User talk:SixtyNine

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

IMPORTANT[edit]

I have decided I am going to retire from Rational Wiki. I just believe that I need to focus more on my mental health. Any questions should be written down. Thanks! 69Annoy 02:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


GrammarCommie blocks SixtyNine[edit]

And fuck your strawman too. I fucking laid out my fucking suggestions, I'm sorry you're too stupid to read. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh nice, you calmed down so I can edit again. Can't wait for the volcano to explode — Unsigned, by: SixtyNine / talk / contribs

Autopatrolled[edit]

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 ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

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

UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yo, I restored auto patrol to you. At some point later on, if you pinky-swear to me that you’re not a dipshit, I’ll demote you to admin as well. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 03:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
>:-) Thanks.... SixtyNine (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edits on Evolution[edit]

...are of very poor quality. There were so many typographical and style errors that I suggest you propose your changes on the article's talk page first. You may get some guidance there. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Proof? SixtyNine,Discussion
Is it because there is no bullet points? Could you add them? SixtyNine,Discussion
The newcomer's guide provides a lot of good information, including content and article format guidance. Evolution is a cover story article and I suggest that any substantial edits be proposed on the article's talk page, as I noted above. Hope this helps. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks SixtyNine (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Quit it[edit]

You don't want to get into this mess. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Da fuck is going on? Why are you suddenly silencing those with a different opinion to yours? If you have a problem with USHA you should be respectful to him and debate him. This goes against free expression. If you really dislike USHA then don't talk to him and ignore his posts SixtyNine (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
No. I'm preventing a literal child from doing the exact thing he got his ass blocked for 3.6 days for. Mainly because he's too stupid to figure it out himself. Fucking hell, I don't know why I bother managing fucking children... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC)USHA is a long term troll. I hope you can see why some of us don't want to leave his posts around.-Flandres (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
How was the post a troll? He had a source and everything and expressing his opinion. You should debate him if you guys have a problem. SixtyNine (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Sigh... You literally don't know anything about politics do you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC)Debating him in good faith almost never gets anywhere with him. Just look through the archives-most of the community hates him at this point because any "debate" with him turns puerile after like five posts. GC may have jumped the gun a little, but few users who know USHA would fault him too much. Look through the archives...and maybe try not to intervene in a matter when you are lacking basic context.-Flandres (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Look, I am not a conservative (though, I used to be like I used to be a Young Earth Creationist). But I believe that RationalWiki should be a place where people should have respectful debates about stuff. Just deleting and blocking people who are not left wing goes against the spirit of Rationalism. Then we are no more than the Catholic Church who accuse Galileo over heliocentrism. And as conservative websites go, its not that bad... (though, I understand this is a fallacy but still) SixtyNine (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I know GC can defend himself, but I can't help but notice you operate under the assumption USHA debates in good faith. Ask Duce, Lefygreenmario, Bongolian, Plutocow...pretty much any other user who regularly deals with him.-Flandres (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't block him in this instance. Further, your use of the Galileo Gambit betrays your ignorance. USHA isn't Galileo, he's a dumbfuck highschooler that gets his opinions spoonfed to him by uncritically swallowing political propaganda. I have zero interest in babysitting his sorry ass. Furthermore, I do not believe in supporting PRATTs or giving undue weight to idiots, as that would not be engaging with subjects using critical thinking skills. FURTHERMORE, the fact that you're accusing a man who spends half his time berating his own political allies really exposes just how many assumptions you've made about my views and character. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I have not use the Galileo Gambit: "The Galileo gambit...is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right — "everyone says I am wrong, therefore I am right." I do not believe USHA to be right; I am just saying that science and Rationality is based on the idea that we should consider all evidence. SixtyNine (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
No. Science and rationality are based on the idea that we should consider evidence insofar as it is credible/provable. See also Creationism, crystal healing, homeopathy, anti-vaxxers, race "science", etc etc etc etc etc etc.... We should not consider WOMBATs, PRATTs, or dumbfuckery from political hacks. The topic in question was political hackery. How do I know this? It came from a source with a reputation for having shaky reliability at best. USHA has been repeatedly told to cite better sources, and the fact that he chooses not to speaks volumes about both his media diet and his lack of intellectual honesty. As I said at the beginning, you don't want to get into this mess. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but its not the Galileo Gambit fallacy. I'm just not gonna bother with this anymore. I will let it go. SixtyNine (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I was going to continue contesting the point, but that would put me in Bad Faith, and I can't in all honesty do that when you've said you'll let the matter go. Apologies for being irritable. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There’s a reason we don’t have references on talkpages[edit]

Christopher (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste stuff from Wikipedia[edit]

It's pointless, both for our readers (who can just go to Wikipedia and read it) and for you (cause, what's the point? It's not entertaining or anything. You can better spend your time on other things.)

Valete. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rairyu75 Couldn't you wait to see what other people would have thought of it first? I put in a lot of effort into that article. :( SixtyNine (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Trying to save UShistoryanalzyer ass[edit]

But I got caught 69Annoy 01:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You were banned for an hour for impersonation at 01:33 by Bongolian. While you may have had good faith intentions, what you did was still disgraceful. Signature forgery is a problem. Also it would only make his case worse if he, y'know, doesn't reform.--Gale5050 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
My question is why you guys didn't view this guy with suspicion considering that highly questionable act in combo with his "you can't fire me, I quit!" response. He's either a sock or an IRL friend of US. You guys have an exceptionally high tolerance threshold for provocateurs; maybe that's part of why you have so much drama around here. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:5D71:EED8:7320:C28E (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Eh, compared to true troll shitholes like 4Chan and 8chan this is nothin'. At any rate, this troll / possible sock is blocked for a few days. I'd petition to remove this troll's autopatrolled status, based on the last few edits (impersonation and page blanking), but that's just me. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "comparing favorably to 4chan and 8chan" is really where you want to be. That's like the 2016 Browns being ok that they didn't do as bad as the 08' Lions. Maybe you should strive to rank among the .500 teams. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not associated with Ken.[edit]

I am just ashamed at how I'm treated. I tried to be nice to people but I was treated like crap back. 69Annoy 02:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll downgrade your ban to three weeks. But why did you talk about RW's Alexa rank then? Plutocow (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I saw the public logs. Wanted to piss you off. I have already have another account here and have edited for a while but you probably don't know what it is. 69Annoy 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, don't expect me to unblock you... unless you can reveal the identity of this account. Plutocow (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, no. Maybe you can guess what account it is? 69Annoy 03:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not playing that game. Anyway, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't get along with you when you admit you do things to piss people off. Plutocow (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)