User talk:William

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discord invite[edit source]

Hello there. I got banned from Discord (from the entire service), so I lost your ID and I don't have an invite to your server. I'm starting fresh, I made a new account. Do you mind sending me an invite or your user ID? - BlackPillBlackBelt (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Incel wiki server link is on the front page where it says create an account, I am @william in there. William (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry, the invite is invalid, lemee make a new one, one sec. William (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is our server https://discord.gg/RjBJZH6 William (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

PUA stuff[edit source]

You are a moron. The true incel behind the computer bashing guys that know what they are talking about. You cant get a woman, so you cry and whine on wiki about men that do. Pathetic.. These techniques work and i have used them successfully to sleep with more women in a week than you have in your sad little life. Get a life loser.

Incelosphere timeline[edit source]

Reverse timeline would be nice! --5.83.136.21 10:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Wikimannia[edit source]

The Template is working. If Wikimannia has a different article name than use variable lemma=differentarticlename ! ;-) --5.83.136.21 03:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

People have been requesting a copy of The Loser Manifesto[edit source]

which is a piece about neetdom. It seems to be one of my more popular essays. 2601:5CD:C000:21E3:104B:995E:6739:DAE6 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dark World[edit source]

Keep my channel off here idoit. Seriously. I dont want my dark world channel connected here

If you look at the page history, you will see that I did not write that article. Many people write for this wiki. However, the article is now removed and protected against recreation. I don't know who you are, but I hope you have a nice day.William (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hypergamy[edit source]

First off all, your locking is not very nice, to say the least. You are not even letting me respond on the talk page which is locked too, so I have to do it here. Anyhow, let me go through your points one by one:

You wrote: "Previous version insinuated female monopoly on sex is due to a natural desire for men to provide for women".

You've quite frankly misread what I wrote. I wrote "men naturally provide resources to women", not that they desire to do so. And of course this is a modeling assumption in the two papers I linked, because otherwise women would not need to consider men's resources at all, and men would not be able to "sell" them in exchange for exclusive access to sex. This is even stated in the second paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X "Human males are essentially unique among primate species in providing resources for their offspring, let alone for the mothers of those offspring (van Creveld, 2013)."

Bibipi (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "IRL relationships, while increasingly unequal, do not follow a pareto distribution and there's nothing you source that suggests so. 80/20 refers to online dating and even then it's not consistently 80/20. Peterson lectures do not count as reliable sources for this sort of tihng. [...] pseudo-religious"

First off, the changes you are referring to are more than a month old and they replaced way worse stuff. 80/20 on in these OkCupid ratings have nothing to do with hypergamy per se, but it's female choosiness (which is a cause for hypergamy). The fact that women rated 80% below medium from that delete blog post is just coincidentally similar to 80/20 and has nothing directly to do with a Pareto distribution. Hence misleading. Bibipi (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Secondly, "Matthew effect" has apart from the etymology and the fact that JP made some pseudo-scientific claims about it, nothing to do with religion, see yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect. Admittedly, this was poorly sourced and maybe not the best explanation for the existence of 80/20, but hardly a reason to lock the article. Matthew effects likely do apply to the mating market though and likely affect men more (esp. in combination with female mate-choice copying and the fact that men are held to higher standards). Bibipi (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thirdly, I've seen figures as high as ~68/20 for men (~58/20 for women) based on GSS with a somewhat uncertainty, so 80/20 would be fairly high, but not sure if significantly higher. That's why I wrote "perhaps a bit less extreme", which should be "probably a bit less extreme" (typo). Bibipi (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "Nothing in that citation about a "bodyguard hypothesis", and if there was it would have been about preference or history, not about what is objectively better for the woman)"

If you read closely, the article does make related points: "Women generally prefer men with physical traits [...], although these same physical traits also are an indication of the man’s ability to protect her and her offspring from other men." Bodyguard hypothesis is about evolved preferences, not history, and there are better citations that one could also link, e.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-5985-6_21 Bibipi (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok your points are taken. If you edit a large, finished page again, please use the talk page with other writers. Eg, don't just write on the talk page "Im changing all this now". But post what you want to change and why and wait for responses from others. This only applies to large and important and finished" pages. Adding those CDC statistics, as well as the ones that are not as pronounced, as you mentioned those are the most extreme, would be welcome.
On a separate note, there seems to be a misunderstanding from people about how this wiki came into existence. It did not come into existence because Wikipedia wouldn't allow "blackpills". Wikipedia has no problem with "blackpills". None at all. The reason this wiki exists is because of the war on Wikipedia about whether to consider incel a belief system or a life circumstance without an ideology. The latter camp created this wiki. Things that lean towards the former will always be harshly dealed with here. The purpose of this wiki is therefore to combat false stereotypes about incels such as "incels believe 20% of the men get 80% of the women IRL". Combatting stereotypes about incels Wikipedia does not allow, and is why this wiki exists and the stereotype-combatting content is ultimately the only thing that makes this wiki valuable imo. William (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC) William (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unlock[edit source]

Could you please unlock the Talk:Hypergamy? Bibipi (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's unlocked now William (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Still delete[edit source]

The file somehow still exists even though you have deleted it? https://incels.wiki/w/File:0dqjkcRdgMa62RB.mp4 I accidentally linked the talk page previously Bibipi (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues on main page[edit source]

https://incels.wiki/w/Talk:Main_Page#15-30.25_incels and https://incels.wiki/w/Talk:Main_Page#Outdated_link_for_incel_definition in case you didnt see itBibipi (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

italian translation[edit source]

I'm not the guy who expressed interest in translating incels.wiki, however I think it's a great idea to translate the wiki in other languages and I'm willing to translate pages in italian.

We should only translate articles that are really finished. IMO very few, even only few A-class articles are finished. Otherwise we will end up propagating (factual) corrections to all translations, multiplying the work. We should perhaps create a new category called "99.9% finished articles".Bibipi (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lorsss thank you, yes all the admins are interested in such a possibility. However they do not need to be direct translations and you would have a lot of leeway. William (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna redact that screenshot for now[edit source]

Don't want to tip him off quite yet as to how much we know. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:7437:FDB8:18C4:D4B 02:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

who are you lol? William (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)