User talk:Lankaster

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Lankaster! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Bongolian (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2018 (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 POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!

Bongolian (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid the Plantagenets

When you run into a wall here, it is usually a good idea to find a different direction to accelerate in. I see that you have only worked on the Cognitive Differences.., page. Try contributing elsewhere for a while. People may get used to you. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It can also demonstrate that you're editing in good faith when you make substantive contributions in other parts of the wiki. When you edit in only one area, it looks like you might have an agenda when the edits are perceived as controversial. Bongolian (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 "People may get used to you." The point is that RW should not work according to which user the moderators "got used to". But I see that this is indeed the way, since Ikanreed‎ deleting entire sections and insulting me is considered acceptable, but as soon as I delete a section because I consider it sexist I got immediately blocked (apparently for even a longer time than it is usual).

@Bongolian "it looks like you might have an agenda" Similary answer: it shouldn't matter what "it looks like", for example, it looks to me that Ikanreed‎ is thinking with his butt, but I never used such claim as an argument. --Lankaster (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop making unconstructive edits

Once the protection ends I expect your petulant destructive edits to cease. Do it again, get blocked again. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Once the protection will end, I'd like to make the following edit:

Women have significantly better connected neural networks compared to men's neural networks, according to a study on people aged 22-35.[13][14] The brain being a highly complex structure, this of course doesn't automatically translate to higher intelligence. (Sorry misandrists.)

to make clear that women's better connected neural networks do not support any misandrist's claim. Is that considered a destructive edit? And why? I have to ask since you didn't take part to the discussion on the talk page... --Lankaster (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Moderators don't control what is in articles. The edit you propose would never be accepted by a small group of determined editors. Please move on to other topics.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That "small" group of editors include moderators. It's called a "consensus". The consensus disagrees with your edits. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If I may ask, how is that edit destructive? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Lankaster was edit warring, removing content especially without a talk page consensus and also tacking on passive-aggressive remarks (the edit above is a sample of passive-aggressive behavior, might not be apparent without its context, which you can see in the talk page). "Unconstructive", "disruptive" and "uncooperative" is a good way of describing his nature. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Why your comprehension is bad

Maybe I didn't do a good job why I think your reading comprehension over at Talk:Cognitive differences between sexes is bad. But I'll give a run-down. Starting with "This article is trash now".

1. ikanreed starts by pointing out that the claims are not supported by the citation. Backs up with specific parts of the paper.

   You respond with "be cool" and you quote sentences and figures (Table 1) in the studies as well as linking to the studies

2. ikranreed says the data doesn't support what you say

   You say that you're just quoting a sentence from a meta-analysis and deny you are making any statements beyond that. Also, you say it's "empathetic sadness, not empathy". You make a third claim about empathy differences widening as subjects mature.

3. ikranreed accuses you of not having read the study and just quote mining the study. Talking about how "empathetic sadness" is literally empathy but just one measure of it. And the third claim is refuted when ikanreed says that nothing else in the study measures empathy, only neuroimaging data.

   You say, "read the quote again". "Look at Table 1" again. You're essentially reiterating number 1. And as for the number 3, you're also just reiterating your argument. "This is supported by the meta-analysis". This part, you have failed to address the points ikanreed brought up and you don't demonstrate really any comprehension, like you haven't really read the paper or looked at any of the data or tables beyond a few parts that seem to support your views.

4. ikanreed again says that you're doing it wrong again, and you're just repeating what you're saying in a different way. He also cites socialization playing a role and quotes a part of the study supporting that.

That's before Cheeseburgerface comes in. And before I come in and say, "you're not really getting this". You're not good at addressing information from someone who clearly knows how to read papers better than you. For this argument, you're just repeating information even when someone points out that the data and parts of the paper does not support what you claim. I'll probably summarize another discussion again, but I have not seen any improvement in your part since your discussion. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Please learn how to cite concisely. There is no need to give a link twice. When citing a news article, the title of that article can be the hyperlink. No need to give it separately. Click here to see how I do it. You can of course give the name of the journalist(s) who wrote the article and the date when you accessed it, but I don't think those details are necessary. Nerd (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Lankaster (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking good, mate! Nerd (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

0 Second Blocks

Are to let you know when you've done something annoying, silly, or otherwise inconsequential. It's called a joke block, sysops do it all the time. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Everybody who disagree with me is a fascist!

"a literal fucking fascist like Lankaster."

@James Earl Cash Get serious --Lankaster (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry chief, anyone who acts gobsmacked at parallels people make between Trump's current activities and literal fascism is either an irredeemably stupid person or a fascist. Pick your poison. James Earl Cash (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You know what, fuck it, keep your trash off my glorious page you worthless sack of shit. kthxbai. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You are getting more and more ridiculous. --Lankaster (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

Stop this drama for the last time you two. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I'm glad you came to tell James to stop calling me a fascist, a irredeemably stupid person, and a worthless sack of shit... Oh wait, you are not. --Lankaster (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realize that writing comments takes time? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Less time than writing a comment to explain that it takes time. --Lankaster (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I was writing a comment before you came in (actually in response to James Earl Cash in the Brett Kavanaugh talk page, but also busy with other edits), and I responded to you, and then I decided the comment was more appropriate for his talk page. And that's also factoring in what I should and shouldn't include in a comment to someone I have worked with longer than I've worked with you. Do you really want this to be more unnecessarily difficult for everyone? Your comeback isn't helping. It would be wiser to allow me time rather than dragging time out for everyone else involved. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"It would be wiser to allow me time" Of course, because it takes many hours to write something like "stop insulting [username]" --Lankaster (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Man, I really want to say you deserve it, because you're noxious, but "literal" fascist isn't accurate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't you dare try pushing my buttons any more Lankaster. Do it again, get a three-day block, plus talk page privileges revoked. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For quick reference:"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." Let's not, shall we? Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario "Don't you dare try pushing my buttons any more Lankaster. Do it again, get a three-day block, plus talk page privileges revoked."

Who cares? That will only prove how much an unfair moderator you are. I was insulted multiple times by other users and you never moved a finger. The best you did is asking James Earl Cash if please he can stop calling me a fascist. Now that I'm questioning your actions you suddenly block me and then threat a three-days block. Your incapacity to be super partes is simply pathetic. --Lankaster (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

James Earl Cash has a better reputation than you. You have earned my distrust of you since your dispute at Talk:Cognitive differences between sexes when you misrepresent your sources despite it constantly being pointed out to you (hence why users have resorted to insults; insults are not quite productive means of discourse but you've exhausted patience of several users including ikanreed, James Earl Cash, GrammarCommie, and me) and you starting several edit wars with your passive-aggressive "justification" as a way to deal with your frustration when you've wasted a lot of time with other users with your misunderstanding, willful or not, of what people are arguing. You haven't improved your image at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh either and since you are also not willing to cooperate, and continuously being callous and snide after being told to knock it off by me (unlike James Earl Cash who accepted his consequences), I've placed a three-day block on you as according to my warnings. If anyone is going to call question to my conduct, I will listen to other mods and other more trusted users (this includes Nerd who also bore a brunt of insults by ikanreed and James Earl Cash), not you. I make this clear. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A bit biased there aren't you? ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.8.245.245 / talk}

Autopatrolled again

So I've given you autopatrolled user rights again. Although this makes your life slightly easier, it's mostly because manually patrolling your edits is a pain in the ass. Please don't edit war with people are do anything to make me regret doing this for you, or else people are gonna be annoyed with me. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 08:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

My condolences

Someone appears to have demoted you to Sysop. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Does continuing to edit make sense?

In other words: Should I stop editing RationalWiki? If you care, please vote, possibly with a reason (I'm not gonna reply to them). I will count the vote after a week.

-Lankaster (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes

1. Hey man, if I can see the folly in continuing on what by all rights should be a great site, you need to wise up too. James Earl Cash (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. Relax. It's your choice. Don't be overly sensitive. Oh, and consider joining me over in mass transit, Amtrak, and high speed rail. Those pages do not receive much attention but need some work. Nerd (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
2. The Social Credit System (China) page that you created is good work, and I would like to see you do more edits like that in the realm of autocracy or other pages that are not strictly political. If you want to continue in the political sphere only, it's likely you're going to have the same level of frustration. We've had epic fights about political issues before (Israel-Palestine pages) that resulted in both parties leaving. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi

You might've made a bad impression on me the first time but I'm willing to go easier on you from now on. I can see your stance in some cases, and if I gave you any trouble just because of my initial distrusting of you, I'm sorry for it. I hope I can not be so harsh on everything you do. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Better later than never... but I don't see any real effort (I'm not speaking specifically about you) to fix all those faulty RW mechanisms that leaded to this situation, so I doubt it matters. -Lankaster (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It does matter. If LGM is prepared to rethink the way she regards you, that is progress. It's near enough to friendly. Cheer up!.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario could say a word about who only join a thread to insult me and tell me to shut up, that would be a start. -Lankaster (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)