User talk:Roo

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Roo!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted. --Roo (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Calling someone stupid doesn't make them stupid. Show, don't tell. If you describe crank ideas well, the crankery will be obvious. Name-calling just looks like name calling. Telling people to Google shit in the middle of an article is asking the reader to do your research for you. TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Noted. BTW I have found his "main" paper. If someone can attach this link to the part where it says "citation needed" I would be highly appreciative. The crankiness will be apparent. Roo (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric Dollard[edit]

Start the article in your sandbox, and bring it to the mainspace when it's more than one sentence. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stellar metamorphosis[edit]

I reverted your change to Stellar metamorphosis as they significantly changed the tone and content of the article. Specifically, the new version you put up actually seems to take this nonsense seriously. If your physics claims are primarily backed up by ViXra and YouTube links, then it is almost certainly wrong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I corrected your grammar to make sure people do not think you are an idiot or someone talking out of a knee jerk reaction. Roo (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2015 (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:

Thank you. I really have been editing only one article though. I feel like I'm just watering one tree in the forest because it looks might grow some weird fruit. Roo (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it will (and that's a fresh analogy, for the record)! We just need to work a lot on the English in the article. Other than that, though! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we can and should be patient with spelling and grammar errors as long as we can understand what the writer is trying to say. We look forward to working with you. Reverend Black Percy just turned on the Bat-signal ran around town asking people to help improve that article. Nerd271 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I prefer the bat signal analogy. Batman running around town ringing doorbells sounds more like trick-or-treating on Halloween than like a legit superhero assembling his league of justice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. This article needs attention, it is not your regular crank theory which claims untestables, this bozo is literally saying that the scientific method has a huge blind spot, the unknown, unknowns. That in itself signals higher order thinking, regardless if it is coming from an isolated crackpot. I don't give a shit if this entire article is deleted, I just thought it would be a good idea to pay attention to areas of the internet that could be creeping up unnoticed and then completely take over huge portions of the population, like Scientiology did. Poor example, I know, but damn. That's how that shit goes down. Its not vetted early.Roo (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"Deleted"!? It's a great article! It just needs help to go bronze, then silver, then gold. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


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 POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

...and it only took three years! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
THREE YEARS.Roo (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Possibly a mall ninja[edit]

Hey buddy! Just wanted to ask, considering your new userpage... You, uh, are aware that you are in fact not a Ninja? All the best champ, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's what that means. Its whatever. I just like the idea of being a ninja in real life. Roo (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully, I know much about being a ninja in real life. Most importantly; all about the ninja magic, and their way of life. Enjoy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Stellar metamorphosis[edit]

Hi there. Good work so far on the stellar metamorphosis page. It could use some clean up work as follows in my view:

  • Giving better citation formats: not just raw http. You can follow my examples (references 1 to 38). This helps readers figure out the source without having to click on the link.
  • Clarifying the point of view: does the statement pertain to the stellar metamorphosis hypothesis or is it the scientific consensus?
  • Giving evidence with a citation of why each part of the hypothesis is wrong.

I started working on this myself, but I got stuck on the "Location of fusion reactions" section. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.
  • I will try to follow the references 1 to 38 to help the readers out.
  • This is tricky. A lot of this theory accepts scientific consensus, yet applies the scientific consensus in places that is ignored. Like for instance, heterolysis is the actual breaking up of a molecule into positive and negative ions, yet in SM it is applied to the solar wind, and the scientific consensus as far as I have found does not mention this anywhere. So, does not mentioning it mean that their consensus is that it does not happen? Is the consensus that heterolysis does not occur on the surface of the Sun because nobody mentions it?
  • This is also tricky. This is a fully formed theory that contradicts hundreds of assumptions. I would approach from the avenue, "what assumptions are taken as fact in the consensus", or "what assumptions are changed". For instance, it is made clear that the assumption of Earth having always been rocky/liquid material is not accepted in stellar metamorphosis. An assumption is not a hypothesis, they are like givens in geometric proofs, unprovable statements that are used to work the theory into a giant circle so that it is self consistent. Remove the assumptions and the whole theory falls apart. In SM, the assumption that Earth was always liquid/solid structure is false, in that we have observational evidence of literally thousands of objects a bit larger than Earth but mostly comprised of gaseous material. Which leads to the theory itself, since there are thousands of slightly larger gaseous objects observed, drawing the conclusion that Earth resembled one of those would match up. That's why this theory is scary, it does not attack the "facts" of scientific consensus, it attacks the root of the consensus where it can be completely dismantled. It attacks the assumptions. Jeffrey Wolynski is attacking the assumptions, because he knows by attacking those, the facts will change.Roo (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Cosmology Theory[edit]

the gravity vs anti-gravity recycling mechanism Derek Nalls

This is my tired light theory that I simply want an active editor (such as yourself) to add to "Alternative Cosmology, Other Models". Although I could create an account and become an editor just to do this one thing on Rational Wiki myself, I hope you understand that I just don't have the heart to give two years of research the derisive and insulting description that the senior editors here would most likely think it deserves. After all, it agrees with aspects of the Placid Universe Model & the Infinite, Non-Expanding Universe Theory which are not getting rave reviews here. Please try to come to terms with the fact that the Big Bang Theory lacks the characteristics of a scientific theory and is unproven. Thank you. — Unsigned, by: / talk

I see it. I would put it up anyways. There is lots of scientism here, so new theories are going to be ridiculed lots. My word of advice is to look at it as normal, as most people in general cannot stand to have their worldview threatened, whether it is in their best interest or not. Roo (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)