User talk:Retonom

April 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Flat Earth 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. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a talk page. Why do you do this? This is certainly not how it should work on a public Wiki. Retonom (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I did discuss improvements to the article and pointed out why it is wrong what the section says. Retonom (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "pointing out why it is wrong what the section says" when the section is not wrong. Go watch a sunset and think for yourself. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you are talking about. The section is wrong. Go watch a sunset yourself and perceive that it is all perspective. Maybe also watch this video to help your understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBlFTcBpFQ Retonom (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want to tell me that you are thinking for yourself when you just repeat what you have been told since you were a kid? Retonom (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been conned and I feel sorry for you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children" Luke 23:28 Retonom (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Robert Sungenis 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. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disgrace what happens on Wikipedia. The civility you are talking about is non-existent. Valid comments are removed from talk-pages on a regular basis, let alone from articles where opinionated trolls keep the articles like they want them to be, not at all neutral like Wikipedia pretends to be. I have experienced this multiple times. Valid scientific stances are obliterated by hordes of angry censors. How are you ensuring that different viewpoints can co-exist if these people keep deleting everything that doesn't match their viewpoint? Retonom (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV does not mean what Larry Sanger would want that it means. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Robert Sungenis. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you respond to these people that just keep deleting anything posted even on talk pages that does not match their opinion? How come they are not held responsible for what they do and can just act as they want? What this contributor did is highly offensive. Why is this not punished? To damage the reputation of a scientist on his article in the first sentence and also in the whole. This has be addressed. I'm going to escalate this. Who is in charge really here? Retonom (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this page for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

On the page it has a box on the right that says: "An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth"

Can you tell me what this has to do with the Flat Earth, to prove that there is curvature? I tried deleting this because it's obviously off-topic. But the censors keep reverting it every time. Retonom (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Caption directly explains it; with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth Its proving the curvature of the Earth, thus debunking flat earth. If you'd like to have an open conversation about articles, maybe don't try to intimidate me or throw out Personal Attacks. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is a silly argument and easily disproven. This is what I call pseudoscience. And then why is such an argument made on a page which deals with the Flat Earth? Should I try to put stuff which disproves the globe on the Globe page? Nobody would tolerate it, I'm sure of it. So why is it tolerated on the FE page? Retonom (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing to properly disprove the (round) Earth. See WP:RS, WP:DNFTT, and WP:Fringe. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 01:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. I already said that the majority opinion is not always correct. See what happened with Galileo. So why do you assert what is right and wrong? Are you the higher instance to decide such matters? You just do whatever you want and do not respect that there are different viewpoints and science does not have the definitive answers, which they always state, but when we look closely it's not true at all: They discriminate different opinions just as you do. So what's the us of discussion this? Retonom (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I have better things to do than to try to change things that cannot be changed. Wikipedia will also die one day and all of these issue will seize and it's better to build alternatives to large scale mind control like Wikipedia, which becomes more of an opinionated place every day and has long lost its true neutrality claim mostly because of the people who dominate it. Retonom (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the paper. I'm gonna read it. I stumbled across this section:

"In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after."

It's funny that he mentions this. The earth looks completely spherical in all pictures that were taken from space. The continents look different though in NASA's pictures. One time America is very big and the other time it's smaller. How is this possible? Anyway, science first told us the earth is a sphere, after that they told us the earth is an obloid spheroid. And after that they told us it's really pear-shaped. But from space it was always a plain sphere. So you can verify yourself that something is fishy there. But the dogma is defended against anyone who dares to disagree. It's not much different than in the middle ages. Only the ones with the dogmas are not the church anymore but "science". Retonom (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

large scale mind control Ok, this has to be a joke, right? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 14:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]