User talk:CowHouse

Topic
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey CowHouse,

Just popped round to say thank you for the instructions on how to delete an article here on RationalWiki! It is a bit too late or better said too early here in the UK to get through this HTML language, but I will try later in the day but defo as soon as poss. I know it won't be easy to get through the hard opposition here but worth the try :-) I appreciate it anyway. Thanks again!

Iha777 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: Update
His Royal Highness Chris Dorsey & the rest of the Militia have abstained from commenting, but have unequivocally implied that for now the article may stay :)

Iha777 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

*opens secret cow level*
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Applebaum/Corbyn
Why do you reject the accurate information about Anne Applebaum and her long and extensively documented neoconservative, warmongering, especially as applied to Russia? There is a lot of material on this. --Tea Sagan (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please say if you are are someone in charger here? You do not answer me for several months, what should I do?--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean by "in charge". I'm a sysop so I have the ability to protect pages, if that's what you mean. I left a message on your talk page on September 11 saying what you should do. CowHouse (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can wait, and will. Life is short. See you later with some pals.--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So your plan is to come back in a week (with other people) and vandalise the Jimmy Dore page again? CowHouse (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not gonna stop, Just block him already. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts to Donald Trump
Hello, CowHouse.

I wonder why are you reverting edits made by me?

Go and refer to, where he allowed to add the Luddite reference into the article.

Cheers. -- Bryan See (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My reverts weren't really about the luddite reference. I reverted because I didn't think it was relevant to mention a supposed prophecy about him. CowHouse (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't "allow" anything, . That was my opinion, which in fact was the opposite: Trump is arguably not a Luddite. Bongolian (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He does have some distrust of computers, digital technology and other forms of modern technology (including ones developed from science). Isn't that Luddism? -- Bryan See (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Vanga
Thank you for cleaning up the article. It was horrid, but I didn't have the stomach (and time) to do it myself.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. CowHouse (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome Award
Thanks for consistent high quality edits! —ClickerClock (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CowHouse (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hotcat exists
—ClickerClock (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
That paragraph on Cenk Uygur was, indeed, irrelevant. I tried to edit in some qualifying language when I really felt it merited deletion -- but it seems here that had I deleted that entire paragraph, as you finally did, that can be cause for discipline or the start of what they call edit wars. Intellectual quality isn't in total evidence here. In any event, I support your deletion and had wanted to do it myself. But feared the promiscuous banning and this thing called "binning" I observed when I occasionally pop in here.--Tea Sagan (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're being cautious. It's safe to raise the topic at the talk page if you think a paragraph should be removed. That way you won't risk getting disciplined. If you remove paragraphs then you should:
 * (a) Be prepared for your edit to be reverted,
 * (b) If it gets reverted, justify your edit in the talk page instead of reverting back (edit warring), and
 * (c) Always include an edit summary so it's clear you're not just vandalising, and make sure you have a good reason.
 * The Uygur paragraph may still get reverted back but if that happens I'll back you up in the talk page. CowHouse (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * " It's safe to raise the topic at the talk page if you think a paragraph should be removed." Not that I've seen. For one thing, an account I almost always disagree with, did that, waited a good amount time, made the reversion, and got this "chicken coop" thing done to him/her. Further, I see no intellectual quality attached to defense of edits and so-called "warring." That's why I so seldom participate here and have reduced by some 80% my citations to this site compared with, say, 7-10 years ago.--Tea Sagan (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Raising the topic at the talk page in itself will not result in disciplinary action. Can you tell me who you're talking about and provide some links? "Further, I see no intellectual quality attached to defense of edits and so-called "warring."" What do you mean by this? CowHouse (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave your centrist-Democrat POV alone where I lack time or interest to provide hard data in support of truth as I know it. My time here must be limited. This site isn't big on intellectual quality, it is purely a popularity contest and I don't have patience with that. You neolibs have caused enough harm with your denial of the socio-political changes that let Trump get elected and your insistence on sandbagging Sanders to put forth (as Donna Brazile just conceded) the loser Hillary instead. You should be ashamed and stop it.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the block
Sorry about the block, CowHouse. I had meant to block the BoN that you had reverted. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's ok, no harm done. CowHouse (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anarchism

 * Opening or attention getter - Address the individual: "CowHouse,"
 * State your concern - Express your analysis of the situation in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. "Nice try, sir/ma'am. I saw your making of a link in an effort to clarify that the sentence is a joke, but the edit misses that the humor is not explicitly marked."
 * State the problem as you see it - "Just like with the superscript, hovering over or having to click the link is a barrier to communication that the sentence is a joke. That one would have to hover over or click the link to know whether it is a joke is not actually obvious. For all an audience member would know, the superscript is just another citation."
 * State a solution - "Let's explicitly mark the sentence as a joke or delete the sentence."
 * Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - "How does that sound to you?"--73.252.167.210 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now marked the sentence as a joke in the standard manner on RationalWiki:
 * which looks like this:.
 * I have assumed good faith with you until this point, but I should say that if you persist I am likely to consider you a troll and ignore you. I hope your issue has been resolved now. CowHouse (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

end of convention
I've moved the cancellation of the convention elsewhere since it doesn't belong on the clogosphere. --101.181.55.194 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

reverting
You seem to have accidentally reverted my edits. No problems, all fixed now --Onacompass (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

MBFC
Holy shit that's a lot of references. Pat on the back. 06:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did get a bit carried away. CowHouse (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox news protection
Thanks for changing it from indefinite. This is what happens when I'm reverting wandalism late at night, forgot to set the expiry. —Kazitor, pending 01:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. CowHouse (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and thanks for putting Spud back. My bad, good thing you noticed. Not sure how that happened, though, I'm certain I added it twice. Oh well. —Kazitor, pending 02:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Accidents happen. I'm just surprised nobody noticed for so long. CowHouse (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You've been nominated as moderator
Bongolian (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the nomination, . I will have to think it over first before I accept or decline. By the way, thanks for working on the Smoloko News page. I've been intending to clean it up for a while now. CowHouse (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You do all the work of a moderator. Why not have the title as well?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the support. I don't think I do all the work of a moderator though. It sounds like you think I'd be a good chance to win but, considering how many qualified candidates there are already, I think it's going to be a very competitive election. CowHouse (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Complimentary hug
Thanks for endorsing me! - 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements
Hey Moo (I hope you don't hate the nickname), can you go ahead and fix that, and also add my nominations that I put on the talk page to the official list if you think they are reasonable? I'm in the bin, and although I can bypass it, I won't out of respect. I sometimes make goofy mistakes like that because I have a traumatic brain injury (also known as a TBI) that I got falling doing a stunt when I was in eighth grade (I was a flyer, the girl that does all of the jumps and tumbles and stuff), I actually almost died from it. That's probably partly why I am peculiar here. No, I'm not looking for sympathy, I mean, you don't even know me so don't feel bad for me. I'm okay I just suffer from severe depression and I'm easily upset, and I make dizzy mistakes sometimes, so if I do something stupid, that's probably why. Somebody called me a "valley girl" on here, and while that doesn't upset me, I used to be very smart, and really I still am, but sometimes I don't think straight, but please don't think I'm some useless dummy. You should really consider accepting that mod nomination because I think you would be a good one. You are cool. J. Zoia (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Moderator election results
See the results here. 03:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Spoiler alert: you got the position. Cheers to that!  03:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congrats, house for cows! 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to the new cabal (there is no cabal). 🐮 Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, 🐮 🏡!- 06:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Have fun with it.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! Congrats to, , , and . CowHouse (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Christopher (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi!
Just dropping in to say, how are you? :) 21:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, . I'm actually quite well at the moment. No complaints. How about you? CowHouse (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. I'm self-conscious how I'm doing as a mod. I've had some rubs with AMassiveGay and now ikanreed. 22:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a second opinion, I agreed with how you handled the situation with ikanreed. I'm not sure what happened with AMassiveGay (maybe this?). I am self-conscious myself so I understand why you'd feel this way. For what it's worth, I think you've been a fair and responsible mod. CowHouse (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

the Blog
As you have protected the blogosphere, would you be so kind as to include one example for me? You can take your pick of any of the links I had provided. --120.148.131.196 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement Troll...
...Isn't new, he/she/they have been making accounts demanding the article question be deleted since before I signed up on this site. 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, the user in question was new since they had created that particular account recently. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. Anyway, my point was that they're inexperienced and I am aware of the history. CowHouse (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...For fuck's sake, he's back at it AGAIN?! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's not all! Someone apparently needs to get a life...  17:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That link didn't work. Try this one. You don't have to do proper Wikipedia links on talk pages. CowHouse (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocking
I wasn't sure if my responding to your message on my talk page would get through to you (I don't talk much with others on here, so I'm not all that experienced with the talk function), so I'm writing this here. I didn't realize that the user you brought up was already warned. It was my mistake, and I do apologize. Tmil96 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)(User:Tmil96)

Reverted edit
Thanks for looking out for me, but I reverted my own crisis actor edit since I sandboxed and finished it properly as User:Antigem/sandbox/bad crisis actors. It was just a duplicate and a waste of space, so I'm re-reverting my wipe out. Regards, Antigem (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Romanov
One of the ~s must have escaped :) Anna Livia (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and humble request
On January 28, 2018 of this page https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eleon%C3%B3ra_Dubiczki&action=history had personal information and you deleted two edits containing personal information. Unfortunately, I see between the two edits, the dox is also there. Would you please remove the intermediate content that also contains the dox?

Also the person spreading the dox, immediately went to Wikipedia and created a bunch of accounts in the victim's name only after the article was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleon%C3%B3ra_Dubiczki/Archive And then it was put on the talk page claiming it's evidence. Merkel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Boohoo crying like a baby. Merkel is a neo-Nazi Rightpedia admin who has spent years doxing people. 37.9.61.18 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean
using the wpl template instead of w?--Klaksozavr (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. As a general practice, using direct wp: links in articles is frowned upon, because they are easy to confuse with internal links. CowHouse (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm gonna replace them.--Klaksozavr (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, someone else did.--Klaksozavr (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Me and the IP
There is a certain amount of overlap of contributions - so correcting is allowed. (And some of us automatically correct typos wherever they are found - is there a better term than 'reverse vandalism'?). Anna Livia (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You mind enabling bot mode?
I don't care, but some people seem to obsess over recent changes and possibly get annoyed by all those edits. —Kazitor, pending 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll do that next time. CowHouse (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Permission to edit
Hey, I intend to make another push for changing the voting system at some point in the future (seems you weren't the first), and was wondering if I could have free reign to edit your essay on the topic? Thanks in advance. (also, you might want some archiving on this page) —Kazitor, pending 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to leave it as my essay but I don't mind if you make your own and copy some sections (or use mine as a starting template). CowHouse (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. Thanks. —Kazitor, pending 12:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

KimYoJong/JucheCapitalist
This user was blocked for re-creating Juche-Capitalism. They have displayed ill intent not only on this wiki via socks but also on Wikipedia and now Conservapedia. I do not believe the block I applied was unnecessary, nor unwarranted, given these circumstances. 15:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't think a block was necessary after you protected the page. CowHouse (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

stop reverting me
wait for a returning officer to confirm/deny your edit--92.232.68.146 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your revert
Hello, could you please explain why you reverted this? I gave my reason for that edit. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's generally a good idea to have a discussion on the talk page before removing large, sourced and established sections in articles. Your edit summary was "Already talked about extensively elsewhere". This explanation doesn't say where it's already talked about extensively. Besides, is something being talked about elsewhere a good reason to remove it? CowHouse (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can find discussions of climate change in U.S. politics discussed on our pages for the EPA, policies of Donald Trump, and pages on various U.S. elections. That last subsection can be moved to Barack Obama. This article focuses on global warming and climate change, so it seems out of place to stick a section of politics from a certain country into it. Furthermore, a lot has happened since 2012. Besides, this is Rational Wiki, not U.S. Politics Wiki. Nerd (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * has a point, several in fact. 14:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Feel free to undo my edit. CowHouse (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

About your removal of my citation for TWP’s article on the Freedom From Atheism article
Hi CowHouse,

The reason why I said those things about TWP’s article on the AA’s “problem” was because the article was almost as biased and defamatory as the FFAF was, in that it also takes advantage of the ugly actions of a “bad actor” in the American Atheists (a secular rights group in the USA) and then tries to pin it on the entire atheist community, setting things up so that no matter what the AA does about it, it would always be viewed as some morally-corrupt act of misogyny/rape apologetics (the fact that the AA got rid of Silverman due to him violating their zero-tolerance harassment policy conveniently ignored). I know that it was a smear article, and I won’t stand for it. I thought that I’d bring it up so as to get the point accross that the “progressive” left are supporting the rights of all the other minorities in America, but for some reason are doing absolutely nothing about discrimination against us atheists, and instead defaming those of us who do, thus this being one of the few things that both the right AND left agree on- that all atheists are a bunch of little amoral misogynists who run around groping and raping women because Elevatorgate and Silverman.

No, really. Conservapedia also seized this opportunity to demonize atheists.

-BP9, 25 October 2018 11:16 PM (GMT)
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
 * Can you provide some quotes from the article to illustrate your point? I read the article and I don't think your description of it is accurate. CowHouse (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, here’s one quote from the article:

American Atheists say he was not fired due to sexual relationships. Hmm... the AA seems to say otherwise: 

And here quite a few others, which show that the left will never be satisfied no matter what the “atheist movement” does: But among the dozen or so national organizations that promote a strict separation of religion from American civic life, Silverman is the fourth male atheist or secularist leader to face serious charges of sexual harassment, assault or other misconduct regarding women. He apparently is the only one to lose his job.

The above quote is basically distracting attention away from the fact that Silverman did bad things, and instead goes, “Oh look everyone, yet another amoral atheist has faced charges of sexual misconduct, and he was the only one who was punished. We know that things have improved in their movements since the other incidents, but who cares?”. In short, the writer of the article appears to have some sort of confirmation bias about atheists being evil.

And here is a quote that I took issue with in particular: Organized secularism — which includes atheist, humanist, skeptic and other reason-focused groups — is now grappling with issues of misogyny, sexual harassment and safety for women and minorities.

Now, I’m all for feminism and all, but seriously- “issues of misogyny, sexual harassment and safety for women and minorities”? Oh, you mean that old issue that the American Atheists has already fixed with their harassment policy? Oh yes, I forgot- they think the New Atheists are representative of the ENTIRE atheist community. Oh, and also, “minorities”? With all due respects, are all atheists not a minority ourselves? Are we not all one of the most hated, distrusted, and complained-about minorities in America? (Well, guess what- this is actually THE MAIN REASON why the various atheism movements exist- to fight for our fair and equal treatment by religious people.)

A spokesman for the group confirmed the move was based on allegations that Silverman had violated the organization’s code of conduct, but refused to provide specific details.

WTF?! That literally just contradicted that whole thing the article was just saying earlier about how that is not why he was fired. Hmm... they can’t both be correct...

And then the article basically goes COMPLETELY off-topic, rattling off a long list of cherry-picked examples of famous atheists doing ugly things to women. Of course it does.

If that isn’t “accurate” enough... then I don’t know what is.


 * B P "'''9 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind but I collapsed your comment so this conversation would be easier to follow. I'll quote you before I respond so you know what I am replying to.
 * "the AA seems to say otherwise". The link you provided says nothing about sexual relationships and the WaPo article quoted a spokesman for American Atheists saying "loss of confidence" was the reason for his termination.
 * Nick Fish, a spokesman for American Atheists, said the sexual allegations were not the reason that Silverman was terminated. “The board was able to review a lot of [documents] that allowed them to conclude Silverman violated its internal policy,” including staff management, conflicts of interest and violations of its general code of conduct, Fish said. “He lost the confidence of the board, and his contract allowed the board to terminate him for any reason. And loss of confidence is more than enough.
 * "The above quote is basically distracting attention away from the fact that Silverman did bad things, and instead goes, “Oh look everyone, yet another amoral atheist has faced charges of sexual misconduct, and he was the only one who was punished. We know that things have improved in their movements since the other incidents, but who cares?”. In short, the writer of the article appears to have some sort of confirmation bias about atheists being evil." I'm not sure how to respond to this. The writer said this: "Silverman is the fourth male atheist or secularist leader to face serious charges of sexual harassment, assault or other misconduct regarding women". I don't see anything there that's inaccurate or implies atheists are amoral or evil.
 * "Oh, you mean that old issue that the American Atheists has already fixed with their harassment policy?" I won't comment on the issue being "old" and "fixed" but the quote was about "organized secularism", not American Atheists.
 * "Oh yes, I forgot- they think the New Atheists are representative of the ENTIRE atheist community." Where are you reading this? The article doesn't say New Atheists are representative of the atheist community.
 * "With all due respects, are all atheists not a minority ourselves?"' Yes they are, but I don't see your point.
 * "That literally just contradicted that whole thing the article was just saying earlier about how that is not why he was fired." There's no contradiction. The quote you provided is talking about violating the code of conduct, not specifically about sexual allegations (see also: the above quote by Nick Fish).
 * I think replying to the above points was a mistake in hindsight because I was not asking why you didn't like the article. This is what you added to the FFAF page: "The Washington Post tries to pin it on the entire atheist community as well". Where in the article does this happen? The article includes this quote which contradicts your assertion: “I think there are many people in the atheist community who are saying that women need to be believed, and sexual assault and harassment needs to stop.” Also, two of the critics quoted in the article are both atheists ( and ). As you'll notice reading the article, it's about atheist figureheads. It's about holding people accountable when they are in positions of power and influence. As Zvan is quoted as saying: "No figurehead is so critical that this movement will put aside its goals to serve them." This applies to the atheist community as it does to every other community. CowHouse (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert all of my edits on SJWiki's article
I gotta admit that my edits on SJWiki's article were somewhat biased, but why did you revert every last one of them? There was actually some accurate information in there, e.g. the thing about how they have deleted most of the articles that they once had, and now only have less than 20 that still stand today. Also, I have noticed that you have been reverting so many major edits entirely based on just a few inaccuracies, that I'm starting to get a little suspicious of you... B P "'''9 18:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "unsourced entirely"? You mean all of those citations that I put in the references, and were the result of me searching through the actual SJWiki site? B P "'''9 19:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit summary said "Sourced articles were misrepresented and other claims were unsourced entirely." I have noticed a pattern with your edits where you will make a strong claim and provide either no source or a source that does that substantiate the claim. You have done this with the WaPo article, SJWiki, and now my own edit summary.
 * I have noticed that you have been reverting so many major edits entirely based on just a few inaccuracies. If you don't provide examples, how am I supposed to respond?
 * To answer your question, I could have explained my edits on SJWiki more specifically the first time. Sorry about that. CowHouse (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that when you deleted large portions from the SJWiki article (e.g. the entire contents of the Poe's Law section), you made what are some very serious accusations against me, e.g. "poisoning the well" and "false equivalence", both of which are untrue. If that was your grievance, then you could have just made those less biased. Also, I have noticed that you had previously, without warning, vaporized AN ENTIRE ARTICLE (Fun:Conservapedia How To)- all because of a simple plagiarism problem that could easily be fixed in a less-destructive way in like, 1-2 edits to make it less Liberapedia-like. It's one thing to get rid of an entire section that you don't like, but destroying an entire article over such a small thing? Nu-uh. That's not okay. B P "'''9 05:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "There was actually some accurate information in there, e.g. the thing about how they have deleted most of the articles that they once had, and now only have less than 20 that still stand today." Your example of accurate information was inaccurate. I can find categories with 66 articles, 40 articles, etc. Where are you getting your information?
 * You said I was "reverting so many major edits". So you're referring only to my edits on one article (SJWiki)? I explained why the Poe's Law section should be removed, feel free to explain why you disagree with the points I raised.
 * You compared SJWiki to Conservapedia because its articles were "biased" and had "oversensitive leaders". There was no source to justify the "oversensitive leaders" claim. Concerning false equivalence, do you think it's a fair equivalence when the bias on Conservapedia is against homosexuality and the bias on SJWiki is against homophobia?
 * Plagiarism is not a "small thing", it's serious. Many of our articles have been deleted due to plagiarism: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Congo Free State Hecatomb denial, Robert M. Price, S. T. Joshi, Jozef Tiso, Genocide of California Indians, Ronilism, etc. By the way, the links are supposed to be red but you can still read why the page was deleted. CowHouse (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"do you think it's a fair equivalence when the bias on Conservapedia is against homosexuality and the bias on SJWiki is against homophobia? " Really? That's got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. My point was that they are like CP in that they are extremely biased, and if you actually read some of their articles, you will find that like CP, they also think anyone who does not agree with them is a horrible person. I swear, you sound more and more like a troll with each post. There's a reason why I tried to block you. B P "'''9 05:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Drama leaked onto my talkpage
I agree with most of how you've handled BP9, but I do have one question of a procedural nature. Don't we need to go through the coop/a mod before stripping someone of sysop or putting them in sysoprevoke? 17:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll answer, but my impression were for coop cases that are potentially contentious. BadPiggies9 can accept the revokal of power, but can try raising the issue through the coop. So far, most mods agree that BadPiggies9's conduct is unsavory, so I don't believe a coop case is really going to add anything. Unless someone else can provide a decent and interesting case for BadPiggies9 to keep powers. 17:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I would not have changed their user rights if they were an established user and their behaviour was contentious. BP9 was a sysop for less than 2 days, an editor for less than 1 month and, in my opinion, blatantly abused their powers. I don't think BP9 should have been made a sysop so quickly in the first place.

To quote the Community Standards:

I would argue they were being particularly disruptive and I raised the issue at RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. Nevertheless, you make a fair point and I have now raised it at the chicken coop. CowHouse (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi CH (is it OK if I call you that?),

I am genuinely sorry about my rash and childish behavior yesterday. I was very tired and not in my best mood, and I'll admit that I didn't exactly make the best decisions. You're right, I should not have done the things that I did. Now I acknowledge that if I don't want what I create to be mercilessly edited by "the mob", then I should make an essay about it, rather than making big accusations like I did against you. Also, you're right, I should not have tried to block you just for mercilessly editing one of my creations (I've just realized that merciless editing is a given on here, and most other wikis), and now I understand why you desys- er, I mean promoted me: because I did a full-on Karajou on you, and I'm sorry. I would also like to apologize for that essay that you were disturbed by, the one that involved me "wandalizing" CP. I have no idea what got into me, but don't think that it reflects what I seek to do on here. Unlike CP, I have great respect for this site. I originally apologized on Duce's talk page (and pinged you, among other mods), but I would also like to apologize to you. It will never happen again. B P "'''9 03:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well done
Just wanted to say you did a very good job in addressing Sarsour controversial tweet. -Lankaster (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Mod Notice
LeftyGreenMario nominated you, but did not notify you, I guess. I'm sure you know. Maybe say yes?Ariel31459 (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the pinging would be enough... Oops. 00:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive
You might want to archive some of these old threads, just saying. — Oxyaena   Harass  01:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ninja
You now have the ninja role so you can stop clogging up the recent changes log with your boatload of minor edits. — Oxyaena   Harass  10:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I should have done that in retrospect. Normally I don't find that many instances of the same misspelling. CowHouse (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)