Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

User talk:EK

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

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Palaeonictis Fossil beds 00:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

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! as per @Dysklyver. Bongolian (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

note

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. NekoDysk 10:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A courtesy

You blocked User:SimonandSimon for 9 hours. I had a look at their contribs and couldn't see why a block of an autopatrolled editor was warranted. I have, therefore, undone your block. --MtDBogan 17:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

D started to block any accounts that mention the troll beginning with "M" (who socks here daily and is regularly blocked). There's even a word filter on his name so users that aren't sysops cannot mention him, although he can easily be found and has a RationalWiki article (I wrote a comment on its talk.) Apparently anyone who now mentions "M" is getting blocked based only on something D has said; no other sysops voted on this issue or approved it.SimonandSimon (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't take my unblock as an endorsement of what you've done, are doing or are intending to do. It was User:EK who blocked you, not User:D. I simply cannot see, on the basis of your edits thus far, what warranted a block. I have a suspicion this will change in the near future. --MtDBogan 17:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, you reverted a couple edits of mine on Men's rights movement. I'm not sure why; could you please explain? — Unsigned, by: Hppavilion1 / talk / contribs

because it didnt improve the article

you added: "though on the other hand, most people would consider being seen as helpless superior to be to being dead"; because me condescension or give me death!

you removed: "The fact that women attempt suicide more often would indicate that female suicide is a more important problem."; because Removed a sentence which contributed little which opened a huge can of worms about moral philosophy (if more women than men attempt suicide, but more men succeed, which issue is more important?)

no? EK (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(I wrote the following before your edit came through)
UPDATE: I'm reading through change-by-change to see what I did; most of the edits were single word changes (for example, "must" to "should", when should is more appropriate in the context). The first change affecting meaning was in a paragraph about birth control; it stated men have access to condoms and vasectomies, but "condoms do fail"- vasectomies aren't perfect either, since they don't always take, which is an extremely important thing to note.
The next was adding a clause reading "These are obviously both wrong" to a section discussing two isolated instances where men really did get screwed over by the courts (a man being ordered to pay child support after his sperm was stolen; a molested 12-year-old being ordered to pay child support) (these examples existing in the article before my edit).
The next was an edit in the section on suicide; the MRA argument is "more men commit suicide than women", the rebuttal was "more women attempt suicide, men just tend to be more successful. I removed a sentence reading "The fact that women attempt suicide more often would indicate that female suicide is a more important problem," because which is the more important problem in that case is up for serious debate.
The final change was in the section on the Birkenhall Drill ("women and children first"); one was an innocuous change noting that MRAs' issue is with the 'women' part, not the 'children' part; the final substantial change, and I suspect the sentence that you reverted my edit over, was an addition to the sentence beginning with "When the "women and children first" trope has been applied, you have to really wonder if it's ultimately condescending to women." I added the clause at the end "though on the other hand, most people would consider being seen as helpless superior to be to being dead." (which, on a second read-through, was really poorly-phrased). My thoughts on the matter are, basically, that if it were actually used frequently, the Birkenhall drill would be one of the few examples where men are screwed over more than women. The issue I took with that sentence was that saying that the drill may be "ultimately condescending to women" is because essentially, men are the ones who would be getting the short end of the stick in that case—if the Birkenhall Drill is in effect, women get condescended to, men get dead. The argument seemed reminiscent of "affirmative action is patronizing to minorities," basically. Hppavilion1 (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
TL;DR: Yeah, that first one was really poorly done, my apologies; the latter was removed because... one could argue that "more women attempt suicide than men" means "female suicide is a more important problem", but one could equally-well argue that "more men actually die from suicide than women" means "male suicide is a more important problem", and the statement took a side when I'm not sure there's a correct interpretation. No malice was intended in my edits, but that first sentence was very poorly written, yes. Hppavilion1 (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
ye it was overall not an improvement but u could put the vasectomies part back EK (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. I totally get the reason you'd revert — I think I tried to combine humor and wound up with a Frankenstein's monster of a sentence, and article's probably a huge MRA target in the first place. (I was historically more MRA-leaning, but I actually find myself today reading through the articles on people I used to like- such as TheAmazingAtheist and Sargon of Akkad, just to see them from a new perspective.)
I still think the suicide sentence's statement is disputable; I would argue that more people actually dying makes male suicide one of those rare issues in which men have it worse (though most suicide prevention policies should be pretty much gender neutral.)
The Birkenhall drill section, too, has some issues imo- but I'm not sure how to fix it. Hppavilion1 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DMorris

Yeah I changed my mind, check your email. NekoDysk 08:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)