- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
Skitzocow Mark Bernstein - Ryulong 2.0, Creepy Paranoid Stalker and Anti-Gamergate Loser with Delusions of Grandeur
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
I can just picture it - Reichstag involved in an auto accident, screaming and waving his arms at the cop on the scene that the 70 year old woman who rear ended him is part of a vast terrorist conspiracy consisting of Donald Trump, Reddit, the Wikipedia Foundation, white nationalists, people who think Anita Sarkeesian sucks and, probably, Mencius Moldbug.
Thankfully, there really aren't any prescription medications that can help with conspiracy theories. The milk will continue to flow.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Margaret Sanger did speak before a KKK gathering at least once. She had a number of views that would today be considered completely unacceptable, even if that causes Psycho Bernstein's tiny balls to retract up into his abdomen.
It wouldn't be accurate to say she was a KKK member, though.
That edit is, however, pretty shit tier, not to mention misspelled.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
This guy worries me as someone who is suffering from paranoid delusions. At least when Wu claims that gamergate has snipers outside his house, it's obvious that it's just a ploy for sympathy and attention. But this guy seems to actually believe that gamergate is some kind of Illuminati-level group watching him from the shadows and puppetmastering Trump to make America a neo-Nazi regime.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
H3LLH4MM3R666
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
To me, it is his choice of targets. The Wikipedia Conference twitter account, likely manned by an intern? It's like he thinks his tweet is being read by Wales or something.
I had to look. That twitter account has 150 followers. Good effort, Reichstag.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
Maybe if the group Mark runs in weren't a bunch of sickos, that whole blackmail thing would be easier to talk about. Anyone can read the subtext of an anti gamergate wikipedia sperg being blackmailed with something...
In this, Mark reveals something about himself. Yes, he's unhinged, but he is also openly obsessed with keeping anything he deems "far-right' off a website he's all but banished from.
Man is a zealot for a cause that make sense only to him, and if it weren't for his creepy stalker tendencies, it would be hilarious.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Anyone who seriously claims Wikipedia is "far right" is a literal lunatic.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
Far-right means they're not espousing the social justice talking points he wants, just as liberal bias means not regurgitating Fox News headlines.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2016
So, recently I've been paying attention to a cow named Nate Spidgewood, who has a vendetta against tvtropes for their use of Wikipedia style namespaces.
Bernstein reminds me of him somewhat, but with a hundred thousand more mentions of GooberGrapple and no artwork, making Mark even more useless to society.
Bernstein reminds me of him somewhat, but with a hundred thousand more mentions of GooberGrapple and no artwork, making Mark even more useless to society.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
The thing I've found in common amongst many wikipedia editors is that they will shut down any talk regarding subjects that may paint something perceived as right wing, in a positive light. Or attempting a rebuttal to a source appearing left wing. I, and others have been permabanned from wikipedia simply for bringing up discussion points in talk pages with evidence pointing to an imbalance of viewpoints, or a source that is too close to the subject they are reporting on.
The talk subjects are usually locked with reasons given as "Conspiracy theories/Right Wing Zealotry" and afterwards the editor will often sperg out about Gators/Trump Supporters/White supremacists/etc etc brigading the talk page. As if they have no idea what actual objective debate looks like.
Keep in mind this is the talk page, no body even edits anything, since we all know attempting to edit anything on wikipedia is forbidden without the overlords express permission.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2015
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
Wasn't that the same woman Mark got salty over because Wikipedia gave her an award and not him?
Why can't you stop mansplaining and quit being jealous because a woman did a better job than you did Mark, you sexist goon?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The best Wikipedia articles IMO are the ones most fought over. I will give as an example the articles about anything remotely related to Israel. Pro-Israel Wikipedia editors are absolute experts at the rules and fight like demons. The other side is just as inexorable.
The result is that nothing is allowed in these articles that does not survive challenges based on every rule imaginable.
Don't like something you see in these articles? Get in there and fight about it yourself!
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
wikipedia runs completely on consensus of sources deemed "reliable" by wikipedia itself. It does not matter whether you have found a source of an alternative viewpoint because it will be considered FRINGE or UNRELIABLE, and be denied. It does not matter if you can disprove "reliable sources" through argument or your own exhaustive research on the subject, because the rules state own research is forbidden as a source.
For STEM related articles, wikipedia is usually fine because STEM relies on facts, peer reviewed published work, and rigorous testing of theories.
But when it comes to most everything else; I have no interest on fighting on a website where "truth" is dictated on populist media narrative, and the consensus of media articles which are usually all headed by the same media organizations.