User talk:Cosmikdebris/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 20 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, < List>, <4>

, (new)(back)

Coop

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

Flying Feathers (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Moderator election results

See the results here. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Rational or Dishonest

I was self-deluded in thinking the rules of the game would be fair... but I wont insist as it seems you are only satisfied with arguments supporting your own views and will erase any opposing arguments instead of proving why they are wrong. It's a shame for someone who claim to be rational... ^{— Unsigned, by: Fpoof / talk / contribs}

@Fpoof With regards to your edits to Biblical prophecies, please provide a summary of your proposed changes on the article's talk page. Your contributions up to this point were made without any discussion or request for feedback, and instead of engaging in rational discourse you immediately decided to come here and insult me. Please consider that there are people here who are willing to talk to you if you give them a chance, instead of being condescending and insulting. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fpoof I edited the talk page and I hope it is not just a 'dump' page.-^{— Unsigned, by: Fpoof / talk / contribs}

Remember

Always patrol stuff before deleting or moving, that spam account will be stuck in the unpatrolled recent changes for months. Christopher (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Christopher Got it, thanks. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded angry about that, I’m not. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

I tried deleting it earlier today, and that didn't work out well enough. I didn't realize how dramatic that page could get. So, uhh, thanks for doing what I should have done earlier. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Glad to be of service. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome Award

🧠Rationalwiki

Awesome Award

for Cosmikdebris/Archive2

Reason: being awesome

—ClickerClock (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@ClickerClock Thanks! Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DiscoDudette checks in

You know nothing about me, so don't make shit up, okay? I am nothing like those users you put on User talk:Christopher. I am a decent user to help out. Nothing more. Bombshell (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bombshell Ah, so that IP I blocked was a proxy. Shame, I thought it might be your real IP. Oh well. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that you're a ninja…"

You do know that you need to turn on your "bot" setting in user right management when you want to hide edits, right? Bongolian (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian Yes, I'm familiar with how this feature works. Thanks, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Peter Singer page

Hey, why was my edit on the Peter Singer page reverted? Granted, it's a bit much for my edit history, but I saw quite a few inaccurate statements on the page so I decided to edit them. I'd sort the inaccuracies/edits into three categories (maybe four, if you include the additional info added):

Effective altruism - it simply isn't true that Singer gave up/stop advocating his beliefs after his 1971 paper. Rather, he published the 2009 book, The Life You Can Save, which furthered his drowning child argument, basically saying in effect that it's amoral not to donate to charity with surplus wealth when you're living in a world where there's so many people undergoing great suffering because they don't have as much as you. You can read the Wikipedia article on the topic for more info, but there's simply no doubt that Singer did expand on his argument later, albeit a few decades later.

Infanticide/Replacability Argument - Nowhere can you find Singer advocating infantacide for the sake of it (as the article largely implies), let alone the arbitrary "28 day" timeframe listed (even less grounding in reality - the so-called number was pulled out of the editor's ass, to be frank). Rather, he simply advocates non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of severely disabled/ill infants whom the doctors and parents believe will suffer gravely if they continue to live, in addition to severe dementia/Alzheimer's patients who have regressed to the point of simply laying in a bed and being force-fed through a tube where the family members believe that they should be allowed to die in dignity, as stated in the sources linked.

As far as the replacibility argument goes, it's a theoretical statement in relation to animal rights/veganist views held by Singer, not euthanasia. Literally a quick google search would find that: http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0008 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wright1433172495&disposition=inline https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-28627-7_4

Rape apology part - Out of all of these parts, that part is the most slanderous/misleading. Singer instead argues that the man was consenting and enjoyed the relationship, based on the evidence at hand. Again, one would find that by reading the article linked as a "source".

And if you really want an explanation for the additional info part, I just decided to include other views of Peter Singer that seem to get far less attention but give you a better insight on the views of the philosopher (as well as added another external link in the form of an entire library full of Singer's papers, books and excerpts).

Anyways, thanks for reading this. DancingCake (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@DancingCake: Thank you for the follow-up. We are constantly bombarded with article vandalism and sometimes revert too quickly. With your permission, I would like to put your comments above on the talk page for the article, so that others can see the rationale for your changes. Once this is done I see no reason why your edits can't proceed. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris: That'd much appreciated. Apologies for any inconvenience - I'm still fairly quite new to this thing as per my rather small edit history mainly with small changes. Thanks for your help. DancingCake (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You moved a page without patrolling it

And now I have to clean up your mess. Should I create a hall of shame? —Kazitor, ^pending 03:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor Yes, yes you should. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, how about you leave an apology at User:Kazitor/Patrol of Shame. —Kazitor, ^pending 03:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for blocking you by mistake, I meant to block the user that vandalized my talkpage. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie That's ok, I needed to figure out how to unblock myself anyway. I learn a little more this day about MediaWiki. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ripoff Report

Hi there, Cosmikdebris. I'd avoid using Ripoff Report as a reference if possible (and it is possible for Jilly Juice) because Ripoff Report has been involved in extortion-like activity.[1][2] Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you know they have a listing for RationalWiki on Ripoff Report? 172.58.12.27 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Block on that PCC person

You seriously blocked that bimbo for only three and a half days but block my socks for infinity? C'mon man... 172.58.12.27 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

I thank you for your additions to the sources I used in the Owens article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How do articles get rated?

I've asked this in another place, and I've read the article ratings explainer page, but I'm still not solid on how it works. Do you just pin the "not rated" template in the talk page and wait for someone to fill it out? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the standard practice. Before rating something bronze, I compare the candidate to other bronze level articles to get a feel for what others think. For silver and above, a community consensus on the talk page is generally the way it's done. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"copyright violation"

Please stop deleting articles for "copyright violation" that aren't in violation.Lonius (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lonius "Copyright violation" in this instance means "copied from Wikipedia". We don't do that here. Write your own material. I'm going to re-vaporize your articles, and if you try to delete-war with me, I'm going to block you. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"We don't do that here" - please cite Rational Wiki rule for this.

Here's an idea - before just deleting a whole new article and going on with your day, how about contacting the person who created the article and informing them how to bring it up to Rational Wiki standards? You know, I didn't just copy and paste, it takes a lot of work to modify a Wikipedia article because Rational Wiki (a) doesn't support many of the templates Wikipedia does, and (b) one has to remove a lot of the wiki links. Sound like a good idea? Your approach so far has been nothing but bullying. Please consider being more polite and considerate, and helping to BUILD Rational Wiki rather than outright deletion of new articles. So - please let me know how I could re-write the articles you've deleted to render them up to Rational Wiki standards.

@Lonius Your pages were filled with red-links and were not written in the RW style. If you can't see why that's wrong, then I don't know what to do for you. Write your own shit. I don't know why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. If you need further help, read these for more: RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? Help:Manual of style RationalWiki:Mission Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Some were. The article on inventor/author Michael Paulkovich was COMPLETELY CLEAN. Did you even read it? I left A COUPLE of red links on the American Rationalist article because I was in the process of making those articles that were linked to when people started deleting those. Please GIVE US SOME TIME to build up these articles and references, one day is TOO SHORT to just start deleting, don't you think? Anyway, I'm going to re-write the articles. PLEASE, before you just delete them, won't you promise me you'll read them, and if there are problems, you'll contact me? Insults like "I don't know why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp" isn't helpful either. Is it at all possible you'll be more cordial, and helpful? AND GRANT MORE TIME FOR US TO CREATE LINKED-TO ARTICLES BEFORE WHOLESALE DELETION. Please?Lonius (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and supply me with the source for the article on The American Rationalist. I put some work into that and it's off in the void now, there's not even an old version as far as I can tell. I can modify it to meet the requirements of Rational Wiki. And again, PLEASE, before just deleting articles, contact the creator of the article. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have people just throw out your work? I'm trying to add to this wonderful Wiki. Lonius (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your threat to block me, please see RationalWiki:Blocking_policy: "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner... Blocking should only be used if somebody is maliciously editing a page or pages, as explained below." Thank you. Lonius (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lonius It is considered plagiarism and a violation of RationalWiki's community standards to copy articles verbatim from Wikipedia. I don't have any problem with using articles from there as a basis for an article here, but the new RW article should be rewritten before adding here, especially in the main space. You can always use your personal sandbox and/or the Draft namespace to do this on topics you're interested in, but please don't blatantly plagiarize wikipedia articles here. Besides being in poor taste I fail to see the point why anyone would want to do this. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Cosmikdebris,

I would like to thank you for correcting my linking mistakes in the article on CP's Kendoll. I am new to RW, and I am still learning how to do some "wiki-fu". And speaking of which, I think that that article could use some more information and improvements. ^{— Unsigned, by: BadPiggies 9 / talk / contribs}

No problem. Welcome aboard. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Article merges

Thanks you so much for merging the articles. Here's a power star and some star bits. *gives them* --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You've been nominated as moderator

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

CowHouse (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is lumpy

And what ban are they evading? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Check the Block log for this IP. I used @GrammarCommie's previous block reason. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I humorously named a spam account Lumpy in my reason for deleting the spam. I then added "BEGONE FOUL LUMPY!!!" to the block reason, also in jest. It appears that I may have started a meme. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, in that case they seem to not be a spammer? They seem to, at worst, be a wandal, and 3.6 days might be excessive for "brooke was here". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I did a longer block was because the subject was a repeat offender. You can drop it to less than that if you feel my action was excessive. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I see what you're getting at. It's not like in 4 days the world will end. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppets

How do you know who is a sock of who? Nerd (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Just an educated guess based on three evidence points. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nerd (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)