User talk:Luigifan18

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Luigifan18! 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!

Undo

Why’d you undo my edit? I was revising it because the notes wouldn’t appear in the article. Rational Dude (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

…Oh. I thought you were taking them out for no good reason. My bad. I've had the efn template freak out on me, too. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I should’ve specified too. Rational Dude (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

ATIM Lumping

Okay, I knew it was only a matter of time before I was blocked, but I do still have a little bit of unfinished business. I wasn't sure whether or not to undo Christopher's ATIM edit, but I really do think that you guys should talk about clarifying your expectations on how ref notes should be used so that I don't repeat the mistakes that led to my topic ban and nobody else makes similar mistakes in the future. Thus, while my topic ban ATIM had indeed run its course (discussion of what I should do to avoid problematic mini-essays in the future aside; I'd still like to talk about the review board when I get back), I think that lumping the discussion I started on said clarification (and the suicide threat policy discussion, for that matter) into my topic ban ATIM and closing those discussions was a mistake and those discussions should be re-opened. Well, really the proper ref note usage discussion, mainly; that's the one where I think that community expectations need to be laid out a little more clearly (and I still think that I made a mistake in trying to clarify said expectations based solely on my own ATIM without actually consulting the community), and it looks like some form of consensus was being reached on the suicide threat thing. Well, that's all I had to say. I'll be sitting out RationalWiki activities for a while. See ya in a few months. --Luigifan18 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree the suicide bit should have remained a separate thread, rather than a subthread of your own case. Carthage (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(Huh, that was fast.) I know, why was it even lumped in?! --Luigifan18 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

On the reasons why people do things

Hi Luigifan! Name's ULTRACOMFY. You may or may not know me, I'm some random dude who dips in and out of the wiki sometimes. I, uh, I have been following your interactions on RW for a while and I think I would like to try to give you some of my thoughts because I think they might be helpful to you.

So, primarily I believe to have some understanding about the kind of situation you are in and why it's so hard for you to gain any kind of traction in communities like RW. A lot of things that you do and say, the way you act and the kind of responses you get, it's all very similar to experiences I have made myself. I think I have been in your situation before. I don't mean to offend you or to be disrespectful, but I think I really have been through some of the things you are going through right now. I've been thinking about you a lot in the recent few weeks because you remind me so much of myself and how I was a few years ago, and I might have overthought it a bit, actually.

Yknow, there is this saying "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter", and it really is true. I've thought so much about this that at this point I can't even go an big tangents or be really elaborate in the things I have to say, which means this might come off as pragmatic and maybe even rude, I hope you can excuse me for that.

So, I've been a loner. I didn't have any social interactions, in school I was bullied by some, ignored by most, my parents didn't really care about me and I tried my damndest to avoid them, my other family I always preferred but didn't feel exactly comfortable in, I didn't have any friends, the list goes on. Now, in that moment I wasn't really aware of this and kind of told myself that my life was normal, I kind of denied this taking place, but in retrospect it is really obvious. Now, even when you are lonely, one still has needs for attention, needs for affection and approval, needs for friends and the whole range. I'm not qualified to talk about this kind of stuff, but this should be accurate enough. To satisfy their needs, human brains can get extremely creative in their ways and, where there is scarcity, the kinds of strategies a brain comes up with tend to end up being very problematic in the long run. I did some horrible things online to extract some of that juicy approval and love that I had been longing for so much. No need to get into the details. Similarly, I sense something very similar in you - what I see in you are a lot of attention-seeking, approval-seeking behaviors very similar to the things that I used to do. Some concrete examples are: Excessive pinging (to improve the odds of getting a response); responding to absolutely everything and everyone who mentions or you just perceive as being alluding to you, even when you have little to nothing to add or weren't mentioned in the first place; you unsolicitedly inject yourself into conversations without having much to contribute to it (you are there for the interaction, not the conversation); the pointless polls (oh jeez, the pointless polls...); you do similar things in the RW mainspace where you inject yourself into an article without actually adding any substance (though pure copyedits would be totally fine; I will say, though, that I still don't understand what's with this "mini-essay" stuff - some people are complaining about things but I cannot be bothered to dig deep enough into that); basically you shove yourself into other people's faces at almost every opportunity you can get and.. well, as I said I kinda get it.

Add to it other general problems like ADHD or autism which is already a massive problem to one's ability to function properly in social settings, causing one to be unable to read other people's emotions and intents, and will end up in things like your Pokemon thing that *nobody* asked for that you continue to shove into people's faces. And, yknow, this is a defensive strategy. You really *want* to make this a better place, you really *want* to be useful here, but I think a lot of the problems that you are facing here on RW stem from the fact that you are here for so much more. This is the reason why being "rejected" by certain members of the wiki or even the wiki as a whole (by means of blocking you) is going to feel absolutely devastating to you. So much of your feeling of self-worth will be tied to your tenure on this Wiki because, well, you don't have much more. If you get attacked by people from here, you are being attacked by pretty much every person in your life that matters to you right now, simply by there not being anyone else.

So, I don't know. Maybe you aren't a loner and I am completely misinterpreting you. Either way, I was, and I did many of the things you are doing right now. It's been a very long and painful journey to get away from these kinds of things, I had to accept these faults and put in a lot of effort to change these behaviors that I got really stuck in. In fact, I still am working on it and I will never get to stop working on it. This isn't to say that it's all your fault. I believe strongly that some people have made a habit out of hating and shitting on you, who grew too comfortable with interpreting malice or other bad qualities into the kinds of things you say and do and didn't put in the necessary effort to continue to be respectful towards you. In fact, I have done this myself in some situations, though I hope I can redeem myself through standing up for you where you deserve to be defended and trying to actively help you where I see things that I can actually help you with.

Even if what I am saying is wrong and I don't get you at all, my hope is that this right here can serve as a useful starting point for a serious conversation. I would really like to hear your thoughts, what things you agree with, what you think is wrong, because I too am still learning. My word isn't gospel and I believe you and I can both learn from each other, just like anyone can learn from everyone else. Oh, isn't this the underlying philosophy of RationalWiki? Taking in everyone's standpoint no matter who or why they are and what they do? Considering merits, not circumstances? Right. Let's do that then :)

P.S.: Of course, this thing isn't the whole story. There is so much more to this drama, but hopefully what I said up there is enough to generate a useful perspective from which to think about all the other things going on. Alternatively, things can always be talked about where elaboration is needed. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not that much of a loner. I'm just a firm believer in RationalWiki's mission. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I will, however, admit that I'm kinda used to getting a really small audience online and having to claw for any recognition I can get… and yes, I have gotten in trouble for excessive butting-in in the past (the CAP board on Smogon comes to mind). --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but has it occurred to you that maybe you're not supposed to have an audience in this particular context? Like, say if you were working on a construction site with a whole crew of people all collaborating to build this large complicated structure and you occasionally have group discussions about how the project should be proceed, do you look at them as your audience? Is your number one priority to build this structure in accordance with the agreed specifications, or is there some other priority that has superceded that? Are you here to give something or are you here to get something? --Bjorn (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm here to give something, of course. All of my mini-essay ideas have been aimed at adding some sort of relevant information to their host articles — even if that relevant information comes in the form of presenting what a dissenting POV might look like and addressing their concerns, or explaining a brushed-over idea in greater detail, or something like that. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Really, guys?! What the heck is wrong with the review board idea?

@Plutocow @Bongolian I feel like you completely missed the point of the review board when you deleted it… the point was to discuss large, potentially controversial edits before going through with them in order to avoid low-quality edits and topic ban violations in the future. (And yes, I could just use the talk pages, but like I said, I don't want to make a new topic on a talk page every time I come up with a new idea. That could get out of hand.) Could you please restore it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I saw what you did to the Risk and Silver bullet pages. The risk page I'll give you, since that was probably my longest mini-essay and might be better off in essayspace (even though I was working on citations for it). But were my wisecracks on the silver bullet page (especially the one about golden bullets) really that unfunny?! I also don't get what was so objectionable about my comments on Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism, though I was also long-winded enough there that it could work in essayspace. --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Since I can't do it myself for the time being, could someone please move my Risk and Sam Burke Anti-Natalism mini-essays to the reject section on my userpage? Luigifan18 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow @Bongolian @Carthage …I may have phrased my opening statement here poorly. The review board is meant to serve as a filter. Its purpose is the exact opposite of "encouraging topic ban violations". The idea is that I forecast large, complicated, and potentially controversial, too-long-winded-for-their-own-good, source-requiring, or otherwise questionable-quality edits, and you guys pitch ideas to make them better and discuss their merits and weaknesses, culminating in a vote on whether or not the proposed and refined edit should be integrated into the proposed page. The entire point is that awful edits die on the review board and never end up in mainspace. For small ref notes or other semi-minor edits, I'm very comfortable with using talk pages to discuss them, but if I do that with big edits or too many edits, it runs the risk of bloating talk pages and drawing attention away from other discussions, and I don't want to do that because it simply isn't nice. Hence, the idea of a special sandbox for large edits. The point of it isn't to flout the topic ban, it's to obey the topic ban and address the issues that made it necessary in the first place. I've seen some other editors (such as Flange and RationalDude) set up sandboxes in their userspaces for similar purposes (such as potential articles that may not be entirely appropriate for even draftspace), so why can't I? Could someone please restore the review board? Deleting it was kind of inappropriate IMO.

As for the removed mini-essays on the Risk and Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism pages… I didn't really mention it in the ATIM, but in addition to continuing to work on the Progress & Regress Pokémon project, I wanted to retain editing access to my own userspace (not userspace in general, just my own userspace) so that I could update my userpage if any of my old mini-essays were rejected (read: edited out) while I'm blocked. Again, I get the technical and "more than this troublemaker deserves" concerns, so I understand why it couldn't happen, and I can wait until my block expires (assuming my memory doesn't fail me in the meantime). I'm just saying it would have been nice. --Luigifan18 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This sort of thing can wait until after your ban expires. You should try to take an actual break from RationalWiki, it'd do you good. Christopher (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, maybe. I do think that deleting the mini-essays from the Risk and Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism pages was the right call (both were walls of text, and the former at least could work as an essay easily enough); I'm just annoyed that Bongolian waited until after placing the block to do it, so I couldn't update my userpage accordingly. As for the mini-essay review board, I've considered expanding that concept into a general "writing advice and feedback" page for use by any editor who's unsure about the quality of their planned contributions, but I'd like to see how well it works for me first (if only due to concerns about bad actors using it to dump garbage for the lulz). --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Progress & Regress Pokémon - Help Wanted topic was manually archived from the Saloon Bar without its sub-topics. *facepalm* Like, come on, please don't half-ass that kind of thing. The "why is this still here" sub-topic in particular looks ridiculous without context. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Mostly TL;DR to all the above but if you're worried about clogging up talk pages then consider just either not caring since talk pages get all sorts of drive-by trolls anyway, or you can make a talk page section for the mini-essay things and then add sub-sections for whatever new one so they're all under the same talk page section. (I know you can't reply, so just something to consider for now.) Chillpilled (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Luigifan18 you do some really good editing on the site, your grammar checks have helped me in the past and i have learnt a lot from your editing. Luigi i hope you can enjoy a short break and come back to the site with all the feedback taken on board because a permanent ban would be good for nobody. RTD (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oof

I decided to check out the r/antitheistcheesecake subreddit, since I figured that if you liked it, then it probably isn't a bad subreddit, and oof, looks like I was wrong; I usually look up the word 'trans' as a litmus test for seeing how shitty a subreddit is, and what I found there was iffy at best and also kind of persecution complex-y; I saw someone treating Anti-Theism as some sort of big bad and some other stuff I forget, and though I disagree with its principles, I don't think it's much more than a misguided worldview, nor that any harm that it might cause if established is intentional. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no, r/antitheistcheesecake is full of people who are strongly religious and tend to react poorly to anyone saying anything bad about religion, no matter how valid it may be. Antitheism taken to the point of wanting to completely and utterly eradicate the very concept of religion is incredibly cringeworthy, don't get me wrong, but reacting to that threat by treating all atheists as dangerous morons and/or treating atheism as some kind of mental deficit is, um, irrational as heck, to put it mildly. Part of the reason I tried making r/fruitandcheese was to temper that kind of attitude by having less… rabid atheists have friendly chats with religious people. (Is that subreddit still alive? I never did get the chance to name a successor to lead it in my place.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And r/religiousfruitcake can be just as bad, since it's full of the aforementioned rabid antitheists who desperately want religion and everything and everyone who's connected to it to vanish from the face of the Earth forever and ever and ever. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not surprising given how Reddit is; Perhaps It's for the best that my only interactions with the subreddit itself have been through Emkay.. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A reminder

You're completely banned from adding ref notes to mainspace. It is dispiriting that you violated your topic ban so quickly after returning, so you're blocked for three days. Please do better upon your return. Plutocow (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In my defense, I did think long and hard before doing it, asking myself "Is adding this ref note really going to help RationalWiki?", and I figured that it might be okay just this once, since it was just one extra sentence and taking the "love of" out of "the love of money is the root of all evil" line is a pretty common quote mine that I've seen on multiple occasions. However, I had reconsidered it further over the next few hours and I was just about to remove that ref note myself, since quote mines of that line from the Bible aren't really relevant to talking about Jesus specifically. Rest assured that I won't be making a habit of this. If anything, I'd like to ask around on Discord the next time I'm tempted so I don't have to rely solely on my own intuition to answer the "Is this ref note really going to help RationalWiki?" question. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? No ref notes means no ref notes, no matter how "justified" you think it is. Your willful disregard of any moderator warning or sanctions is what got you into the three month block in the first place and will get you permabanned if you don't improve. The only way to get out of this is to just not post any ref notes, no questions asked, and show us that you can actually take these things seriously. Until then, you're not gonna have a good time here. Plutocow (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I know you just want to help, but RW is a collaborative project, and you have to be able to take instructions from moderators and accept input from other users. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here. The only way I can think of to show that I can "take these things seriously" is to demonstrate that I've listened to what you've said, taken it into account, and developed a more solid understanding of what is and isn't acceptable, and not being allowed to use ref notes period makes that… well, pretty much impossible. In defense of your judgment, I'll admit that I didn't really succeed in "demonstrating a more solid understanding of what is and isn't acceptable" this time, since I did go off-topic again (which is one of the issues you had with my prior use of ref notes); in hindsight, quote-mining "the love of money is the root of all evil" into "money is the root of all evil" is not particularly relevant to an article on Jesus Christ. I am trying to learn how to be a better writer, but… eh, I suppose you're right, I don't quite "get it" yet. If you have any better ideas on how I can improve, demonstrate that improvement, and properly contribute to RationalWiki despite the topic ban, I'd love to hear them! --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ None of us use ref notes anywhere near as much as you, so I don't think they are essential for a productive user. Many people, myself included, already told you what you should do. Read about a certain subject and write about it. If you're not sure, don't edit the page. I've been following this rule since January 2006, when I created my account on Wikipedia at the age of 13. I've never been blocked, or topic banned, or sanctioned. And do not, under any circumstance, violate your topic ban. The fact that you think that the violation would be a good contribution is irrelevant. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Being able to edit without adding any "snark" or ref notes is exactly what we expect of you in order to show you can improve. It's not that difficult. Plutocow (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what you're trying to get at, but your problem was that I was using snark and ref notes improperly, right? How am I supposed to get better if I'm not allowed to try? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Be a productive user without using ref notes or snark? I don't use ref notes at all, and I'm very limited with what jokes I put in mainspace. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I specifically meant "how am I supposed to get better at using ref notes or snark", but again, I think I see what you're trying to get at… my prior usage of ref notes has often been excessive. Ref notes are best used for stuff that's best put to the side of the article proper because it's a supplement to one of the main points rather than something that needs to be said up front, which means that anything that should be put in a ref note is stuff that I should think twice about whether or not it's really worth including. That also means that ref notes aren't supposed to be wildly off-topic or walls of text, both of which I have definitely done way too often. This is why I wanted to set up a review board for large edits of questionable quality where people could provide input and feedback before they get implemented to the wiki… I want to do right and abide by the topic ban, but I also want to develop my writing skills so it's eventually no longer necessary as a restraint. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No! What you're supposed to "get better at" is actually following mod instructions! Nobody wants you to add ref notes, the best way that you can show that you are more mature is to simply not add them! You are on very thin ice right now, so if you want any hope of staying on this wiki you have to actually respect the sanctions that the mob voted on! Plutocow (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"This is supposed to be a collaborative wiki." Carthage (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know wikis are supposed to be collaborative, and I do intend to abide by my sanctions. I just feel that they're currently a mite too harsh. Refraining from the use of ref notes is one thing — ref notes are best used for material that is relevant to an article, but doesn't belong in the main text for whatever reason (spoilers, potential reader distraction, etc.), which means that anything that would go in a ref note is something that I should ask for advice in a talk page or something about whether or not it's worth including at all. It's the snark ban that I think might be trickier, since zero-snark writing is… not exactly on-brand for RationalWiki. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think continuing to whine about it will change minds? Carthage (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to say

I know fuck all about Pokémon (fake or otherwise) and, frankly, I'd like to keep it that way. But this has my wholehearted support as an official RationalWiki mascot. Spud (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. That's specifically what Azureality was designed for.

I find it interesting that you picked the shiny color specifically. The default palettes for Azureality and Crimsolusion follow the common red-and-blue juxtaposition in the Pokémon series (as well as the color schemes of the Democratic and Republican Parties), but I specifically chose to have the shiny coloration of Azureality be grey because that color is associated with RationalWiki. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)