazism, pseudoscience (which is the best one being a scientist myself), among others, in which they totally ignore the point of my edits and complaints and that is irrational editing quality.--RationalP (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do not edit other users talkpage comments. Comrade GC (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you GrammarNazi.--RationalP (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's GrammarCommie. Comrade GC (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's no difference between a black and red fascist.--RationalP (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Authoritarianism. Comrade GC (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Both are authoritarian, you discredited yourself. Besides, I quoted Wilhelm Reich who was a communist sympathizer (presume you never read "Listen, Little Man!").--RationalP (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- The quote you used implied that both Communism and Nazism are forms of Fascism, that is incorrect. Comrade GC (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Both are authoritarian, you discredited yourself. Besides, I quoted Wilhelm Reich who was a communist sympathizer (presume you never read "Listen, Little Man!").--RationalP (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Authoritarianism. Comrade GC (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's no difference between a black and red fascist.--RationalP (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's GrammarCommie. Comrade GC (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you GrammarNazi.--RationalP (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do not edit other users talkpage comments. Comrade GC (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- The best part about some left-wing lunatics is that you find things about yourself nobody knows, as saying goes, only God knows what. It is pathetic nonsense, it only proves the point I hit the ideological nail, they are SJW and postmodernists with alt-left language terminology, who despise when someone describes them for what they are, and yet dare to declare others, for what I am not, as alt-right, a troll, vandal, defender of racism, neo-Nazism, pseudoscience (which is the best one being a scientist myself), among others, in which they totally ignore the point of my edits and complaints and that is irrational editing quality.--RationalP (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Dr. Witt One small correction, RationalP has never accused another user of being a "SJW", and
Question[edit]
RationalP, what's your response to the fact Emil Kirkegaard has been described as a child-rape apologist and neo-Nazi in news sources? See also this Guardian article. Wasn't this something you complained about RationalWiki for documenting? Now we have mainstream newspapers saying the exact same thing.SkepticDave (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, why I should reply to some obvious sock account? Secondly, did I? Thirdly, if there is evidence for these words with specific malicious context and now is reported in reliable newspapers, then edit it, just what you need, my blessing? --RationalP (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have amnesia? You were defending your paedophile buddy Kirkegaard, above. You wrote: "When you start a discussion in such a way that you also make presumptions that an editor is also going to defend pedophilia you already discredited yourself because you know that you already lost the discussion". Now though it is widely reported in the media Kirkegaard is a paedophile/child-rape apologist. Will you retract your erroneous statement? Also, your first edits were on the Davide Piffer/Open Psych journals that Kirkegaard publishes; Piffer has recently been described as a racist with neo-Nazi/white supremacist links in a newspaper. Piffer whose RW article you wanted to revert - is a pseudoscientist who believes in psychokinesis and thinks Uri Geller is a genuine physic; do you believe in this wacky pseudoscience too?SkepticDave (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- What a pathetic personal attack on me, what is your real account username, Zeros? Do you want to report you to administrators? No, I won't retract anything because I do not need to, I did not defend Kirkegaard nor his "pedophilia claims" (nor will ever) nor he is my buddy, also, D. Piffer is not a pseudoscientist (he mostly publish in peer-reviewed and reputable journals), as for his alleged "racist with neo-Nazi/white supremacist links in a newspaper", firstly you should provide a link to the newspaper, secondly only because of participation in conference it does not make someone a "racist with Neo-Nazi/white supremacist links".--RationalP (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- lol. How is Piffer not a pseudoscientist? He claims he has psychic abilities and supports Uri Geller. As for his racist links, are you aware he is a "research fellow" for a white supremacist institute - Richard Lynn's UISR, and that he published in the Mankind Quarterly? See bold ... [saw the quote] ... http://londonstudent.coop/news/2018/01/10/exposed-london-eugenics-conferences-neo-nazi-links/ How do you also explain reviewers for OpenPysch journal submissions include neo-Nazis like Kevin MacDonald? SkepticDave (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- What a pathetic personal attack on me, what is your real account username, Zeros? Do you want to report you to administrators? No, I won't retract anything because I do not need to, I did not defend Kirkegaard nor his "pedophilia claims" (nor will ever) nor he is my buddy, also, D. Piffer is not a pseudoscientist (he mostly publish in peer-reviewed and reputable journals), as for his alleged "racist with neo-Nazi/white supremacist links in a newspaper", firstly you should provide a link to the newspaper, secondly only because of participation in conference it does not make someone a "racist with Neo-Nazi/white supremacist links".--RationalP (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have amnesia? You were defending your paedophile buddy Kirkegaard, above. You wrote: "When you start a discussion in such a way that you also make presumptions that an editor is also going to defend pedophilia you already discredited yourself because you know that you already lost the discussion". Now though it is widely reported in the media Kirkegaard is a paedophile/child-rape apologist. Will you retract your erroneous statement? Also, your first edits were on the Davide Piffer/Open Psych journals that Kirkegaard publishes; Piffer has recently been described as a racist with neo-Nazi/white supremacist links in a newspaper. Piffer whose RW article you wanted to revert - is a pseudoscientist who believes in psychokinesis and thinks Uri Geller is a genuine physic; do you believe in this wacky pseudoscience too?SkepticDave (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you Davide Piffer?[edit]
Your account seems single purpose and most edits were on Piffer/Open Psych pseudojournals, You showed up and said Davide Piffer has been "defamed" (despite he hasn't - the RW article just documents his pseudoscience); you also posted the OpenPsych pseudojournals (that are similar to creationist journals), are legitimate science journals. So are you Piffer, or someone from OpenPsych? And how do you feel about the fact a child-rape apologist (Kirkegaard) publishes the journals you showed up to revert? Does that not bother you?SkepticDave (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am not, and no, I do not care about some claims which are something judiciary or police should deal with. --RationalP (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- ??? So why show up to revert stuff on the Open Psych journals? Those journals are pseudo-science journals published by a child-rape apologist/paedophile; Piffer is also involved in publishing them. Has he spoken out yet against Kirkegaard? If not, why? SkepticDave (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- What the do you want from me? I'm a scientist who studies genetics and am more than familiar with recent intelligence research (including GWAS analysis). Only because Piffer published in "pseudo" journal does not ignore the fact most of his articles are published in "scientific" journals, and it does not make him a pseudoscientist. Why should I know if Piffer has spoken out or not? I do not know him nor I care.--RationalP (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- ??? So why show up to revert stuff on the Open Psych journals? Those journals are pseudo-science journals published by a child-rape apologist/paedophile; Piffer is also involved in publishing them. Has he spoken out yet against Kirkegaard? If not, why? SkepticDave (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- What is your relationship with Kirkegaard and Piffer? Have you published in their journals? Asian dude (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit conflicts..[edit]
Your edit on the J Peterson page was reverted by a sysop. You then reverted their edit. Many editors find this to be too aggressive. Please go to the talk page to discuss. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- He removed my whole edit, without any valid reason (probably just to piss me off), you did not, there's a difference in aggressiveness and credibility.--RationalP (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please just calm down. My advice is not to attack RationalWiki and complain about the leftists. This site is left-leaning. What you can do is correct inaccuracies. Don't overdo it. You can't scrub the attitude out of the article completely. Peterson supports conservative views on life, but he is not a child molester. What do you expect? Be a mensch.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ariel, the majority of people I know, including me, are left-leaning liberals, who belong to the massive gray area in the middle including right-leaning liberals, between radical left-wing and right-wing ideologies which in recent decades are making political, social, educational dimension of a society polarized to the point it becomes total chaos. I did not attack the Wiki, yet the recent editors whose (ideological) approach should not be tolerated. I am open to criticism of Peterson on the article, but not in such a way, not to mention that the style it was edited was a total mess.--RationalP (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- My advice is to make careful edits and stay calm and be affable. Listen to the advice of active sysops, and don't piss pff the moderators. Some people get angry with me when I am outright trying to befriend them. I'll live. Be cool.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ariel, the majority of people I know, including me, are left-leaning liberals, who belong to the massive gray area in the middle including right-leaning liberals, between radical left-wing and right-wing ideologies which in recent decades are making political, social, educational dimension of a society polarized to the point it becomes total chaos. I did not attack the Wiki, yet the recent editors whose (ideological) approach should not be tolerated. I am open to criticism of Peterson on the article, but not in such a way, not to mention that the style it was edited was a total mess.--RationalP (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please just calm down. My advice is not to attack RationalWiki and complain about the leftists. This site is left-leaning. What you can do is correct inaccuracies. Don't overdo it. You can't scrub the attitude out of the article completely. Peterson supports conservative views on life, but he is not a child molester. What do you expect? Be a mensch.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Dude, Ariel314159 (I think, it might be someone else) is working on fixing the page. You don't have to completely whitewash it and remove gigantic sections of data; it will be better soon. I'm sorry that we don't completely agree with your political worldview, but you can't whitewash criticism of the people you like. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 21:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- This are very bad arguments because there's no way I can know someone is working on the article, nor there is evidence someone is working on the article nor the current revision is of enough quality criticism it should be kept, nevertheless how much "gigantic" the information is. Saying that other editors can't "whitewash criticism" is wrong, it ignores the context, and that is editing should be done according to certain values. It can't be made by a first schmok behind the corner who felt offended and doesn't understand a thing about psychology and write certain things representing them as legit criticism. Sorry, rational criticism doesn't function like that. On that basis, I will revert the revision again, and someone more competent, let's say it is Ariel, since you mentioned, to do it from "healthy" basics and not this mess of a revision. I don't understand what my political worldview has anything to do with editing, nor how much is different from your's i.e. official of RationalWiki, since you mentioned that then address how much is different my which is left-leaning liberal. It doesn't have anything to do with my liking of Peterson, actually, I don't even follow him, but can't even ignore him when media is constantly writing about him, as in recent due to TV interview.--RationalP (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if we've spelled this out for you yet, but you've done it multiple times now and still don't seem to get the point.
- When you make an edit on an article's or your talk page, that doesn't entitle you to remove information unless there is an actual consensus or at least one person that's not you agrees, which you haven't demonstrated yet.
- Stop doing this. Like I said, Ariel314159 is removing the unfounded criticism at a reasonable level, and he will leave the deserved criticism, because Jordan Peterson does deserve criticism, even though he's an "academic," as your flimsy excuse on his talk page says. So far, you haven't sourced any of your claims, so I'm not going to be very receptive to you removing nearly 25 kilobytes of information from a page. Sρɾıɡɡınɑ (τɑlk) (conτɾıbs) @ 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please listen to Spriggina, who is an active sysops. Learn to negotiate the changes you want to make. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, you stop supporting such ideological polarization of academics on RationalWiki! For f* sake, someone added a category that he is a right-wing activist, or that he supports conspiracy theories among others (and you dare to say it was "sourced claim"), the part about psychology is out of context, many of the opinions are redundant, not to mention the style it was written is bad. It is completely pathetic to keep it. My negotiation is to remove this wall of stupidity and let older editors to do their editing properly.--RationalP (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Continue edit warring and you will likely find yourself blocked again. Comrade GC (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please listen to this solid advice. GrammarCommie is exactly right: if you fight with other editors you get blocked. Calm down. Please. I think you could make a positive contribution. Don't ruin your chance to do so by trying to be a dictator. We want input for changes. Take a look at the talk page for the article. There's new stuff.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, you stop supporting such ideological polarization of academics on RationalWiki! For f* sake, someone added a category that he is a right-wing activist, or that he supports conspiracy theories among others (and you dare to say it was "sourced claim"), the part about psychology is out of context, many of the opinions are redundant, not to mention the style it was written is bad. It is completely pathetic to keep it. My negotiation is to remove this wall of stupidity and let older editors to do their editing properly.--RationalP (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)