User talk:Winston Smith III

I don't think there's a half-hearted {{welcome}} template so I'll just say: RationalWiki is not Wikipedia. Scream!! (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Winston Smith III. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

meet that need?--Miekal 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really - it's a tad too unwelcoming. I think this guy's heart's in the right place; just too … aaah … forthright.

here

If you can actually back up the statements being said in your edits, then have This to show it in. I'm not against your edits to that article in of themselves, i just dont want unsourced (we'll see if its true when you give sources) slander on the article til then.--Miekal 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're perfectly happy with the lies perpetuated in the article because it jibes with the corporations own propaganda about itself? You defer to the lazy idea that the BBC is neutral and objective? Why? The information presented in the article has zero references of note beyond a tweet. How is your authoritarian faith in the BBC's own self-image rational, critical or of any value? Why not replace the entire page with a link to the BBC's about us page?

I'm here to correct an enormous amount of hypocrisy, blindness, cognitive dissonance and naivety infecting rationalwiki so for now I'll unfortunately have to defer to littlebrains like you who run things. Also, you clearly don't understand the concept of slander.~User~^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

I dont care if your right or wrong, i really dont. I'm asking you, if you are right, to source the changes ~and~ do that before putting the edits in, because all it will look like to somebody without your insider info is a slanderous attack on the BBC. That's why i gave you your own versin to add to til we could look at them and decide if they should be in or not.--Miekal 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when does rationalwiki have a problem with attacking people or things? This place is wall-to-wall with criticism of anyone you people have decided doesn't follow your definiion of consensus reality.~user~^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

When your going to change a articles tone from neutral to hostile and throw around allegations of pedophillia, you need to back it up, especially the last part. Like i said, im not against your version of the article, i'd just rather you prove your edits are correct instead of accusing me of whitewashing for the BBC--Miekal 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be another issue as well. In one of your edit comments you maintained that you know about the BBC paedophiles as you worked as a journalist there and left in disgust.

But you are posting here under what I presume is a pseudonym. That means that any risks associated with your recollections fall upon the site - and not upon you.

In fact, if you had such disgusting experiences there, and as you are a journalist, would it not be better to either go public with what you know under your real name or go to the police?--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ummm. Nowhere did I state I had any special knowledge of the BBC pedophile cover up - if I had I would indeed present it in a more valuable forum than this little circle-jerk site. My edits make zero claims about pedophiles that need any explanation or sourcing. I have not thrown around any allegations of pedophilia - the BBC itself has been forced to report on the celebrity pedophiles that have worked there - don't you read the news? And as for neural tone I was under the impression that this was NOT WIKIPEDIA and how many articles on this site attacking your hobby horses have a neutral tone hmm? Hypocrisy thy name is RationalWiki. My disgust is at the propagation of the fantasy that the BBC is neutral, objective or anything other than the propaganda wing of Mi5. In fact if you people have so much trouble with simple reading comprehension it's no wonder this place is such a disgrace to the word rational. The fact is this website bases its version of reality on information it gets from sites like the BBC, NPR or other supposed neutral sources. Your claims to examine authoritarianism are laughable when you accept a view of the world forced on you by government and the media. You don't understand the world around you because you are basing your views on incomplete data. The US government classifies hundreds of thousands of documents per day. It has 17 intelligence agencies all compartmentalising information from each other. And you think you know how the world works because you apply the scientific method to what you're told by the media? How can you possibly claim that is a rational response? You guys just accept lie after lie until the mainstream decide the information is too overwhelming to ignore and the lie is media-laundered into a "mistake" or "miscalculation". Your behaviour is not rational it is obedient.

• Former BBC DG admits BBC complicity with UK establishment
• Be proud of it.
• Historical BBC acquiesence to government demands
• Examination of BBC's pro-Israel stance
• BBC Economics editor accuses BBC of right-wing bias
• Mehdi Hasan argues the BBC is a bastion of conservatism.
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/bbc-coverage-nhs-bill]
• [www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc]

^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

a good chunk of what you said in that long post is exactly what you dont do to convince us to listen to you--Miekal 22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

When you re-inserted your "many famous paedophiles" edit (along with others) you did so with the edit comment: "I worked as a journalist there. I left in disgust."

I read this to mean that you were disgusted about the activity of paedophiles. If your disgust was in respect of some other issue then I must have misunderstood. But you certainly seemed to be claiming special personal knowledge with that edit comment.--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk Pages

please Learn to sign your talk page posts (--~~~ or the signature button above) and use :'s to keep the flow easy to read. Thanks.--Miekal 18:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)