I'm not "happily skipping around". My edits are the result of hard work & careful research. And they are a contribution to the wiki & humanity. I only wish to share the information Allah has graciously revealed . Allahu Akbar! nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Manning's not yet a she so, he would be the accurate way to refer to him as. Once he becomes she (which isn't going to happen in the Army prison he's currently in, then the pronoun can be changed because it would be accurate. That's why I changed it to begin with.20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also, you seem to have rolled back 3 of my edits. I rolled back one, the other two I won't touch, they're true, but you've raised objections on one of them about the linking. I don't see a problem with my linking, and it did work, so it should be ok, but, you DO have more edits than I do, so you'd know a bit more than I would. 20:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, i recently edited a talk page to add a small argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ/Archive10#RationalWiki.3F_More_like_IrrationalWiki but i didn't notice it was marked under the archives part until after the deed was done, i am sorry for this (i had gotten before from you a note about the uselessness of editing very old stuff), i will try to pay more attention next time. Imadmagician (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I said please ...
What's the longest section you've added to an article Master?
I'm curious what your claim to greatness is. Being good at dissing people doesn't make you an educator, it makes you a bully. Thanks for the grammar checks, however you seem to be obsessed with grammar more than the content of the message. Seriously, what articles do you want to improve through content addition? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Inference International Review of Science
The fuck? I can't even understand their mission statement. Given that it's only an issue in, and I can't find anything on their editors' backgrounds, I can't wait to see where this continues to go! Thanks for pointing it out. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think I saw it first mentioned on a few of the evo blogs. A link submitted to Hacker News reminded me to add it here.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
His username is a reference to the character in question. Self-aggrandizement through overempathizing with a fictional character is just a thing the internet does to some people. I don't know why. Ikanreed (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Your campaign against the Pseudoscientist template
Infoboxen have a well-established rôle in the wikisphere. They emphatically do not duplicate the rôle of an article's lead. They are helpful in providing cruisers an "at-a-glance" snapshot of the article's topic, and in providing ready comparisons between topics of the same general type. If you don't like the title Pseudoscientist by all means edit it yourself. I'd prefer, though, that you did not rip it out wherever I put it in. Cheers. Ithaca8 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Creationism. It's customary to reply to comments in the place they had been made. As for /r/atheism... if you don't know about it I won't spoil your blissful ignorance.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
aggressive vandalism of uploads
This troll vandalized a bunch of uploaded files I had created for an educational essay I am creating on Contemporary American Governmental religion. 1. The images are ALL PUBLIC DOMAIN 2. The images are for an educational essay 3. Please refrain from any such acts of vandalism or libelous or otherwise tortious conduct in the future.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see you protected the article Pickup artist I was working on. I left a community discussion about the edits, and the User:Weaseloid's behavior - according to the site standards I linked below, he was really out of line threatening a "vandal" block and simply reverting without discussing anything. His claim that it was "apologetics" for pseudoscience was also wrong (which is the only content rule prohibited by community standards) - none of my edits promoted the pseudo-scientific claims of PUA websites.
If you compare the two. I noticed that your usepage states that "90% of articles are crap" and I agree - the version which is being reverted is definitely more-fleshed out and professional in tone. The previous version included a lot more ad hom, and less actual explanation of the practices. I hope to get it restored, thanks:
Here are the community standards for reference:
Don't mess with perfection?
You rolled back many hours of hard work, and the reason given was "(to quote that template on the talk page, "This evolution related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please bear this in mind when editing the article.")" So are you saying that perfection had been achieved, and there's no room for the evolution page to evolve?
Here's a link to the page before you rolled it back... http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&oldid=1399493
Please, name ONE THING that is wrong with that version, which was not ALSO wrong with what you rolled it back to, undoing over 20 edits to the equivalent of this... http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&oldid=1398065
Was there something I had neglected to include a reference for? Is there some reason why the evolution page should not talk about evolution beyond a very narrow scope? Is there something you personally disliked about it? Or was it merely the fact that "GOLD status quality" shouldn't be allowed to evolve into something better?
- For a start, cluttering up search suggestions. On MediaWiki, they are generally redundant, as the software provides an easy way to make plural links (at least in English). In that particular case, there's also the fact that two separate links in the same sentence de facto linked to the same article, despite the appearance of linking to different terms.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
To use the intercom...
Click the intercom button. You will see a button that says "Configure groups." Add yourself to the "site wide (urgent)" group and the "Testing" group. You should then be able to send a message to "Site wide (urgent)." Let me know if this works or if you run into any other issues. Noisemobile (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
that spooky welcome message
- He likes that personal touch.--TiaC (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- But it's always the same text, just not the same text as everyone else. WHY YOU NO CONFORM?! Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination to Board
- Reminder: You only have until 26 January to accept your nomination. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 05:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note on tracking living people progress.
Hey, just thought I'd let you know that I added a progress report on Category_talk:Living_people so that the 3 of us currently working on it can keep from duplicating effort. Ikanreed (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've seen that. I was going to suggest the same.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
My guts can deal with the hate, the periods, the different priorities, the italics. (I hope you can deal with me, as well.) However, I've contested the removal of a bunch of the slogans here. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)