User talk:Summa Atheologica

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Summa Atheologica!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

 pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • 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! — Dysk (contribs) 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Biogeography[edit]

I moved your page to: Draft:Biogeography. Please work on it their until it amounts to something. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UnlicensedThinker[edit]

Hi, I don't think you should summarily remove the sysop privilege from this user without a chicken coop case, no matter how egregious it's conduct is. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Ok. I'll give it back and go to the coop.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

When blocking people...[edit]

...for offensive commments, you don't need to say what the offensive comment was. Just remove the comment from the edit window and say "offensive comment" or whatever. Avida Dollarsher again 19:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I guess.Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Don't do it. You had a chance to make your case and you failed to do so. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Given LGM's comment, I think I mostly succeeded in practical terms, even though I agree that mos probably disagreed with me.Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Coop status[edit]

Respect[edit]

You're doing good work, Summa, keep it up. Oxyaena Harass 23:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation.Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocking people[edit]

Try to be lighter and more sparse with your blocks. Your targets may engage in some suspicious bad-faith white-washing and edit warring, but the measure would be assume good faith and leave a message on the page. Short-term blocks for white-washing are a bit too hard: try even shorter blocks, 9 hour max, and/or at least a message telling them to knock it off before using a block. As for edit warring, use short-term protection or a 1-9 hour block, and leave a message on their talk page warning them about their behavior. Of course, if they continue, the block can be a little longer, but imposing a 40 day block, much more an indef block would be way overkill. Imposing 3.6 ban for changing an article POV is overkill as well; some people might not know better (such as not liking the snark in our articles) and actually can have legitimate criticisms for the article but can't express it better. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is only reasonable when the blocked party is not clearly acting in bad faith, as the person you are probably discussing clearly was.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, you shouldn't have blocked a user for making an edit that apparently promotes pseudoscience. Engage with that content please, rather than reverting and blocking for a whopping 9 hours! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
And what should I say? "Dear editor, this link is probably BS. Please remove it."?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That's better than issuing a block? That's how it's supposed to go. If the user has clearly ignored your post, then that would be an edit war and then a short term block can be applied. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Edits[edit]

Why did you just revert my edits to the Falkland Islands? — Unsigned, by: Elzair / talk / contribs

They bordered on whitewashing and attempted to change POV to something not resembling what RW is supposed to be.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 18:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusion regarding Block[edit]

I was hoping to ask why you blocked my IP address? I still had an account but haven`t used it a lot recently, or at all. I have not meant to engage in edit warring and tried to engage in a discussion of the talk page of Positive Christianity and provided sources. I don`t understand how I engaged in whitewashing or BS insertions and I don`t understand why you didn`t first tell me how things I said were incorrect. I acknowledge Pope Pius XI was a Reactionary with semi-Fascist sympathies that fluctuated based on the circumstances, but as many historians especially Stanley G. Payne and Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have noted, Catholics and full Fascists tended to be at odds both because of the anticlerical origins of Fascism and its desire for the state to be supreme in all issues, this caused Far Right Catholics to favour more Traditionalist Authoritarian regimes instead. Pointing out that nuance, (which was already alluded to in other parts of the article), is hardly BS or whitewashing. The involvement of Pope Pius XII in the 20th July plot has been described by many historians, most recently Mark Riebling. Pope Pius XII was more Liberal Conservative than his predecessor, more supportive of democracy and more firmly opposed to ultra-nationalism but still very Conservative compared to all the popes who came after him. Lastly the excommunication decree from the bishops in 1931 has been referenced by multiple historians as well as the Pave the Way Foundation.

I hope this was a proper and constructive was of addressing my confusion over the block of my IP address, I prefer to wait with making any edits to articles from this account until this is resolved. I look forward to your response. JohnLogan (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edits engaged in a policy of denialism of the deep and well-documented links and collaboration between the Catholics and the Nazis. That's why Oxy binned you, for example.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected, but why?[edit]

I get that editors from IPs have a bit of a bad rep on this site, but really, it's not that hard to see that I was trying to make a constructive edit and improve the flow of the Holy Lance popular culture section. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you weren't. The relevant information referred to the historical context of the artifact, and you attempted to turn it into something worthy only of Uncyclopedia.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Very well, I was trying but failed, apparently. The rest of your rationale I don't quite follow (nor do I quite understand what Uncyclopedia has to do with this, never been a fan of the site), is it possible to ask you to elaborate? --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to go read the article I mentioned in my last comment.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
...ah, well I understand your suspicions much better now. In any case, would it be possible to ask the italics around the media titles to be put back? That at least is not grammatically incorrect or controversial. Sorry for any inconvenience. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That has been done.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 23:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks man. --85.76.96.147 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Anything for the betterment of this great wiki.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)