From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Remove advertisement example?[edit source]

advertisement is not so related to seduction. Bibipi (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous[edit source]

There is nothing wrong with the page warranting whole paragraph deletions. The whole point is the speech pattern is useful in every aspect of life.

Bib Create the jestermaxxing page stop waiting for others to create pages[edit source]

Game is regarded as jestermaxxing, a cruel burden put on men stemming from women's inflated SMV.

Mikey (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Video on academic tone[edit source]

Adds objective credibility to statements in the article. Pls post here in talk the main article is finished. Mikey (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Various issues[edit source]

  • This article is overly verbose, repetitive and boring. Could easily be shortened 80% or so.
  • It is way too redpilled for this wiki. We usually only cover the bare minimum on redpill like the importance of social status, but this is outright PUA stuff regarding style and fashion and so on, pretty remote from core incel issues, which mostly seem to revolve around the absence of encouraged/"enforced" monogamy and looks.
  • Mikey's self-hosted videos are highly distracting as they seem to act as self-promotion for his YouTube channel. Nobody of the other writers here engages in self-promotion like that. The videos are also of poor quality as evidenced by the thumbs down he's receiving on YouTube. So I suggest removing these videos, also from Golden Ratio.

Bibipi (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The page subscribes to no pills as per the rules. The information is presented plainly as is. So stop pushing personal, as well as black pill agendas Bib. Incel Wiki should never, ever be prescriptive. We also do not subscribe to any particular pill or philosophy.,_account_creation,_and_other_info Also the incel community is overwhelmingly supportive of the channel, I have way more likes than diss likes. Mikey (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
PM Master I've told u several times I'm not responding to you anymore Mikey (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
The difference between writing about the red vs blackpill is that the blackpill is a very popular movement within the incelosphere whereas redpill stuff like "be witty" abd "learn this cool dialect" are pretty much universally hated in the incelosphere because people have been hearing so much about it, and it does not seem to be effective or attainable for many. Bibipi (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Another issue[edit source]

Another issue is that there is lots of evidence that game does not really matter in one-to-one settings.

multiple studies indicate that out of diverse measures of physical and personality traits, including extroversion, gregariousness and IQ, only physical attractiveness predicts initial romantic interest and strongly so,

This seems to be an extremely important fact that should be stated upfront, imo. Bibipi (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine adding that study. Also stick to the guidelines and stop deleting everything in sight. You get on here everyday just to work the rounds and delete shit, without adding. Incel Wiki is inclusionist, not particularly delitionist. Mikey (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It is not particularly deletionists, Will recently added. Your contributions are often bloated, boring and unfunny compared to other writers here, on top of being poorly sourced or outright wrong. And I'm not the only one to say that. E.g. IIRC Jet1122 said your reproductive success page was unfunny (which I agree). Will has deleted "unsourced bullshit", Superconfidentguy has deleted "not funny" stuff on the Chad page. You have also received many thumbs down on your YouTube hosted vids. It's bad content. Bibipi (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait a minute, "By far, the largest determinant of the subjects liking of their dates was their dates physical attractiveness. r = .69 for women rating men." Thought u would come here showing .8+ All that study does is reinforce the game is just icing on the cake statement that is already in the lead. "Indeed all face to face game is a combination of physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, gait attractiveness, social status attractiveness, and smell attractiveness. Attractive dancing, attractive singing, attractive hobbies, attractive fashion, attractive posing, attractive posturing, as well as attractive facial, attractive vocal, and attractive body expressions, are all icing on the cake so to speak." Mikey (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
r > .8 is very rare due to measurement errors and confounds, hence people already call r > .6 a strong correlation. See you have no damn clue about social science, yet you pretend to do so. They have found no significant results for other traits which means the effects of other traits are probably small or non-existent. At least in 1:1 dating. Game-like peacocking is likely an effective means of status ascension which in turn enables RS. Bibipi (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Stop talking shit and then agreeing with me. Stop talking shit, and then apologizing. .5 is a medium correlation, stop lieing. Now stop messaging me. Mikey (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I meant to write r > .6 (typo). I didn't agree with you. I made a distinction between 1:1 and socializing which you didn't make. Well, you deleted it. Bibipi (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting to drastically shorten this article[edit source]

As proposed in this edit: Bibipi (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going through references on this page[edit source]

And so many of them are abstracts that don't say what they are claimed to be said. Recommend an entire re-write of page. For example almost all the references on 'women prefer darker-skinned people in the race they are attracted to' has tons of citations, pretty much none of which have anything to do with that claim, for or against. This is not a rule violation, but I'm starting to take a look at Mikey's writing, and it's use of citations is extremely careless and more agenda-promoting than Bibipi. William (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

On "game"[edit source]

It seems fairly reasonable that certain social signaling can help in romantic situations outside speed dating and online dating. Online daters and speed daters may not apply to most of this stuff, but it's still interesting.William (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Negging[edit source]

I'm sure one can find examples of people calling negging game, the distinction seems odd, but I don't really care much.William (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Inter-wiki citation[edit source]

Should be avoided. It creates issues down the road. Nothing to do with dislike of any particular page.William (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree, but in my opinion, the Scientific Blackpill can be seen as an exception to this rule because it is essentially a book with discussions and links. It is a citable source and provides better summaries than the studies' abstracts themselves and incel-relevant discussions. Bibipi (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
For contested articles, this creates a situation where you move to another page (that does have editorializing) for fact-checking, so at least on contested pages, just lift the sources from the SB page and directly cite them.William (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the issue of moving to another page when that page contains a swift summary? Most people look for summaries anyhow. The subsection links in the SB are permanent too even when the headlines are changed. The advantage of citing the SB is that one can add commentary, summarize things, keep links updated in one place and it spares one from having to maintain multiple instances of the same citation across the entire wiki in case a link goes stale or a better archive or link is found. I'm not seeing a single disadvantage. Bibipi (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Multiple studies"[edit source]

Please cite the multiple studies with regards to specific claims about multiple studies, the scientific blackpill citation only had one study. Not saying you are inaccurate, but if we want to make this page properly cited lets do it.William (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations[edit source]

What is added or removed from this page will be decided on citations rather than debate. In other words, no WP:SYNTH from other parts of the wiki or essay writing to replace properly cited material. William (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections[edit source]

Moved to offline dating. William (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

was tempting to add it back, but not all of those are really projections of "internal frame", but more rigid prescriptive projections of status, as Bibipi pointed out earlier. Real-wealth signaling is used as "game" colloquially, but is rejected by the major(not minor) PUA community. To resolve edit conflicts moving from the colloquial definition to the less ambiguous and more easily citable major PUA definition seems to be the best course of action. tl;dr just going with citations by typing in "Game definition" into google, lends itself to this course of action.William (talk)

Temporarily locking[edit source]

Not as punishment, but to give us a break.William (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Expires in a weekWilliam (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

typo "play no role dates back to 1966s" -> "play no role dates back to 1966" Bibipi (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Myth of "Changing Personality"[edit source]

Myth: People can easily switch personalities to inhabit "dark traits" attraction.

To Quote the Study: The correct (ed for measurement error) estimates are much higher. The present results suggest consistency over a 1-year would be .98, at 5 years it would be .90, at 10-years it would be .82, at 20-years it would be .67, and at 40 years it would be .45. Long-term stability might even be higher if stable causes contribute substantially to variance in personality (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016).

Example for reference[edit source]



  • They did not dissect female attraction to criminality
  • The men in the photos are often normie-tier

Rewrite[edit source]

Article prob needs a minor rewrite to be more balanced Altmark22 (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)