User talk:GeeJayK

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, GeeJayK!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"According to critics"[edit]

This is weasel wording by definition (it's not really different from "some experts believe…" or similar weasel wording). All you need to do to fix it is specify what critics. Plutocow (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow it isn't when it's a criticism that has been used literally thousands of times. I have no interest at editing that article at the moment, (I was going to rename it but someone already did it for me) but I'll add Naomi Klein's The Shock Therapy tomorrow as a source then. By the way, you might wanna clean up the Wiki of this weasel word then, just search for it. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Panama[edit]

If you want to be pedantic, you can argue that Panama is partially in South America as it straddles the Darién gap, which is considered the boundary between Central and South America. (Either that, or Colombia is partially in Central America.) Ultimately though, there is no objective line on a map you can draw to separate Central and South America. Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow Fair enough, though I don't think we should classify them as a South American country. Even Wikipedia, that is extremely meticulous with these categories don't have them in the South America category. I won't dispute if you, or anyone else revert my edit though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Denialist"[edit]

I was using sources posted on the discord by Chillpilled. You have a problem? Take it up with them. Anyway, why did you remove the bit on Costco? Are you gonna claim an actual example of corporate price-gouging is somehow "anecdotal evidence"? Carthage (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What does Chillpilled has anything to do with this discussion? Regarding the Costco example, it's just poor understandig on how elasticity works, so it's utterly irrelevant to the page. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Because they were the one that raised the sources and brought up Costco, you clown. Carthage (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
And? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Then raise it up with them. I was using sources they provided. it's not that hard to comprehend. Carthage (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
They didn't edit the page. Stop blaming others for what you did. Discord is not the Wiki. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"Blaming"? I was simply updating the page based off of new sources provided. Would you accuse them of being a denialist given they were the one who provided the sources? Clearly they, and I, thought it was relevant.
Anyway, what does it matter if something is heterodox? Weren't you the one who stated that "fringe" does not equal wrong? Also given how it mentions recent inflation, looking at a longer period of time seems an irrelevant criticism. Simply changing the numbers does not change the reality on the ground. Carthage (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is there a rule on ratwiki for specifically formatting citations? Rational Dude (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rational Dude No, RW:CS doesn't mention anything about formatting citations, so if you ever get blocked because of this, I would consider such block an abuse of sysop tools. However, it's usually consider a good thing to format your citations. I wrote an essay about how to format sources quickly and easily: Essay:How to use Wikipedia to add beautiful sources, perfect sources to your articles. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I ask because I made a mistake with several articles (which I corrected and formatted my citations). But carthage and duce believe that I've been neglectful and think a block for me is necessary. While I agree about correcting my citations, I think a block is harsh and counterproductive. You can find the atim here. Rational Dude (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding ATIM[edit]

So will I be able to regain my mod powers? And will I only have a topic ban for fascism? I’m asking because what you said in the ATIM was a bit confusing, you worded it as if it sounded like I won’t get promoted again. Rational Dude (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rational Dude I'm also a bit confused myself. You'll have to ask Bongolian (do it on the ATIM page, not on his talk page, others might have this doubt as well). A minor correction is, you won't get mod rights, but sysop rights. Check RW:moderator and RW:Sysop to see the difference. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Technicalities. A banhammer is a banhammer no matter how you dress it up. Carthage (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@GeeJayK So will I be able to get mod rights and overturn the ban with time when I show progress? I can wait and use this time to improve and prove myself that I can be trusted with the categories. But just so you know, I never abused my powers, you can ask TechPriest if you don’t believe me. Rational Dude (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)