User talk:Wonderworld

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! --Wonderworld (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Wonderworld.

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.

So, the first, and so far only, thing you do here is trying to get one article deleted without actually providing any substantive reason other than "I think you're being so unfair"-style rhetoric? Not exactly a good start... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about the reason why this is the case could be a nice applicaton of reason. --Wonderworld (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh joy, more concern trolling... ScepticWombat (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Mikemikev again?[edit]

What is your interest in Tony O Connell? You recently just joined to post about Thorwald Franke + Atlantis again. Suspicious since Mikemikev created 5+ sockpuppets on his page. Where are all these socks coming from?HamiticRenaissance (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel so welcome here, really :-) --Wonderworld (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Wonderworld, I'm pretty sure you're not a mikemikev sock. However, the kind of response you've received so far might change if you begin contributing something to RW beyond concern trolling and if you start answering concrete counter points, including sourced quotes, with something beyond vague "you're just being unfair and irrational"-style rhetoric. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My answer for the Talk-Page on Tony O'Connell[edit]

I am blocked now for the Talk-Page on Tony O'Connell, and again nobody told me why. I have no idea why I am blocked. Only because I wrote some reasonable words on the talk page of User:ScepticWombat which I wrote there only, because I was blocked on the Deletion discussion (for which I even do not know a formal reason for the blocking there)? So I write my answer to the thread "Fringe" book "Meet me in Atlantis?" here:

As far as I understood from various comments on various pages talks, User:Thorwald C. Franke was blocked because it was a mikemikev sock. This was also the official blocking reason. HamiticRenaissance himself claims (on my talk page) that User:Thorwald C. Franke was a sock of mikemikev. Now he claims, that User:Thorwald C. Franke was really Thorwald C. Franke. (ScepticWombat doubts it, too.) HamiticRenaissance should really decide what he wants to suggest: Was User:Thorwald C. Franke a sock of this certain mikemikev, or is User:Thorwald C. Franke the real Thorwald C. Franke? You cannot claim both, just as you like it.
When I read the still existing talk page of the deleted page on Thorwald C. Franke, I would say that User:Thorwald C. Franke was the real Thorwald C. Franke. Now then, if User:Thorwald C. Franke was NOT a sock of mikemikev, but the real Thorwald C. Franke, as HamiticRenaissance claims it now, why is he blocked, then? Could any friendly experienced user please explain me this? Because I really do not understand it. And just a second very interesting question: How could the real Thorwald C. Franke counter a blocking by mistake, and claim successfully that User:Thorwald C. Franke was really his account, i.e. that he was blocked by mistake? Or is a person which was blocked by mistake doomed to be blocked and defamated forever and forever on RationalWiki, without any possibility to reply?
By the way:
Melville E. Nicholls and Ralf Bülow are real persons. You easily can google this:
Cf. Mel Nicholls: "The Real and Imaginary Atlantis", book from 2014.
Cf. Ralf Bülow: "Wo das sagenumwobene Atlantis wirklich lag", article in German magazine Focus, 2013.
(And why do the experienced users of this Wiki not recognize the real socks who repeatedly put forward false accusations that this or that person is mikemikev or wrong claims in articles about these persons?)
--Wonderworld (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
In two words: So what?
Meet Me in Atlantis gets the label of being a fringe book based on its contents as it peddles several of the myths prevalent among "Atlantisists", e.g. their persecution complexes where they claim that the reason their pseudohistory and other branches of pseudoscience aren't being taken seriously by actual academia is that there is a conspiracy of silencing and denigration at work (see, for instance, Jason Colavito's review which also points out that the author of MMiA, Mark Adams, doesn't have a clue about the subject matter and merely prattles on using secondary sources and little if any critical scrutiny). MMiA and Adams essentially strikes me as the poor man's A Short History of Nearly Everything and Bill Bryson with all of the lighthearted story telling and little of the earnest and hard labour of actually understanding the topic, rather than telling amusing anecdotes.
As for your second post, meh, I don't really see the point in it, and certainly not in relation to your first post in this thread. For the record, you aren't blocked but the O'Connell talk page was protected by an editor who apparently got fed up with your tedious whining and concern trolling.
Again, Wonderworld, you've simply slapped some vague, indignation-filled material together with even more of the usual aimless "You're just being so unfair"-rhetoric I've pointed out several times now. I really don't care a fig if you think that RW or the world in general is being unfair if you can't provide a coherent and precise argument as to what the problem is. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I have read the book by Mark Adams on my own, and I have not found any claim in it, that there would be a conspiracy of silencing. Mark Adams writes about a conspicuous reluctance even only to touch the topic, but not of a conspiracy. And in Jason Colavito's review I cannot see where he imputes a conspiracy theory to Mark Adams? You cannot cite any sentence from Jason's review which supports this claim. I have the feeling, you see ghosts because you want to see them?
And may I offer an alternative review of Mark Adams' book? It is critical, too, but partly in another way, as you will see on your own. It is -- by the way -- written by Thorwald C. Franke.
Yes, I expect fairness. I expect a Wiki which is called RationalWiki to be rational. I expect such a Wiki to write enlightened criticism, and not just biased articles against unwanted opinions. I expect that such a Wiki can live with criticism by the critizised persons.
And what is your opinion about blocking User:Thorwald C. Franke, and his chances to get rid off it, since he most likely seems to have been blocked by mistake?
--Wonderworld (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I copied over this thread now to the talk page of Tony O'Connell, since it became available again. --Wonderworld (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)