TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

KillerChihuahua Archive

View 0 posts and 28 comments by KillerChihuahua on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

All of the percentages quoted are less than 50%. They also didn't say "Over 18: 62%" or "American born: 89%".
/r/MensRights06/11/11 09:40 AM
0

No, I mean the question answering I've been doing here. That is outreach. I have not edited the Men's rights article on Wikipedia at all, and will not be doing so.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 09:36 PM
0

No, I was here doing Wikipedia outreach well before Ma99ie violated Wikipedia policies, ignored my warnings, and got herself blocked.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 09:18 PM
-4

As explained elsewhere, another admin deleted your userpage, but your account has not been deleted. You can still log in, you can email Arbcom from your account, and your contributions are still available for anyone to see.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:11 PM
1

You're welcome.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:00 PM
-5

"Banned" means specific things; you cannot undo a ban without either Arbcom or a full community discussion. Any admin can undo a block, although there are certain prerequisites and guidelines.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:48 PM
-7

The userpage was deleted by Courcelles; the account was certainly not deleted, which is what you stated. I assume you accidentally typed the wrong word, and I replied to that instead of realizing you meant your "userpage" not "account". I answered what you wrote; a miscommunication on your part does not make me a liar. Your account still exists, and anyone who is interested can see all your contributions and history. You can still log in, and you can email Arbcom from your account page. I had no…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:37 PM
0

I had nothing to do with the content dispute, and have not commented whatsoever about Floods, and don't even know who he is. Ma99ie's complaints have not been deleted. I've been very honest that editors who do not follow Wikpedia rules, especially NPA, and especially on the Men's rights article or other articles on article probation, will manage to get themselves blocked. Ma99ie was told and declined to follow the policies; this is the expected result. Look at the article talk page, and you will…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:27 PM
1

I think that parts of Wikipedia are biased, although I couldn't hazard a guess what percent and in which directions. I think most good editors are trying to reduce that bias. I don't think the admins are powerless, though - most editors try to follow the rules; those who don't are eventually blocked or banned. It is simply that not all articles are going to be as good as they could be. It is a work in progress, and it gets better as time passes - there are brief periods where one article or anot…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:09 AM
-15

You were not banned; your account is not deleted; you were indef blocked, for making threats. I warned you, you persisted, you didn't follow Wikipedia rules.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:01 AM
1

Ah, I comprehend. We're looking at this two different ways. My point is that even if every single admin on Wikipedia is completely unbiased (an impossibility but hey) then they still couldn't prevent some articles from being biased, or less than best quality for some other reason, because there are too few of us.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 11:28 PM
0

I would hazard a guess that very few Wikipedia editors are social psychologists, and even if they all were, it wouldn't give me enough time to watch almost 4,000 articles. I'm not really seeing your point. The article you link has nothing to do with how many articles I can watch, or how many Wikipedia editors are liberal (or any other ideology).
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:14 PM
0

If you come out of the blue, unfortunately you probably would be. I'm sorry, but I advise cutting your teeth on a less controversial article, and then once you know Wikipedia much better, you can start improving more high profile articles such as Women's rights. You can always try getting an editor to help you learn the ropes at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Of course it might work out that you study the policies and start cleaning up the women's rights article and its on Featured Articles in a month.…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:10 PM
1

Ok, now that I've reread, I saw your edit but did not respond to it specifically in my reply. Right now Wikipedia will always be divisive with its current application of the rules. The best information source would be a truly neutral one that allowed both sides of the debate to have their say. Instead of being "left" like NYT or "right" like Fox we could have a source of information that is actually unbiased. I think Wikipedia really has the potential to be great in that regard if just a little …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:20 PM
-14

As a note which may be of general interest: Several people have said or implied that the policies are not enforced equally across Wikipedia. Some data which may shine some light on this: There are 3,772,546 articles on the English Wikipedia. There are 1,527 admins on the English Wikipedia, many of whom are not very active. If we assume about 1,000 active admins (2/3 of total), that's a ratio of one admin per 3,772.55 articles. IOW, we can't be everywhere, so that is a large reason policy appears…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:55 PM
1

Excellent. I'm spoiled from Wikipedia, where you can see the edit history - the original post and then any modifications made. So much easier to keep track of who said what when.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:41 PM
1

Yes, we are doing it for free. And also yes, LOTS of "evidence" of people including links to websites to increase traffic - that's called "linkspam" and we remove it. Egregious linkspam by SPAs can result in blocking. (Applicable guideline - you knew there was one, right? is Wikipedia:External links.) Yes I missed your edit, and don't know how to find it - what did you change please?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:38 PM
2

No editors at Wikipedia are paid, and there are no shareholders. The only paid employees of the Wikimedia foundation can be found listed here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors Because Wikimedia is a nonprofit 501c, financial information is available. There have been a number of studies done regarding Wikipedia editing patterns; I know of no central listing of such studies and know of no study which specifically studied gender bias in editing. I can look if you wish. I am…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:15 PM
1

I'm going to have to be careful here how I reply, because I'm acting in capacity of an uninvolved administrator on that article, and as such I wish to avoid comments which might appear to support or oppose any side in content disputes. With that in mind, and remembering that this is meant to be a general commentary which is applicable over all of Wikipedia, I will try to address your points. An SPA is a known problem; some are good contributors but many are POV pushers - at Wikipedia just to pro…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:19 PM
2

Regarding downvoting: Glad to hear it; I did not mean to imply you were doing the downvoting, but since my every edit is being downvoted I figured wherever I made my comment the downvoter would read it. Your point is good; answering it is going to be hard. Some of our policies involve sources, like WP:V and WP:RS, which are about verifiability and reliable sources. Some are about how our content is presented, like NPOV, the famous neutral point of view (which is often misunderstood.) Some are un…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 01:35 PM
4

Well, I don't edit the Women's rights page, and its not under community sanctions, so I don't really know much about recent editing trends on that article. All Wikipedia articles fall under the same policies, but each individual article is generally developed independently of other articles. Its a kind of organized anarchy. You can tag anything you think is not supported by the given sources, but if reverted you need to explain why you think those sources are insufficient - whether they don't me…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:50 PM
0

Sometimes Wikipedia editors cannot agree on whether a source meets guidelines. There is a noticeboard for help determining whether a source meets RS; the RS Noticeboard, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:16 AM
1

Thanks - we're just volunteers, not employees. :-)
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:53 AM
0

Also agree; this is what we're hoping for, for all our articles. Some of them have farther to go than others. :-)
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:45 AM
1

Which is a good approach to have, if you want to help improve the article. Anyone entering with the mindset that they want to edit war will find themselves quickly blocked, or at least banned from editing the article. Anyone who wants to help improve the article is welcome to come and help out, but must be willing to be civil and follow Wikipedia's rules, one of which is No edit warring. Edit warring is why the article was protected from editing to begin with.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:43 AM
1

Right now, the article is in a state of flux. People have added citeneeded tags wherever they feel there is a statement which may require a cite. There are three things to keep in mind here: 1) Once the dust settles, a lot of tags (probably all tags) will be removed 2) Anything cited in the body of the article does not need a separate cite in the lead 3) Comparing articles is fruitless. You're right that stricter standards are being applied right now on Men's rights; because it was subject to a …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:39 AM
2

Oh indeed yes; no one is happy with the current article. The article was protected due to edit warring; now that its unprotected editing can resume, and the article be improved.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 09:48 PM
0

If you don't mind following the rules, then you would be welcome at Wikipedia. Much of the content you are unhappy to see trimmed from the article was not sourced to any source which meets Wikipedia's "Reliable sources" guideline, or a source was there, but didn't support the content. You can learn more by reading and asking questions on the talk page. I suggest you register an account first; editors are generally more trusting of, and helpful to, an editor who has taken the trouble to register.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 08:51 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter