User talk:Luigifan18

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Luigifan18!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

strikeout “humour”[edit]

why do you still add strikeout humour? it’s not funny and many users here don’t like that type of humour. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:39a6:c845:355b:c323:dbaa:7ad5 / talk

We're currently having a conversation about this in the Saloon Bar, take it over there. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

Thanks for your help with the drafts. And I’m sorry about what happened to you on your subreddit, I hope you’re gonna be alright ht. Rational Dude (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on a response on the secondary appeal, but since I had to submit it as a help ticket, I expect it to take a while. Thanks for the concern. I really should have found backup mods while I still had the chance — the whole mess is my fault. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
You’re welcome, and it’s okay. It’s not your fault, it was just a stroke of bad luck. Hopefully it gets better for you from here. Rational Dude (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely should have known better than to post "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi"… *facepalm* I didn't mean that as a recommendation to go on a Nazi-killing spree, but it could very easily be taken that way. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Nah, it’s okay. You meant well. Nazis are pure evil. Rational Dude (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Small edits.[edit]

I'm impressed by the sheer quantity of your minor edit improvements to the wiki.

It's normally a thankless task so "thanks". Good work! Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, stop feeding the troll[edit]

This is something that you've been told a million times and yet never listen. I'm blocking you for three days for your repeated disregard of this issue. Please consider your actions carefully in the future. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What troll he's feeding? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumably this one Ioe bidome (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Plutocow Uh, no, I was just trying to bring the matter to the sysops' awareness. I didn't mean that to be taken as "troll-feeding"; more of a warning that "hey, we're not cool with what you're doing". Seriously, what was with that username?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No, it's flagrant interacting with trolls and feeding them. The username is designed to piss people off, pointing it out on their user talkpage is just giving them the attention they want. If necessary, you can bring the matter up on a sysop's talkpage but you really don't have to as sysops will easily handle such a blatant vandal/troll without you needing to interfere. Furthermore, if you want to actually show you have the maturity for sysop tools you might want to actually apologize and admit you're wrong instead of trying to justify every time you're called out for the same thing. Plutocow (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah. My bad. Again, my intention was to alert the sysops to the problem, nothing more. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I need your help[edit]

Since you are known for your Grammer checks. Can you fix the grammer and punctuation errors in the Alexander Finnegan article - - Reichtangle (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

in the Alexander Finnegan there are many grammatical and punctuation errors.I think you should fix them ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll say. I can see a lot of errors in your messages right here. I'll see what I can do, but right now, I'm getting ready for work. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Note,remember that you will have to fix the grammar and punctuation in the Alexander Finnegan article ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For saying that eugenics is "scientifically sound"[edit]

Jumping Humpback whale.jpg


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Carthage (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Much like with communism, the problem with eugenics isn't so much the concept (i.e. improving humanity through the promotion of good genes) as it is severe and arguably-inevitable errors in the planning and execution. First of all, eugenics can be (and very often is) a gross violator of human rights, e.g. everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Second, eugenics is ignorant of some very important realities about evolution and natural selection, such as evolution not being inherently goal-oriented and normally-deleterious traits potentially conferring advantages given the right circumstances (such as sickle-cell anemia countering malaria and not being cripplingly harmful to heterozygous carriers). (There's a reason why the bottleneck effectWikipedia and other instances of low genetic diversity tend to substantially increase a population or species' risk of extinction.) Third, despite any good intentions the basic concept of eugenics may have, it is way too easy for bigots (like, say, Nazis) to weaponize as a vehicle for the extermination of outgroups. I could probably think of more weaknesses of eugenics if I was so inclined, but those three reasons are probably enough to throw it into the dustbin of "ideas that seemed good on paper, but weren't thought through well enough to avoid becoming something absolutely awful". --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I would argue that there are serious problems with the concept too; the phrase "improving humanity" implies that a human is some kind of manufactured product that can be refined rather than an autonomous living organism, and "good genes" is inherently ableist language that implies that there are "bad genes" and that people with genetic traits which shorten their lifespan or limit their mobility or impede their ability to socially conform are defective products that need to be recalled and fixed. At the very core of eugenics is a very specific and arguably narrow view about humanity and life in general which just by itself is problematic even before we start talking about imposing it on others without their consent. To put it more eloquently, it's a shit sandwich. 🥪 --Bjorn (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Theocracy[edit]

I didn’t know what it was supposed to be in alphabetical order, the one for Christianity isn’t in alphabetical order. Rational Dude (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the list is already in alphabetical order, why change it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I put Iran in the top because it’s the most prominent example of an Islamic theocracy. Rational Dude (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, about that deleted ATIM revision…[edit]

Oh dear, I've really put my foot in my mouth this time. @Plutocow, could you please reconsider your permaban vote in the current ATIM? When I said I was feeling "slightly suicidal", I really meant slightly suicidal, meaning that no, I am not seriously considering or threatening to take my own life. I was just mentioning in passing a thought that came to my mind and that I quickly dismissed. I should have made it clearer that I was only sharing my feelings and not trying to manipulate people; I thought I did make that clear when I acknowledged that it was disproportionate and might appear to be manipulative, but apparently I did not. I'm very, very sorry that I disturbed and disgusted everybody with that ridiculously poorly-worded remark, and I will not do anything of that sort ever again. I'm just really sad about being dogpiled in ATIM again, and I'm very upset that everyone seems to be turning on me, tearing me apart, and calling me trash (with the exceptions of @UncleKrampus and @DuceMoosolini, who (while not using those exact words) referred to the sanctions as tough love, and @GeeJayK, who was the one who believed in me enough to make me a sysop long ago and even now has acknowledged that I am not and never have been a vandal). The dogpiling especially hurts because I truly like and respect each and every one of you. I know I deserve to be sanctioned for making numerous mistakes with my writing and not listening when people tried to correct me, and I really want to correct those mistakes and do better going forward. I just love this site and I desperately don't want to be permabanned or topic-banned so severely that I can't do much of anything to contribute to the site and its growth.
I also agree with the blocking policy revision to stamp out suicide threats. Not everybody who says things like what I just said will be so straightforward about expressing genuine anguish and sorrow as opposed to pulling cheap manipulation tactics, and I was very, very stupid to say what I said in a way that could even imply that I was doing the latter. We shouldn't tolerate such chicanery going forward. Anyways, thanks for your time. It's a pleasure working with you guys. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning icon.svg If you are considering suicide, you are not alone, and there is help.

If you know someone who is considering suicide, the same applies.

I for one do not hold malice against you, but it's clear that things aren't working out for you here. I wish you the best. There is more to life than the internet. Find some enjoyment in real life: go out in nature, read a book from the library, find local activities that you want to try. Bongolian (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bongolian Thanks for the concern. I’m not suicidal, I just phrased a request for sympathy very poorly. All I really need is some remembrance and acknowledgement of what I've done well on RationalWiki and votes against permaban — I know I need a time-out, but I desperately don't want to leave RationalWiki behind forever. I love this place. Hey, remember the Laird Shaw AFD, when we smelled a rat and realized that Boar and BUFO were up to no good, and sure enough, they turned out to be Coombs? Good times. Luigifan18 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Voting so far looks like you will get the 3-month block. A 2/3 majority is needed for temporary or permanent bans (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Voting), so permaban looks unlikely at this point. I hope that you make good use of your timeout. Bongolian (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)