User talk:McLaghing

Topic
Christopher (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits have seemed reasonable. I have given you autopatrolled status. This will enable you to bypass Captcha. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Christopher (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocking
There was no reason to block. MAI742 is a sysop and good faith contributor. You risk losing your sysop status with actions like this. CowHouse (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have blocked him because I am worry that he will revert back any change of the page Free market without looking the talk page (since he have done so). Anyway, as a sysop, I am still learning, so if I am done wrong you can unblock MAI742. McLaghing (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not block people pre-emptively and even if MAI742 did revert any changes, a block would be an inappropriate response. CowHouse (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but what is the appropriate response? By the way, in the past I think I have been blocked for reverting changes. McLaghing (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may have been accidentally blocked. Your block log says you were blocked for "blanking page content", but based on your contributions you never did this. CowHouse (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, here's our blocking policy. CowHouse (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Milo
The Bernstein article has been independently confirmed by multiple individuals named in it. Just because you don't want him to be a Neo-Nazi doesn't change the fact that he has been exposed as one. Why deny plain facts? Cat A. Lonia (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not a neo-Nazi and flippantly throwing around the label like this is not helpful or accurate. 19:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneau and all that
I must tell you I know very little about Molyneau, but what I know inclines me to ridicule the shit out of him. I, personally, favor analyzing a subject like a body stretched out upon a table (as Mr. Eliot says), rather than simply repeating infamous stories that are typically apocryphal, though perhaps true in spirit. I generally disapprove of pointing and smirking like a ruffian in the street. I will look at your work on the article. I know it seems fruitless to talk with James, he seems so fixed in his belief in his own opinions. I have had trouble with him working on the Peterson article. So I am not the best person to arbitrate. My theory of editing here has been to go along with administrators senior to me in time served. Also, always show respect to moderators for the following reasons. I think that if another administrator refuses to accept your edit on anything you should let it go: first, it shows respect to other editors, which is all that we have to keep chaos from descending. Second, there are many articles to fix here. Just go to another one. If you are active longer than your opponent, you should eventually win out (unless there is consensus that you are wrong). Please don't become exasperated, as I have seen in your talk page comments. Impatience has a negative effect upon the reader. Finally, as you have presented yourself as a critic of the social justice movement (mention of which I would take pains to eradicate), you should not be surprised to find that its acolytes are reverting your efforts.Ariel31459The Hypocryphal
 * Well, thank you for taking some time to look at my comments about Molyneux's page. Regarding the moderators, I didn't have so much trouble except for a recent discussion with CowHouse. After a bit of time on RationalWiki, it seems to me that the real problems are others:

These make extremely difficult to improve an article (and not in the good way). Finally, about my presentation as "critic of the social justice movement", of course I'm not surprised of some reactions, perhaps what's surprising is that a community of skeptics doesn't seem to have problems to these personal attacks and lacks of arguments. --McLaghing (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If one has some ideas for improve a page and write them on the talk page, almost every time they are completely ignored.
 * If one start editing the article, explaining his motivations, the edits are often reverted without any comments.
 * The latter behavior is tolerated (take as CowHouse "no consensus no changes" approach, or your "respect the moderators" suggestion)
 * OK. This is how I would proceed. If you wish to make edits and they are contested: 1) say so on the talk page, giving a general outline.2) State plainly that you will make the edits if no administrator objects. and wait at least a few days before acting 3) Make only the edits you proposed to make. 4) If you are reverted by an administrator go to their talk-page instead and ask for an explanation. You deserve an explanation. 5) if you are reverted by a non-sysops, tell them not to do it unless another administrator agrees with them. They can be stopped, and if no one wants them to succeed, you should be allowed to stop them.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I followed your suggestions in doing some edits to the page Basic income (First I asked on the talk page, then I got the OK of the moderator Christopher and then I did the edits) but there are again problems with James Earl Cash. Now he not only reverted my edits (after a very long discussion and without the consensus of Christopher) but he also deleted more than half of the section Disadvantages! It's really extenuating trying to improve a page - by motivating any edits and by asking to everybody days in advance - if it is tolerated that somebody else can delete and revert everything as he desired! --McLaghing (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be that intellectual integrity combined with matriculated-humor is not well-represented at times here. Some of these people, in all honesty, are just kids. Indeed, the individual you have been dealing with seems to be favored like an errant child fostered by over-indulgent parents. If you want to be present, be present. Don't edit war: edit resist. Don't revert, allow the little guy's mess to be appreciated for a week or two and then clean it up. If you are reverted by a different person, then maybe give up on that edit; or wait another week or two, and then repeat once or twice. This way you will not clog up the history sections and there should be no requirement for a postmodernist plumber. Some of these people have no recognizable sense of humor.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yikes Ariel, THAT'S your help to the guy? Don't edit war, just edit war as passive aggressively as possible?

I'm going to bring this up in the Basic Income discussion by the way as it goes on. This shit is disingenuous to the extreme. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read it again. I recommended that he wait a few weeks, to let whatever mess was there set. Then revise. He should announce on the talk page. Too bad if you are not there to see it. Then he could repeat that a few times before giving up. That's not exchanging harsh words and reverting one another dozens of times, otherwise known as edit warring. If you want to revert him, that's up to you, but we are talking about 2-3 reversions, not edit war.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, your advice is to not edit war, just edit war as passive-aggressively as possible. Like a sneak. Splendid! I expected no less from you.


 * McLaghing to his credit, at the very least doesn't do that, no he runs crying to the mods as soon as he doesn't get his way. All that talk of rational discussion is thrown out the window, because as soon as he gets to the talk pages and the other parties respond, all decorum is thrown out the window and he decides he's not going to have the conversation period. Anymore word of it and he'll start edit warring with you, reasonable points be damned. And if you call him on it, he'll whine on the mods' actual talk pages while casually omitting his treacherous behavior. For someone who hates SJWs and safe spaces, he sure is easily triggered isn't he? James Earl Cash (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe taking a month or three, to rework an article at most 2-3 times, is edit warring. No whining, no multiple reversions, no crying to authorities. The moderators should love it. It should keep you busy too. Have fun.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you high? James Earl Cash (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Coop
Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Basic income
The vote on the basic income talk page has gone in your favour. Feel free to add your proposed criticisms, and revert James reverting you. Christopher (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. -McLaghing (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A few Rules of thumb.
I just thought I would drop by for a cup of digital tea and point out a few things. The people who frequent this wiki are mostly decent people. Some are young and tribal without extensive learning, a couple need anger management training, and a few have very marginal writing ability. There are many articles in need of work, updating and repair. There are a few that are undertaken with a kind of group zeitgeist identity. Take this James Damore article. I have heard many things about it (Damore's essay). I have not read the essay. In my opinion it is likely a media curiosity: a social science review by an engineer. If people generally knew that Mr. Damore manifests the social sensitivity blindnesses common to those suffering from autism, they might put aside their personal outrage. This story has a nominal valence in the recent history of ideas. In a few years I imagine no one will remember his name, the title, nor subject of his memoir.

I really think editing these social-justice-related articles can make one appear to be too aggressive. I myself, did that for a while. Don't be an anti-social-Justice-warrior, because they can be obnoxious too. But consider this: if you choose to act as an opponent to any ideology, then you have allowed that system of ideas to determine your own. I advise you not to make many demands on the time of the moderators. Despite good intentions, the administration of bureaucrats tends to revert to the mean.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some are young and tribal without extensive learning, a couple need anger management training, and a few have very marginal writing ability." <- I guess...


 * "I have heard many things about it (Damore's essay). I have not read the essay. In my opinion..." <- I have to criticize you, and I mean in a constructive way, do not take this as an offense. You admit that you have not read the memo but then you give your opinion on it. OK, your opinion is on "the memo and recent history of idea", not really on the content of the memo... but come on! It's only 10 pages. If you really want to have an opinion on it then read it. Maybe, what is really interesting about this memo, its not is content but the fact that the majority of the people commenting on it have not read it.


 * "If people generally knew that Mr. Damore manifests the social sensitivity blindnesses common to those suffering from autism, they might put aside their personal outrage." <- I guess so, but doing that would be wrong too. You are an (extremely high functional) autistic person, hence I don't care too much on what you say... that's a really bad concept.


 * "This story has a nominal valence in the recent history of ideas. In a few years I imagine no one will remember his name, the title, nor subject of his memoir." <- Well, yes and no. The people will not remember, but this is actually a court case on the free speech on the workplace, and it makes a precedent.


 * "if you choose to act as an opponent to any ideology, then you have allowed that system of ideas to determine your own." <- I disagree. I am an opponent of many ideas/ideologies and that does not mean those ideologies determine my own ideas. Let's pick one: I am an opponent to "alternative medicine". How do that determine my own ideas? It is quite the opposite: my own ideas determine what I am opposing.


 * "Despite good intentions, the administration of bureaucrats tends to revert to the mean." <- Yes, I got it. Indeed I lost interest in doing most of the edits. -McLaghing (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Despite putting a contrarian twist on my suggestions, you do seem to have gotten the main points. I mentioned that I had not read the article for a purpose, to emphasize how little a software engineer's take on social reality is of interest to people who are not motivated to either attack or defend it, like a dog walking on its back feet: it is surprising, but it doesn't look right. It is the response to the article that I find interesting. It is likely that many would be wrong-headed about this man's review of scientific matters outside of his field. Why point out his disorder? Because it reproves those who would berate him for the very type of insensitivity they themselves display towards him.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "It is the response to the article that I find interesting." <- I agree that are the response to be interesting. On one hand, the claims of the memo are things known and studied from at least the '70s, so the memo is nothing original. On the other hand, as I have already written "what is really interesting about this memo, its not is content but the fact that the majority of the people commenting on it have not read it", that is, the media, the journalists, and the average person, showed no interest at all in the reality of men and women differences and how to improve men and women relations on workplace.


 * "Why point out his disorder? Because it reproves those who would berate him for the very type of insensitivity they themselves display towards him." Then I agree with this too. Indeed, the hypocrisy and incoherence of all those, let's call them "indignant people", is that they are the first to act aggressively while accusing the other of being aggressive. -McLaghing (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

See here good fellow, I know I am in line for a ration of remonstration from all sides, but kindly do not remove my calls for citations, or suggestions for correct alternatives when clearly inept diction is removed. I have never complained to you about snark and your comments in reverting edits seem hypocryphal. Is your object now to see that this article on Damore's memo appears as illiterate as possible?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I was not reverting your edits because I disagreed with them. Adiós. --McLaghing (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How weak you would seem to others for abandoning your positions.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you didn’t realise
Pings don’t work in edit summaries. Christopher (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)