User talk:Wokepedian

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Hi Wokepedian, welcome to Wikipedia, 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. I thought I would respond to your user page. I am sorry to burst your bubble by creating your talk page, but this page is a place for collaboration between us idiotors and is therefore vital for contributing. In regards to POV editing in religious articles how can you claim that the people editing are not religious? Also on Jesus: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Does this not counter your claim that Wikipedia treats Jesus as a possibly fictional character and not a real person? You claim that writers of COVID-19 are out of their depth, because no one can be an expert of a novel virus. What you omit is that certain people would be more qualified to write about it, especially those in academia. My largest question is do you have any evidence of any of this? You talk about poor editing practises, but where are they? Finally, the general public can edit Wikipedia, but do they? I think you'll mostly find people have some degree of interest and knowledge in the areas that they contribute, i.e. not the layman. Pabsoluterince (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I knew sooner or later a woke Wikipedian would fall for it. Do you seriously think I'm not familiar with Wonkypedia policy? Read my user page again and you'll see everything is bait. Some people can't help themselves - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder - correcting others and always being right. Thanks again for providing more that enough proof of that. Wokepedian (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Rainbow are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect anyone to respond to a reply to an 11 year old post.

Doug Weller talk 12:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a narcissistic egotist would comment using a headline to emphasise their assumed importance? Wokepedian (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Rainbow are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I suggest you either look elsewhere to occupy your time, or stop with the constant nasty remarks about other editors. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not being civil. If you take offence perhaps you could examine your ideological bias. Wikipedia is not based on collaboration as you erroneously claim; it repeatedly censures any edits that go against the grain of its hidden agenda. Believe me, despite your attempts at polite sweet talk, I am well aware of your ilk and am not interested in useless argument with dullards. GFY Wokepedian (talk) Wokepedian (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Follows Yellow. Good For You. Go F Yourself - which is it - depending on your mindset Wokepedian (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem is a natural response when dickhead like JJ attack me personally with slurs. Look back over the transcript and pay attention to who attacked who personally first. It wasn't me who singled them out Wokepedian (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) gfy[reply]

O, almighty Escape Orbit, what a truly munificent lord you have assumed to be! Truly you are paying vestige to the tyrannical hierarchy that Wankerpedia represents. Go ahead and block me, you cunt of a blockhead. When shit people like you stop listening to dissent, you have effectively shut down your learning process. I have risen above the mundane anti-philosophy of dullard Wankerpedians many times before and will continue to do again because you buncare just so fucking backwards in your woke thinking. Good bye and fuck off. Wokepedian (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow talk

Here's what I wrote, and what was subsequently removed (this is the second time this has happened - seems like woke nazis can't take a hint or learn where they are wrong. The pig-headed bigots won't be told)

"Revision as of 20:10, May 2, 2023 (edit) Wokepedian (talk | contribs) (→‎Newton was influenced by 17th century superstition) ← Previous edit

Newton was influenced by 17th century superstition

There are three primary colours, Red, Yellow, Blue, visible to anyone without colourblindedness. Next are the three Secondary Colours orange, green, purple (or violet in retarded countries). When Newton the f*ck w*t proposed Christian Magic 7 philosophy on colours he was bullshitting to the masses. The 7th, 8th, And 9th tertiary Colours are respectively aqua, crimson and indigo. Get bullshit history out of science.Wokepedian (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concepts of primary and secondary (also tertiary, if you really need to go that far) colors refer to how dyes or colored spotlights mix to produce various results. Not to Newton's colors of the spectrum (which are not quite the same as the rainbow, although the underlying cause and names are the same). O+

r what people can actually see, colorblind or not.

Newton's color names were based on a subjective interpretation of an actual scientific concept; that each spectral color was produced by a single, different wavelength of light. Rainbows have color mixtures, with one predominant wavelength (i.e., the band where Green = 510 nm dominates has red, orange, and yellow light as well). You can find similar science-based subjective gradations in many areas, such as hurricane strength, mineral hardness, and musical pitch (which is what Newton compared color to, not "Christian Magic").

So maybe you should get your misinformed biases out of actual science. JeffJor (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me! Quote: "It is said that Isaac Newton only perceived five colours in the rainbow and added two more (orange and indigo) because the number seven had mystical significance. We have seven days of the week, seven natural notes in most Western music and, in Newton's time, only seven planets had been discovered."

(8 Sept 2021 https://www.newscientist.com) see end of comment for link

Is aqua not a colour of the rainbow just because Newton didn't name it? First of all you need to do some research. Look up magical thinking and how it applies to religious thought. Understand that pigments and light work in completely different ways - additive or subtractive. Learn how many old-fashioned concepts were false, influenced by unprovable, unscientific superstitions (for example it is a myth that in Medieval times people thought the Earth was flat. Every sailor worth their weight in salt knew the sea was curved from observation of other vessels sailing over the horizon). Then try to understand that Newton wasn't perfect and got a few things wrong (as proven by Einstein). The history of the number seven being ascribed magic powers goes back a lot further than Biblical times. Pythagoras and the Greeks, Chaldean numerology, Chinese astrology, Egyptians, Hindus, in fact probably all ancient cultures placed emphasis on the number seven. Isaac Newton was merely following fashion - contemporary Christian beliefs.

The reason the LBGTQ+ community adopted the six-colour rainbow as their defining symbol is because - being free of Christian indoctrination - they chose the simplest and most obvious representation as the unbiased human eye sees it. No two people perceive colours in the same way. Not only are there many forms of colourblindedness but also some eyes can see a myriad of colours others can't. Perhaps Newton's eyes were sensitive to indigo and not aqua, or cerise, or magenta etc. Children naturally draw six-colour rainbows (or even 4 or 5!) unless they have been brainwashed and conditioned by the Newtonian fallacy. Scientifically there is no exact number of colours in the visual spectrum. The bias of which colour is which is purely in the eyes of the beholder. Clearly you have not done your homework on Newton. He added indigo purely because he thought there had to be a seventh colour to fit in with the popular philosophy (God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh) wholeness regarding mundane concepts such as the 7 days of the week, 7 notes in the musical scale, 7 liberal arts, 7 planets in the solar system (prior to the discovery of Uranus and Neptune in modern times), 7 chakras, 7 wonders of the world, the seven seas; the list goes on.

As for the hypothetical "seventh colour of the rainbow" after the 3 primaries (red, yellow, blue) and 3 secondaries (orange green, purple), it is pure conjecture as to which of the three tertiaries aqua, indigo or crimson deserve to be chosen at the exclusion of the other two. Thus, it makes more sense to use the six-colour rainbow model. If one wants to expand it further, the correct unbiased scientific definition would be a nine-colour rainbow. Seven is entirely illogical. Newton's decision to choose 7 was based on philosophical trends, not science. Wokepedian (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "It is said that Isaac Newton only perceived five colours in the rainbow and added two more (orange and indigo) because the number seven had mystical significance. We have seven days of the week, seven natural notes in most Western music and, in Newton's time, only seven planets had been discovered."

8 Sept 2021 https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg25133512-600-why-are-there-seven-colours-in-a-rainbow/#:~:text=It%20is%20said%20that%20Isaac,seven%20planets%20had%20been%20discovered.

Now can you see? Get you facts straight and allow yourself the benefit of free thought. Please. I'm afraid it is you who suffers from misinformed biases and a lack of scientific understanding. You have learnt Newton by rote without using your brain to discern reality from fake 'facts' aka brainwashing education. Wokepedian (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

My response:

FWIW, I was merely trying to improve the article by pointing out that rainbows do not have seven colours. It is pure fabrication, a nonsense convention, irrational, unscientific, and a false claim devoid of any real substance. The ridiculous reply to my comment on the Rainbow talk page was full of ad hominem, loads of bullshit, scientific inaccuracies, untruths and general misinformation. I do not take them seriously as I know they are not only wrong but possibly even slightly insane.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for saying a rainbow has seven colours, and Newton only came upon this number to conform to the popular thinking of the Early Modern Age, influenced by his penchant for occultism and unconventional approach to Christianity. That this '7-colours' fictitious idea is still accepted by so-called scientists and/or experts shows how brainwashed they are by institutionalised education. They need to come down from their ivory towers and take a fresh look at reality instead of being stuck in post-Medieval thinking. This farcical situation reminds me of the well-known movie quote "You can't handle the truth".

I am well aware of how a certain unencyclopaedia has zero tolerance for having its cherished dogmas challenged no matter how wrong they are. So be it. Wokepedian (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badge of Honour

Being blocked on Wankerpedia is a Badge of Honour against Wokeism. Tell the cunts to fuck off with their politically correct Cancel Culture. I don't want to have anything to do with it and I'm totally proud of that. Go ahead, do your puny blocking, I don't fucking care, shithead. Wokepedian (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC) (oh I forgot - how do I create a separate account with no traceable link?)[reply]

Oh

d Wokepedian (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]