User talk:CowHouse

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, CowHouse!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

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

*opens secret cow level*[edit]

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:

  • Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • web.archive.org and archive.is can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment[edit]

Dear CowHouse,

We regret to inform you that you have been demoted to the rank of sysop. You are requested to report to a bureaucrat at your nearest possible convenience, to be haz it been given a mop and bucket for the purposes of cleaning up the mess around here. No questions are allowed. If you have any further questions, (further questions are permissible) please refer to the enclosed pamphlet So you are now a sysop. At your leisure, please go to the dungeon Room 202 to see the reward mops and hammers you can work towards having! Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Applebaum/Corbyn[edit]

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[edit]

Hello, CowHouse.

I wonder why are you reverting edits made by me?[1]

Go and refer to Bongolian (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) , 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, @Bryan See. 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[edit]

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[edit]

A close up of an awesome, amazing goat's face.

Awesome Award

for

CowHouse

Reason: being awesome

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[edit]

See the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia:HotCat. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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)

@Tea Sagan 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)
@Tea Sagan 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[edit]

Sorry about the block, CowHouse. I had meant to block the BoN that you had reverted. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bongolian That's ok, no harm done. CowHouse (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anarchism[edit]

  • 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:
    • {{cn|joke}} which looks like this: [citation NOT needed].
    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[edit]

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[edit]

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