User talk:Summa Atheologica

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

Check out 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! 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! 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! 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)

How not to make puff pieces[edit]

Hello! I recently found out a few of the articles I've been writing for sociologists have been getting deleted, because apparently people are calling them puff pieces. I don't really understand why, considering that I'm trying to summarize their work and give access to people who might be interested in the literature they have, and am wondering what exactly should I be doing to improve these articles. I'm not exactly clear on the 'standards' that I'm supposed to be writing for, nor am I quite sure what people want when they say its "non-missional". If I could get some feedback for this, that would be great, thanks in advance.Forpsionics (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2020 (PST)

Crust displacement[edit]

Hi, uh, did you look at the content of my edits? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I did. They removed perfectly good information and damaged the logical flow of the article.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree; I expanded the topics that were already in the article. I wasn't aware of removing anything. What information do you think I removed? I have no objections to others revising my writing, but overall I think I added useful stuff. Would you like to ask for input from others? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to know what was removed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes[edit]

Hey, how do I add user boxes like the ones you have to my profile? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a guide at RationalWiki:Userboxes.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove the userbox categories.[edit]

See title.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 07:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? They're useful and if you want them removed so much, go and remove them yourself, and absorb the backlash.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty?[edit]

Really? Have you tried reading this Wikipedia articleWikipedia, for example? Whether insects are able to experience pain or not is controversial, and it is difficult to know for sure. Note that I never claimed that they definitively aren't able to feel pain - just that there is a distinction between them and animals that are certain to be able to feel pain. Besides, you're reverting my edit which removes the argument that is essentially "veganism is hypocritical because vegans don't care about insects". Do you see how dangerous this line of reasoning is? If we treat all living beings as the same, then slavery becomes acceptable, so too murder for cannibalism, etc. If you don't see the difference between a mosquito and a dog, then it's likely you're going to face jail time for animal abuse. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny that you cite Wikipedia. Also funny that it disagrees with your claim. I hope you never get patrolled.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Coop[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

Check mod nominations. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Are you running?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
No. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ummmmm[edit]

Why do you have a picture of a naked woman on your user page? AceModerator 22:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It comes from an old edit war. See the edit history of the page linked in the caption.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can't because I am at work and while I have my own office I still wouldn't want someone coming in at the wrong moment. AceModerator 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you ask?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Because I was thinking to myself if that was a naked picture of you then that's OK but if not you does the person in question know there is a naked picture of them sitting publicly on RW. AceModerator 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The image is from Wikimedia Commons. So I imagine it’s okay for public use. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
just checking everything is above board. AceModerator 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Female supremacy[edit]

Hi Summa, I note that you deleted my discussion of female supremacy in the talk discussion that related to the discussion that was deleted in the actual article about female supremacy. I can find no explanation. Do I not deserve an explanation or am I just completely dumb? Please show me the kindness of putting something in that talk section at the bottom to replace my apparent violation of the rules, as I am confused. I will give you a few days before I escalate this to obtain suitable feedback about my conduct. Thanks.

Let's see what's wrong with this.

1. You don't just randomly past talk page comments from other pages, you link to them.
2. You are in no position to threaten me.
3. I was unable to find any evidence of you editing Cosmikdebris's talk page, as you said you did, while looking through your contributions. That itself is enough to lead to suspicion. 𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Summa, I have to say, that I find your repeated deletions of anything I write without ever offering any explanation to be somewhat unfair. Will you at least allow this comment to stand? {{User:John Smith}}

I wrote explanations in my edit summaries, which you can view by clicking the tab marked "fossil record" in the top right corner of the page. Also, sign your comments with four tildes (~) after them.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, the feedback I am getting is that I am a Noob and look dishonest. I accept this, but I'm not sure I will ever find time to write on this wiki. Sorry. John Smith (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, I never used the phase "leave and never coming back". I am also honest enough to admit that I am a Noob and I played it wrong. I should have started by reading the rules. Writing RationalWiki articles isn't as easy as it looks though. The review process is thorough, even harsh when you get it wrong. Just realused my phone doesn't have tildas! John Smith.

Don't remove talkpage comments[edit]

If they don't break our blocking policy. Someone going "I thought it was RATIONALwiki" does not constitute a talkpage removal. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, because it seemed spam-like.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 22:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobic comments[edit]

Summa your posting here is phrased in an islamophobic way. I hope you recognise that replacing this with "some Turkish" instead of Muslim (something that could easily be swapped without changing any of the meaning) would make the phrase entirely accurate without the loaded meaning. Do you still stand by what you posted? ShabiDOO 13:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Murdering Turkish children as opposed to murdering Muslim children is still murdering children...--Hastur! (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I realize it could be taken in that way, but saying "Turkish/Kurdish/Azeri/Circassian/Chechen... etc children" would be unwieldy so I used the term "Muslim" as shorthand.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Could you go easy with the block button? A then mod mentioned this before. Christopher (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Which blocks specifically do you think were unjustified?𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your most and third most recent blocks, and your removal of a talkpage comment by one of the BoNs you blocked (removing talkpage comments is also something a mod has asked you not to do before). “Right wing deceit” and “being a tankie apologist” aren’t good reasons to block someone. Christopher (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, so you blocked me because you think I'm a shill, please explain how that reasoning doesn't violate the site's blocking policy[edit]

You blocked me in Feb, and said that I was a shill. That's not true, and, more importantly, that's not a valid reason for blocking someone.

The reasons for blocking someone are: Malicious editing occurs when somebody wants to harm RationalWiki. Because it does not contribute to constructive dialogue, and merely causes disorder, malicious editing is a blockable offense.

If you have the ability, please explain your reasoning. You must have reason to say that my contribution was malicious, so explain it.

21:35, 25 February 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Shilling, likely ban evasion.) — Unsigned, by: Mytechtoday / talk / contribs

You are the same person that's been vandalizing that page for months. repeatedly evading blocks, and, yes, I can block you, as Kevlarstar did. Nice try at puffing. Goodbye.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We don’t block people just because they’re the subject of an article[edit]

This is ridiculous. He isn’t keeping his conflict of interest a secret, and took his concerns to the talkpage when asked. I’ve objected to some of your blocks before, but this is more serious, we can’t ban people just for having an issue with what we say about them. Christopher (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe this guy is Michael Coombs though, he loves to impersonate people that we criticize. GeeJayK (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The account was created in 2012 and doesn’t fit his very consistent pattern at all (Johnston isn’t notable for racism, no mention of “antifa”, etc), we can’t just ban everyone who complains about our articles because they might be him. Christopher (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(EC) You're right, I didn't know the account was so old. GeeJayK (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's still not autopatrolled and he was edit-warring.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
He clearly isn’t experienced with wikis and doesn’t know what an edit war is. He edit warred a tiny bit 3 days ago, the only edit he made today was to a talk page. Even if he was edit warring, just protect the page again. There’s absolutely no justification for any block, let alone a three week one. Christopher (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to post to the Saloon section of RationalWiki and I am getting this message[edit]

I am trying to post to the Saloon section of RationalWiki and I am getting this message:

"A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

Function: Revision::insertOn Error: 3 Error writing file '/tmp/MLanwojx' (Errcode: 28 "No space left on device") (db1.rationalwiki.org)"

Is this a problem for the whole website or just that portion of RationalWiki?Eat More Vegetables (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m having similar problems, although some edits are clearly getting through. Christopher (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem went away for me.Eat More Vegetables (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It's probably a server issue and you should ask for help here.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)