User talk:Luigifan18/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

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! Plutocow (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit checkbox

Hi, the minor edit checkbox should generally reserved for edits that are restricted to spelling, grammar or formatting corrections. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Sysop

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 POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. GeeJayK (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

For unbanning a Ken sock and a spambot

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

That one account was obviously a Ken sock if you were paying attention to the other recently banned Ken socks (as well as Ken's behavior in general), and you forgot to check the deleted contributions of the spambot (and also check the edit filter as well). Plutocow (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

How do I check deleted contributions? I checked "suppressed contributions" and nothing turned up. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Special:DeletedContributions Plutocow (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked that and I still don't see anything that they've done. I also checked the block log and there is no indication of what their IP address is. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You were supposed to look at the deleted contributions of "RefugioLau60995", the spambot you unbanned. The blocklist won't give you someone's IP, but it does indicate whether two banned users share an IP, as IPs only get autoblocked once and blocking another user with that IP would just reset that autoblock. Look at the blocklist, "AceDidNotDie" doesn't have its own unique autoblock, but the autoblock for "Lindell" is directly under it, but is no longer next to the banned "Lindell" account. This is because after "AceDidNotDie" was banned, the autoblock moved from after "Lindell" to before "AceDidNotDie", as the two accounts share the same IP that can only be autoblocked once. But all this is besides the point, even if "AceDidNotDie" is somehow not Ken, of which we have overwhelming against but anyway, even if it is a new user they should still be banned as that username was chosen specifically to harass another user, and we don't allow that here. In short, stop playing defense for obvious harassers. Plutocow (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not defending them, I just want to see whether or not there is actual evidence for wrongdoing before passing judgment. If they are a vandal or spammer and it can be demonstrated that they are, I have no objections to their being blocked. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I just reviewed the RefugioLau thing and what the heck is that. Okay, let's leave that one to rot. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Unacceptable usernames, ban evasion, and harassment are all perfectly valid reasons to be blocked, and I have demonstrated that this "user" is guilty of all three of these things. There is no need to litigate this further. Plutocow (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop

The ban reason specifically said to look at the edit filter. I'm tired of you constantly unbanning bad-faith accounts without even considering why they are banned. Please try to apply more foresight when using sysop tools. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried looking at the edit filter, and I can't get it to show me anything. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The actual edit filter interface is really only useful for techs. The filter is represented as User:Edit filter, and because it has the bot group, its actions are hidden by default from recent changes. You can view the users blocked by it at this page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

…Okay, but how do I confirm that a given blocked new account wasn't blocked by mistake without seeing any contributions from them or other indications that they're a blocked spammer making an attempt at ban evasion? --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible. Most filters are only viewable by the techs, so we don't really know how the filter decides to block most accounts. Supposedly, if they are legit and have been banhammered by mistake, they'll post to their talk page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few of them aren't allowed to post to their talk page… --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems like an error, they should have the ability to post on their talkpage, according to the edit filter's user page. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the people blocked by the edit filter there. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here's the filter log. Those accounts tried to spam the wiki but failed, and unbanning them will just give them the chance to do it again. Plutocow (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So

Why do you like Luigi --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hard to say exactly. I've been going by Luigifan on the Internet for a long, long time. I guess I just like sidekicks and underdogs. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Welcoming accounts

Only do it after the account made an edit, most registrations nowadays are spambots. In fact, one of the "users" whose talkpage you created is already a hit in the edit filter, so again, please don't be so naïve. Plutocow (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright

Welcome to the absolutely not-confusing world of copyright! Every country has its own rules, but I guess that since RW is based in the US, it is subject to their rules. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Altering Talk page entries.

DON'T! Scream!! (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

ButterCashier

Check out my talkpage, that user is apparently a sock of a troll long banned from this website. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't fucking alter my User page, pillock!

That's all! Scream!! (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

All I was doing was adding a hyperlink… @Scream!! --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment.

Plutocow (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

When blocking suspected spambots

Generally, it's best to wait until they make an edit or are a hit on the edit filter before doing so. "First name and three random letters" is a common enough spam format that those accounts can be purged (User:Anthonyvax, User:Donaldlwe, those 50+ accounts that I just banned, etc.) but otherwise you should wait for evidence. Plutocow (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the accounts you had blocked were already hits on the edit filter, so my bad for assuming otherwise. Still, it's good advice. Plutocow (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Suppression rights

They are typically only used on things like doxing, potential libel, threats, and other nasty stuff. Using it because you don't like one of your edit summaries is an abuse of the permission. For more information, see RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive36#Suppressing page histories. Plutocow (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings

I voted "yes" for sysoprevoke in your ATIM case. I don't think you'll make a bad sysop, but I really think it will be good for you if you just forget about sysop stuff for a while. Once sysoprevoke expires, if it passes, I'll gladly give you sysop again should you want it. If you're interested in sysop stuff after the sysoprevoke, I'd recommend to read the Community Standards (for deletion guidance) and the Sysop guide, and remember that RW sysop is not a big deal, just mark as patrolled edits that are not wandalism, revert if it is and give autopatrolled (I try to wait until a week to give this one, or give it immediately if they made very high quality edits, like the guy that remade the Tor page, they were a new user, yet I gave them autopatrolled) and sysop to users that have been here for a while (I personally wait until the user is at least +1 month, has a bunch of edits that are not like unfunny wandalism or just fixing small stuff). Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Another trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

User:Derek shepherd is clearly not Mike and banning accounts just because they follow a pattern of "first name and last name" is simply not acceptable. When Mike creates accounts that have a first and last name, it is because he is trying to impersonate someone, and cross-checking Google will make it clear that "Derek Shepherd" is the name of a fictional character, not someone that Mikey impersonates. I'll give you one last warning to be careful when using sysop tools, because I am this close to taking you to ATIM again. Thank you. Plutocow (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow Sorry, I was just trying to be cautious. At the time of your post, I was actually busy reviewing the block log to see whether any accounts with a similar name had actually been banned in the recent past for causing disruption and trouble or if I was just imagining things. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't block accounts to be "cautious", you block when there's clear evidence of abuse. Accounts with inappropriate usernames are one thing, but don't block accounts that haven't done anything wrong. Plutocow (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, User:WinstonBoxer is obviously not an impersonation of User:Wisconcom. I'll let this one slide because it is a spambot, but please use better reasoning when blocking people. Plutocow (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop it with baseless accusations of ban evasion - final warning

So, I noticed that you created a talk page for User:DewittNeumayer1. Never mind that you're not supposed to welcome accounts that haven't made any edits, and that the account was a spambot, but you left this wonderful message on its page:

Unless you're a ban-evading troll. I won't act until I have proof one way or the other, but other sysops might not be so kind.

Thing is, this user had no edits and had just signed up, so that comment was completely unnecessary. If that was a legitimate user, you could have scared them off or made us look like paranoid jackasses. So I'm telling you for once and for all to stop accusing random new accounts of being ban evaders. If any ban evasion is happening, another of our sysops will quickly notice it and stop them. There is no need for you to great every new account with an accusation that they are a banned troll. Do it once again, and I will send you back to ATIM and I will push for an indefinite sysoprevoke this time. Plutocow (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, that was from September, sorry (apparently that spambot returned after a while). Still, you would do wise to remember that you are on thin ice regarding your sysop role. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Bro, you're not a cop and these aren't laws. Just tell him what he did wrong. Why are you acting so hostile? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is like the fourth time in less than a week that this kid has abused sysop rights, it's really getting tiring at this point. Plutocow (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I’ll admit I haven’t been paying attention to such things. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment.

--Andrew5 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

US of A is a redirect for a reason

No need to change the hypertext. Vee (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Suppression again

I'm going to advise you to read this again. Deleting page revisions is not to be done for ordinary revisions and is only for doxing, threats, libel, or similar things that could cause actual harm. Generic trolling or spam isn't enough to justify deleting page revisions. What you're doing is technically an abuse of sysop powers, and while I won't take you to ATIM over this I would recommend exercising better judgement over suppression rights before someone else does. Plutocow (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea is so that the jackass can't come back later and look back on his past acts of wandalism like they're some sort of scar he left on the site. No. It's inane junk and it should be treated that way. No memory lane for jerks. I don't want wandals to have the satisfaction of their verbal diarrhea being in RationalWiki's edit history. They're bad and they should feel bad. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it, you'll have to take up your case in RW:CS. Plutocow (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BOARshevik

“Boar” sounds like a generic name, so I don’t think it’s an impersonation. I advise removing the block, lest you scare off the newcomers. LongStylus (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I only blocked for 1 hour rather than infinity. It got a raised eyebrow from me, but there was room for benefit of the doubt. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is room for the benefit of the doubt, you don’t block at all. Christopher (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment.

Plutocow (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

For your "muh Palestine autonomy" comment

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Calling out antisemitism is a good thing but doing it by mocking an ongoing human rights disaster is just in really bad taste. If a Muslim said "but the Jews want to kick all Muslims out of Palestine because muh Holocaust", the bigotry reflected in that statement would be obvious, even if they are calling out a legitimate problem. Please be better than that. Plutocow (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. I was calling out the Arab-Israeli conflict more than antisemitism in general, which is why I brought up Palestine (we don't have an article dedicated to Arabs' seething hatred of Israel's very existence for some reason…). --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So, you were directly speaking on the human rights disaster in Palestine rather than making a point about antisemitism. I guess I gave you too much credit. How about this instead:

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Plutocow (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the situation in Palestine is the root cause of a lot of Arabic antisemitism, or at least the excuse they like to give for it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-semitism has been a wordwide problem for long before the creation of Israel, but the occupation of Palestine has resulted in millions suffering under ghettoization as well as a blockade that denies basic resources like water or electricity to the Gaza Strip, as well as the fact that millions are still displaced from the initial invasion. That's not something you can use dismissive language like "muh" towards without being bigoted. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I know antisemitism is a longstanding, widespread form of bigotry that's held by many different kinds of people for many different reasons. However, I was referring specifically to Arabic and Muslim antisemitism driven by extreme butthurt over the de facto dissolution of Palestine as an autonomous state. Actually, "butthurt" isn't exactly the right term, as the Palestinians' situation does legitimately suck beyond measure, and Israel has been, for lack of better phrasing, very heavy-handed in trying to prevent Palestinians and other Arabs from posing a challenge to its existence. But, again, given that Palestine and other Arabic nations have expressed a strong desire to see Israel and the Jewish people erased from existence, and have carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Israel's people and infrastructure in an attempt to realize that desire, just how much can Israel be blamed for taking measures to suppress a very real threat to its existence? Obviously, Israel shouldn't be engaging in terrorism either, that's just wrong, and a lot of Israel's "self-defense" measures do seem to cross the line from "preventing the Arabs from being a threat" into "oppression of Arabic people". The whole thing is pretty messed up. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It's called national liberation. I'm not going to blame the people who've been invaded and oppressed for taking up arms against their oppressors. It's self defense. It seems entirely one-sided to place the blame for the violence entirely on Palestine, who are at least as much engaging in self defense as Israel is. (Never mind the fact this analysis of yours completely disregards the power dynamics of the situation. Israel is a modernized state with nukes. What does Palestine have? Homemade fireworks.) Vee (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is grossly non-empathetic of you Luigi to describe folks to which it is not uncommon to see their children killed in a bombing by the IDF as “butthurt”. Your analysis of the conflict isn’t apt to the complexities involved. It’s akin to describing the indigenous Americans who slaughtered settlers as savages and fundamentally bigoted for not wanting “America” to exist. It wouldn’t actually be true of all indigenous people, and from the perspective of indigenous people in the early days of colonialism their actions could be also be classed as “terrorism” but from there perspective it’s just “self-defence”. The narrative gets more complicated given different groups claim indigenous status to the land, but ancient Israel hadn’t existed there for centuries and the zionists in the 19th century who wanted to establish a Jewish state made zero claim to the land having any religious significance (which it should be said that canonically the west bank has none). If people started trying to displace you and lay claim to your farmland as their property, you’d probably react violently as well. Doesn’t make it justifiable per se, but the response is still deeply human. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

…Did you miss the part where I said "'butthurt' isn't exactly the right term, as the Palestinians' situation does legitimately suck beyond measure"? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ignorant, inbred hicks"

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Let's try not to throw classist remarks in our articles, ok? There's plenty of reasons to criticize the GOP and its electorate, let's not make class one of them. Vee (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Revdelling

As a general rule, we only delete things that actually need to be deleted; we don’t even delete talk pages of deleted articles. Simple vandalism can just be reverted, you shouldn’t also delete the revision unless it was doxxing.

You also shouldn’t do anything 50+ times unless it really needs doing, you must be aware of what it does to recent changes. Christopher (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The edits I recently deleted literally made it hard to go through the revision history one edit at a time, because the big div text covered up the "show changes" interface. --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That is reasonable, although there was no reason to hide the username and edit summary.

It’s most of your other deletions I take issue with. For instance, your most recent revdel aside from that batch https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Talk%3AFriedrich+Nietzsche&type=revision&ids=2503656 has already been reverted by DuceMoosolini.

Or deleting more run of the mill vandalism because “it’s nonsense”: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=TV+Tropes&type=revision&ids=2355284%2C2355124

Any sysop tool should only be used when it’s actually necessary. Christopher (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

In a similar vein, comments like this are completely unhelpful and only end up feeding trolls by giving them attention. Just revert, block, and ignore. Plutocow (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Or like this. You enjoy having sysop rights far too much. Christopher (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

*shrug* Sorry, I tend to get a bit vindictive towards assholes. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Kasunex - protecting pages

I wouldn't bother at this point. Even if he does "break his word" and come back, you can't protect every possible target. In particular, admin protection on talk:thomas jefferson is completely unnecessary - autoconfirmed would be enough to stop any vandalism. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson is Kasunex's main obsession, so I think that page and its talk page (and related pages, like the Founding Fathers page) need to be shut out to all but people who can be trusted to actually be rational (and, more importantly, to not be Kasunex) for a long, long time. At least until he no longer has the energy, free time, or motor skills to continue with his temper tantrum. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a couple days protection is sufficient. If it happens again, we should probably consider more long term protection scenarios. There's a first time for everything, but until it happens again, let's assume that this is the exception and not the rule. Vee (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Another page protected - why? Are you going to protect every page on the wiki? You think if he decides to vandalise again and sees a page has been protected he'll just give up?

It's over. Drop it. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

https is more secure than http

That's why I changed the link. Vee (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Jason Fung

Weird talkpage message aside, you definitely did the right thing unblocking Jason Fung. We don’t pre-emptively block the accounts of people we have articles on, even if the crazy ones; if you think about it, you should be able to see why that would be a bad idea. Christopher (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

HungSimmons9

The names that the spambots use can sometimes be very funny. I recall a spammer account from a while back using the name "Natasha Titsworth" with a bunch of numbers appended. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The best one has to be IsisDyke18771. Plutocow (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Protecting spam page names

At best, it's pointless, what possible good could it do? At worst, the scripts see the name appear in recent changes (which, last I checked, was indexed by search engines) and think the spam is working, directing more spam our way.

An exception could be made if something did manage to slip through the spam filter (and certainly if it happened multiple times), but there's no reason to do it as a general policy.

Christopher (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The idea is that it will slow the spambots down. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything to spambots besides blocking them. I've only protected a couple of spam pages, but that was when a bunch of spambots were getting past the filter and I found out why and resolved the issue. So, please stop engaging with spambots; don't vandal bin them, don't protect their attempted page creations (unless that target is a repeated issue), and especially don't create talk pages for suspected spambots. Just perma and move on, but even then an active tech will be there to handle problems caused by spambots and you really don't have to do anything. If you really want to help with the spambot problem, please don't do things that could give the spambots the SEO manipulation that they want. Plutocow (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t slow them down. Christopher (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you even listening to anything we're saying?

Seriously, when you continue to delete edits that aren't doxing, continue to leave overly emotional responses like this to generic driveby trolls, and continue to engage with spambots and treat them as an existential threat instead of a minor nuisance that is easily dealt with by the filter, all of which are things that you've been told multiple times to stop by multiple experienced users, it makes me wonder if you are even listening to the messages on your talkpage. I really don't want to start another ATIM on you, but your actions show a real lack of maturity and just end up encouraging people who we really don't want to be here. I really want you to improve, but in order to do that you have to actually listen to the people who have been here longer than you and actually reflect when people call your behavior out, because right now your actions are making RW moderation look like a joke. We all want what's best for the wiki and for you to be able to improve and mature, but in order to do that you'll have to actually try to improve. For now, I will recommend three pieces of advice:

• When dealing with trolls and spambots, do not engage with them at all, whether that be in their talkpage, your edit summaries, or the block reasons. Just revert, block, and ignore.
• Only use rights such as protection and vandal binning if something is a continued problem. Do not use these rights preemptively.
• Deleting edits is only for doxing and things that could cause legal problems (libel, death threats, etc.) Do not use them just because an edit is offensive or is driveby trolling.

I hope you will reflect on your actions and behave better in the future. Plutocow (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to deplatform the trolls. If they leave no mark on the wiki at all, that should discourage them. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The trolls are already deplatformed by being banned and reverted. Deleting their comments, and especially adding emotionally loaded deletion summaries, only encourages them as they are after an emotional reaction. Trolls should be handled as coldly as possible. Also, the fact that you immediately ignored my advice and continued the behavior that you were called out multiple times for by practically every single user who is more experienced than you is not a good sign. Plutocow (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Incel rage" is emotionally loaded? It sounds more like a matter-of-fact description of why the edits in question are unacceptable to me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

…Okay, fine, in retrospect, some of my remarks when blocking, deleting, or protecting are me being vindictive towards the trolls and/or me trying to give my fellow sysops a quick laugh at the trolls' expense… --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. Plutocow (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Coop

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

King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Feeding trolls

Please stop. You don't have to send an emotionally loaded "go into a volcano" at every Ken sock we encounter, it just feeds them. Also please don't leave messages on spambots' talk pages, they are automated scripts and not actual people and leaving messages on their talkpages may convince the SEO spammers that their spam is working. Plutocow (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The spambots themselves may be automated scripts, but somebody had to write that script. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

They are, and then those script-writers sell off the bots to companies of dubious character. One of the Airbnb founders paid for his education this way, and many of the people on this list made tidy sums selling their services to others. Spammers work on the scale of hundreds of thousands, millions of messages sent, so it's simply impractical just to visit every site and observe the effects. Instead, it's more efficient to look at results in the aggregate and study charts of site traffic, Google searches, trading volume and share price if they're hawking stocks for a pump and dump, sales for altie meds, etc. The advertising field in general tends to think in the aggregate.

Are there are small fry do their own spamming? For sure, but the ones I've seen tried to peddle their crappy YouTube channel and often got a little bit conspiracy theorist when pushed back. DietMondrian (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hate towards cheerleaders

I’m just going to say this, I understand being repulsed by Grawp’s nastiness toward cheerleaders because I’ve known my share of cheerleaders (both at work and years ago when I was in school), and I too have snapped at him a little. The difference is, you don’t know when to stop and employ DFTT. When I encountered him, let me tell you I’d wanted to tell him to fuck off for s long time, and I knew who he was, you did not, then he got the better of me when he insinuated I was a pedophile who has a “thing” for cheerleaders, so I walked away from site altogether for the moment and other folks took over the fight. That’s what you ought to do when a troll starts to get your goat. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What's with the weird block settings?

Christopher (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What "weird block settings"? I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm referring to. I'd have thought you'd stop doing stupid shit with your sysop rights given that you're at risk of losing them. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that. I don't know for sure whether or not that user is a spambot, given that they only tripped the edit filter once on their own userpage and I can't actually see the content of the filtered edit to know whether or not it's spam. Thus, I think it's only fair to give them a chance to contact a moderator to plead their innocence, pending a tech or mod looking at the filtered edit to know for sure whether or not a full ban is warranted.

In fact, here's my personal policy for dealing with potential spambots in general. If someone trips the Blackhat SEO edit filter once or twice on their own userpage, there's a chance that it's a false positive, and thus they should have a chance to set the matter straight. A tech, such as @Plutocow, can see the filtered edit and is thus able to make an actual judgment call on whether or not to issue a permanent full block, TPA revocation and all, off of just one filtered edit, but as I'm just a sysop and not a tech, I can't see filtered edits, so I have to extend benefit of the doubt and let one of the techs take a closer look. (I used to use the vandal bin for stuff like that, but then one spambot I binned made a third filtered edit less than thirty minutes after I binned them, demonstrating that the vandal bin doesn't really work as an impediment to spambots. So I decided to change my procedure.) If someone trips the filter three or more times, though, the chance of a false positive is technically still present, but so close to zero that it functionally is zero, so I just issue a full block. If they attempt to create a junk or spam page even once, it's almost certainly not a false positive, so I issue a full block. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You do not "have" to do any of this. No one is asking you to. In fact, multiple people are asking you to stop. Given your complete ignorance on this topic, why don't you listen? Christopher (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why not just leave those for Pluto? You know they're an active tech that is viewing the log almost everyday, there's no need to do anything if you aren't sure. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rabbitseatcarrots That's a fair point. Though the partial blocks do at least flag the account for a tech to take a closer look at, I suppose. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I love how you are continuing this despite being at ATIM for failing to listen to warnings. Really proving everyone wrong, aren't you? Plutocow (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow Again, I'm just trying to be reasonable and avoid completely shutting out a legitimate user who just happened to make a bad edit that tripped the edit filter. Given that tripping the Blackhat SEO filter almost always indicates a spambot, it's worth responding to, but there's still a possibility of a false positive as long as the filter was only tripped once or twice. I'll admit that I've been way too cavalier with revision deletion and that several of my block reason descriptions have been, to put it bluntly, disgusting (or at least way too vitriolic), and I'm going to make sure to be far more reserved with those sysop tools in the future. However, I think that the personal potential spambot policy I've come up with is a good happy medium between leaving a potential spambot to run completely amok and potentially flood the edit filter log until you or another tech can take a look at them and just mercilessly banning anyone and everyone who so much as puts one toe out of line brushes their foot up against the filter. (You may have noticed that I haven't ever questioned your judgment on fully blocking people for tripping the edit filter once or twice, even though I wouldn't be comfortable with doing that myself. That's because you have more experience and access to more information, so I think you're qualified to make such a decision, whereas I am not.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't have to respond to the filter, since number one if their first edit was caught by the filter it's likely that any subsequent edits will be as well and two any of our techs can easily handle it. If there's room for doubt, don't do anything to them, if they are a legitimate user blocking them could frighten them away and if they aren't wwe don't want to give them any engagement. You have been told this many, many times; when will you listen? Plutocow (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm listening now, and thank you for your advice and consideration. I'll be more patient and cautious in the future. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Coop, again

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

---Ozzyboo (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Advice

I'm not going to lie, every time I see your name popup on the deletion or block log it makes me sweat. I recommend you cease using your sysop tools for now, at least until your ATIM case is closed. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

At this rate, it looks like I'm going to lose my sysop tools entirely, so I'm trying to show that such measures are unnecessary by using them responsibly (e.g. only where it's actually warranted). --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You are doing the opposite. The best thing you could do would be to show you're capable of *not* using your sysop tools at all, since overuse is the main issue. Christopher (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yo

It's good to see you back. Vee (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I never left. I was just spending more time on other things. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you insane??

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

This is not ok AT ALL! You do NOT wish a deadly disease upon people, EVEN if you don't like them!! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi, I have been undoing too many of your edits (I watch the Recent Changes page and check most of the edits in real-time and I am decidedly aggressive in my willingness to undo). This is a mature wiki, which means if you have anything to add to pages that have been existed for a long time the additions should be crucial information. I've noticed that you do a lot of 'Grammar checks', which is ostensibly good, but a lot of your changes add poor grammar. For example, on the 'hypothesis' page you added the word 'like' to this sentence: However, hypotheses about what happened a long time ago, like at the point of the Big Bang for example, are much more difficult to test directly (which some people take to mean it can't be tested at all) In this case the word 'like' serves the same function as the words 'for example', so if you're going to add 'like', you have to take away 'for example' otherwise it is redundant. Manuals on how to write well always say that unnecessary words should be omitted. Many of your edits pad out sentences with unnecessary words. You might want to consider relegating your grammar checks to punctuation because I don't think you currently have the skill set to make more elaborate grammar edits. If you disagree with that assessment, I suggest that you at least consider removing words to fix grammar to be more important than adding words. FairDinkum (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

… wow … Aceⁱ⁹ 15:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I've been undoing some of your edits, too, Ace. FairDinkum (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And today I just reverted an edit by Luigifan which promoted violence toward libertarians. So if you think I'm out of line, you're wrong.FairDinkum (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

”if you think I’m out of line, you’re wrong”. Wow - being a dick much? Aceⁱ⁹ 14:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh and dude you undid one of my edits which I reverted because strikeout humour is powerfully lame. If you want to add something else then go for it but strikeout has long since been, for all intents and purposes, dropped at RW. If you think I'm out of line, you're wrong. Aceⁱ⁹ 17:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I want to apologize to Luigifan, I think we were both having a bad day. Luigifan is a valued member of this wiki and any time a person makes as many edits as Luigifan does, they are going to make mistakes. So, I'm sorry (I hate it when people say they're going to apologize but don't). Luigifan does have the skillset to make good edits and is particularly good at spotting grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. It's Luigifan's textual additions that are sometimes less than optimal, not the grammar, spelling and punctuation fixes. Luigifan is one of the few people who actually makes an effort to make this wiki better. As for you, Ace, no apology is necessary. If strike-out snark has long been dropped then the entire membership of RW has been negligent in removing it because it is all over the f-ing place, and that tells me that most people like it. I personally think it is the best usage of snark on RW, and if there was a decision to 'drop' it I'm obviously not going to search the archives to find it, if in fact such a discussion has taken place. I think removing it makes the wiki dull and that it actually serves a useful purpose besides snark, as it allows for an intermediate between full removal of text and leaving text alone. For example, I was planning on making an edit to the 'N-word' page where it says that the word has diminished in usage due to 'political correctness'. I was planning on striking out 'political correctness' and adding 'common sense'. Using it in that way would allow me to fix the context without fully stepping on it. However, I have no problem with anyone reverting or undoing my reverts and undos. It is as easy for you to revert or undo my edits as it is for me to revert or undo yours. I will only revert or undo once, if you choose to put it back that's your prerogative. Furthermore, Ace, I did not say that you were wrong to remove the strike out, I said you were wrong if you thought I was out of line for removing some of Luigifan's material, particularly the passive-aggressive addition of promotion of violence. If you want to call me names and misrepresent my claims that reflects poorly on you, not me. FairDinkum (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling you a dick for being a dick isn’t calling you names - it’s pointing out you were being a dick. If you’d rather I say “good fellow! I want proffer your engagement with this user has been deemed to not be sporting!” I can do that but the resulting judgement is the same. Also - if we are going to interact further you should probably understand Im a wonderful but direct utter bastard. Everyone kind of knows it - having been here some 14 yrs I’ve kinda made a bit of a, err, reputation for such. Meh. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway - none of that matters anymore. I've decided to flee into the Appalachian hinterlands to grow a house, build some honey and sell it to The Amish. I'll need help - but from those who have true grit. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't minimod

Your comments on User talk:VladisBad333 were completely unhelpful and misleading. You're not a mod and had your sysop rights revoked because you didn't know how to use them, so please stop acting like one. The situation was going to be inevitable handled by an actual sysop anyway, and you uselessly speculating didn't help the situation. Plutocow (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do I feel like the butterfly who set off a hurricane right about now? 😬😥 Luigifan18 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Whack!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. The Krusty Krab just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You didn't eat the Onion, but you stored the Hard Drive. i'm sorry for the bad pun The Krusty Krab (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

{{efn|insert x here}} is the preferred syntax for notemaking. Carthage (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't listen to them, the way you made that note is acceptable, although {{efn}} is more convenient. Plutocow (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your SB topic

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Given how you got in trouble for making death threats towards trolls, what makes you think it's a good idea to say "Those who can't (or won't) adapt to reality and morality and insist on dragging humanity backwards to barbarity... really would be better off dead. 🤣"? Yes, I know these are awful people, but insinuating massive groups of people should all die is just unacceptable. Plutocow (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Caliphate and the Papacy

The Caliphate and the Papacy aren't really comparable beyond the most superficial comparison. The Caliph has no religious authority, that lies with the Islamic community of scholars, aka the ulama. The basis for the Caliphal authority is closer to the divine right of kings theory, since while the Caliph is held to be the successor of Muhammad he is a secular authority first and foremost (the Caliph is the successor to Muhammad in a political sense only). Islamic orthopraxy is very different from Christian orthopraxy. The Caliphate is closer to the old institution of Roman emperor, I suppose, but without the religious authority than it is to the Papacy. Carthage (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I was making a rather superficial comparison… I neglected to add a part I had planned about the comparison being a rough one and the positions having a number of differences. Luigifan18 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Stealing water and bulldozing homes

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Stealing water, bulldozing houses, and destroying orchards is not self defense. It's ethnic cleansing. Carthage (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Award

		Tireless Worker Award
		For all those tireless grammar fixes and overall improvements to long-forgotten articles.

--Goatspeed. _{Stop the War On Secularism}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See my latest prototypes} 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Editing other users' messages

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

I know you're trying to be constructive, but try to get permission when editing other users' posts beforehand, please? ^{— Unsigned, by: Carthage / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

For randomly accusing someone who was here for over 5 years of being Ken

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Come on, you should know better by now. Plutocow (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It was a user I'd never seen before expressing anti-Democratic Party sentiments. What was I supposed to think?! --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Check people's edit history first, at a bare minimum. Chillpilled (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

{{fact}}

It's to be used on unsourced statements you come across, not to be used to add unsourced statements to articles yourself without adding a source. Expecting someone else to add a source to your own writing is lazy and in poor form. Plutocow (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

When editors tell you not to perform a type of edit

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

It’s generally a good idea not to keep doing it. It is not your job to be style/grammar police for other editors’ essays. RW essays, unless specifically stated otherwise by the author, are the personal works of whoever made them, usually retained as intended for as long as RW exists. I know you’re clearly a good-faith editor, but such silly editing patterns (and the “mini-essays” that would fit better as new paragraphs/subsections) are not gonna get you re-demoted anytime soon. Take it from me, someone who once got sysrevoked for very similar shit as you were, and spent like a month re-earning the privilege of being a sysop after that. --Goatspeed. _{Stop the War On Secularism}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See my latest prototypes} 07:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And when I was editing the essays, my aim was to preserve the intention while clarifying the meaning by removing egregious grammar or spelling mistakes. Some of those essays had words misspelled to the point where they resembled completely separate words… (That, and I'm not sure if the original authors are even still active…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the mini-essays, a lot of those (particularly the ones I had in the cognitive dissonance article) are clarifications of existing points, which means that they would be best suited to footnotes rather than new paragraphs or the main text (I don't want to bloat up the pages). --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It's to be implied that we do appreciate Luigifan's constructive contributions, regardless of however often anyone bothers to press "thank" or say so. I don't get what the thing about "mini-essays" even refers to though. As for editing other's essays, permission can be obtained for copyediting. If it can't be obtained then let them make grammatical errors. Chillpilled (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chillpilled I often refer to my larger (and more potentially controversial) edits as "mini-essays". I have a list of them on my user page. (I would appreciate more feedback on them, BTW. By this, I mean what I did well, what I could improve, where I need a proper source, what sort of sources I could use, etc.. As I explain in the final sub-section of my mini-essays section, both my own talk page and the talk pages of the pages with the mini-essays would be good places for said feedback — just let me know which one you're referring to.)

As for AlrightGuys' statement, I suspect an attempt at trolling; it sounds very much like Downdown's attempt at assassinating my morale a few days ago. It's okay, I love you guys too. If I didn't love this site, I wouldn't be working on developing a mascot for it, now, would I? 😜 --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

From that edit, it's probably a certain perennial troll who was spamming new accounts earlier that invoked a similar tone; possibly this is Ken considering the obsession with "RationalWiki dying", but whatever (doesn't matter too much who they are). As for the mini-essays, no comment since my attention's on adding to a page at the moment. Chillpilled (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

More likely they were by Mikey, given the references to baldness as if it were a peak insult and the fact that they were all made within mere minutes of the ones about “burning” Jews and black people. Ken’s playground insult of choice is “you’re fat LOL!”, see. Cosmik renamed them so skillfully that if viewed in the registration log, you will see the lyrics to the song “Time Loves a Hero” --Goatspeed. _{Stop the War On Secularism}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See my latest prototypes} 01:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that chain of poetic statements in the user rename log was song lyrics of some kind. (I'd still like to try my hand at making funny renames of junk accounts someday…) --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@CircularReasoning, something I don't get about how he goes all in on the obesity thing to the point of mentioning it across many different pages: Isn't almost half of the US obese? And if you add obese and overweight, that's like 3/4ths of the country. And like I just mentioned on the bar, it's one of the most religious countries in the West — largely Christian. Then you have other top countries for obesity: a notable amount of these are actual Islamic theocracies. World's least religious countries do not appear at the top of the rankings. China for instance is nearer to the least obese countries; Sweden and Czechia are more around the middle (and the latter about ties with Israel and Iran — just you try to pull a narrative out of that one!). It really just seems like he sees fatness as some kind of dehumanizing trait. I'm a skinny to average weight person. But I have known fat people. I've become put off by the way overweight people are legitimately bullied sometimes. Chillpilled (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, recall that he actually adores Muslim countries for how rabidly homophobic they are (to the point of giving Uncle Vova a run for his money), and is banned here for celebrating Brunei torturing and killing them. Meanwhile Britain (atheist-majority despite technically being a literal theocracy), Estonia, China squared and the Scandinavian countries? All atheist-majority countries with low obesity rates. --Goatspeed. _{Stop the War On Secularism}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See my latest prototypes} 02:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll

Just a reminder. Plus, in a case where both users are flinging insults at each other, it's wise not to become a third wheel in the conflict. Plutocow (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop with the "people who disagree with us should all die" crap

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

How many times have you been told to stop already? That's not "snark", that's just callous. Plutocow (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Why did you revert my edits for Costa Rica? What I said was neither insulting or controversial? ^{— Unsigned, by: Thirtyblue / talk / contribs}

@Plutocow seems to think your edits are junk, and I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --Luigifan18 (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Johns is nutpicking a YouTuber's content and strawmaning him

Johns removed From Nothing's content from Simon Webb's page, because he misinterpreted his content as perpetuating an Afrocentric viewpoint. He ignored most of the counterevidence I provided against him which debunks his claims, but he continued insisting that he is Afrocentric. He keeps claiming that because he doesn't directly cite his sources to his videos, he doesn't cite peer-reviewed literature and refuses to review the list of sources he provided on his website, which contradicts his claim. He also misinterpreted his video detailing his opinions on African and Japanese cultures as a historical topic, even though the YouTuber literally clarified that his points are solely from his personal opinions and that he was just detailing striking similarities between African and Japanese people from an anthropological standpoint. This would be no different from me comparing Native Americans to Eurasian civilizations (i.e. Haidas to Vikings, Comanches to Mongols, Incas to Tibetans, etc.).

He also complained about the fact that the YouTuber stated that Africans invented inoculation and misinterpreted that as a claim that they did it first (even though the Chinese method predates that), even though he means that they developed it independently, while insisting that they did not pioneer inoculation and claiming that no academic historian would claim that. How would his claim of Africans independently inventing inoculation be any different to the concept of Cradles of Civilization [1] or the independent development of agriculture in different parts of the world [2]. The Chinese and Indian methods predated African methods. So what? This would not negate the fact that the western tradition derives from either the West African (via Onesimus [3]) or Ottoman methods.

He also interprets the comment sections in both videos as coming from an Afrocentric viewpoint, even though hardly any of them say anything Afrocentric. In addition, he claims that the YouTuber does not criticize Afrocentrism as a whole after I showed him this video, which gives me the impression that he has no concept of what Afrocentrism actually means.

He also criticized this video based on the title alone, rather than addressing the actual content of the video, which asserts that there was a time when East African migrants ruled parts of India.

He then accused me of being the owner of the YouTube channel and interpreted my rebuttals as "carrying out personal feuds against him", even though he ignored most of the counterevidence against his claims to rationalize his opinions on the YouTuber. His entire perspective on the YouTuber's content is based on a complete Strawman relying on Nutpicking and insinuations.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Simon_Webb DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

…What are you ranting at me for? I'm not a moderator. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wanted to address a problem about the user and have someone inform him to not nutpick someone's content and ignore counterevidence. Do you know any moderators I could talk to? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Bring it up at RW:ATIM, and don't try to drag random users into your drama. Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well Luigifan18, what's up?

Well lad,

I'm not particularly good at articulating myself at the best of times, and my writing skills tend to deteriorate the sleepier I get. I just got home from work today (a ten hour shift) and I probably shouldn't be at a keyboard, but I have been thinking of reaching out to you for a while now and I guess I just can't flippin' contain myself anymore. So here goes: a big sleepy wall of text. It might come across as rude (I'm not in a state to judge) but it's not written with the intent of insulting you, Luigifan. I don't dislike you in any way; I merely want all of us to do our best for the Wiki.

Which is what you want too, right? I can tell you care about this website, Luigifan. I can tell from the fact that your name pops up in Recent changes every single day that you are doing your best and making good faith edits to make this place as good as it can be. I can tell from your enthusiasm that you believe in our mission. You are not a troll who only logs on to make this place worse and vandalise our articles, of that I am certain.

And yet every time I see your name pop up in Recent changes, my heart sinks a little.

It sinks a little because sometimes your edits don't add anything to an article. I will see the word "Snark" in your edit summaries, and wonder to myself if you know what the word means. This is not snark. To quote our official stance on our trademark snark:

“”Snark can include sarcasm, irony, satire, absurdist commentary, subversive humour, and witty asides.

You comment is none of those things. It's merely stating the obvious. It's like that comment that you added the Breastfeeding article. How is that funny? How is that sarcastic? It's certainly not absurd or witty. It's just banal, ordinary, "go do this."

Humour is a difficult thing to get right. Believe me, I know. I'm like the least funny person on this website. I sometimes read over my edits where I attempted humour and it just comes across as idiotic. This feeling is made even worse by the silence of our readers. Do they like our jokes? We can't really be funny in a vacuum after all. It's only a joke if other people laughed, and our readers never say jack-shit. So how is one to know if something is funny or not? Some feedback would be bloody nice!

Well, I'm giving you some now. I'm telling you, as a reader and as a fellow editor who (like you) wants the best for our Wiki that your "Snark" is not snarky. Stating the obvious, or summarizing what was just said in the article is not funny. Seriously, what's the point of that? The reader just read the flippin' article. Why put "To summarise:" and then restate what was just said and then claim it's a joke? That's not what a joke is.

But this is only the start, and probably the lesser of the two things that causes me frequent headaches. Why the HELL don't you reference the statements you make in Main space, Luigifan? On this VERY TALK PAGE I saw Plutocow telling you to not put something in Main space and add the {{fact}} tag after it. It's the laziest, most irresponsible, most UNCONSTRUCTIVE damn thing, like, you literally add [citation needed] to something that came off YOUR keyboard and you did it again as recently as the 11th of February. When a literal Mod asked you nicely to not do it. What, do you honestly think THAT improves the quality of our articles? Please explain to me how, cause I am having a hard time understanding.

And Pluto is not the only one telling you this. Carthage undid one of your unsourced edits on the 22nd of last month and you undid her revision saying "I'll find sources later, but I'm dead serious when I say that left-wing extremists tend to LOATHE the police." Well it's been over two weeks pal. Any refs forthcoming?

Here's another Mod politely asking you to add citations to your Main space contributions. And I could go on, Luigifan, I could bring up more examples of your fellow editors telling you to not do something and you ignoring them but I'm far too tired to do that. I'm far too tired, and frankly a bit emotional because I'm wondering if you are ignoring us on purpose? Does our collective opinion mean that little to you? Do you just not care about what others have to say? Cause I get the rotten feeling, deep down in my stomach, that even after typing this all out you will carry on as you did before, adding unsourced, unfunny statements to our articles and being COMPLETLEY UNWILLING to take on board some of the feedback that you have been given.

Please. Please, please, please, for the love of FUCK,

Prove me wrong. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I've been misusing the word "snark" in my summaries, to the point where I sometimes use it to mean "miscellaneous non-grammar, spelling, formatting, or link-related edit that I'm not quite sure how to summarize properly". I really should use a different word for those kinds of edits. I also use "snark" as a kind of shorthand for edits that largely consist of telling off bad people, even if it doesn't properly qualify as "snark" — again, I should try to find a different word for instances where I'm not actually using sarcasm or irony to make my point.

As for the unsourced edits… yeah, I haven't quite made time to look up corroborating information or supporting articles yet. Some of the things you bring up are hearsay that I've seen elsewhere on the Internet, but I can't quite remember where. I should at the very least find supporting articles for the stuff I wrote on the law enforcement article. The best I've got right now is the r/ACAB subreddit being die-hard cop-haters who use a lot of communist and anarchist-sounding rhetoric in their arguments, but I haven't really gone out of my way to look into there since they banned me for repeatedly arguing that flat-out defunding and abolishing the police is a bad idea… and I got banned from there over a year ago. As for the "Joe the Plumber" thing, I don't have anything to go off of for that aside from vague recollections of "Joe the Plumber" being used on random Internet posts as an unflattering epithet for uninformed laypeople arguing with qualified scientists. I really wouldn't mind that being removed if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But I might be able to find something about that with a quick Google search… well, I think I know what my next edit might be.

Rest assured that I am not ignoring you on purpose, though. I just have a somewhat short attention span, and RationalWiki isn't the only place I spend my time. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Welp, I found confirmation of the "Joe the Plumber" insult on Urban Dictionary. That didn't take long. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That Wandal

Got 'em for ya. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

My brother, relax.

There are quite a few active sysops here, Luigifan. They are good at their jobs. Generic, run of the mill vandalism is nothing to to write home about. It happens everyday. I understand you like being active and you wanna be helpful, but perhaps showing a certain amount of cool emotional detachment will help you in your quest to regain your mop.

Sincerely, - Rairyu75 (Talk) 15:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And chill down with the bludgeoning. 2600:387:F:4717:0:0:0:C (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

The sysops are doing a good enough job of handling it; you don't need to give the troll attention on the Saloon Bar talkpage. Plutocow (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said there, their sheer persistence is concerning. Like, "this person might have a mental health issue" levels of concerning. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

They just want attention, you're giving them it and encouraging them to come back. If you really want them to stop, just ignore them. Plutocow (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even annoyed anymore; I'm worried and I'd like to encourage them to see a therapist. I think they need help. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What part of "give them no attention" don't you understand? Plutocow (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be working. How about we switch gears to incessantly tell them to take care of their mental health? Given how bloody obsessed they are with a chibi mascot's footwear, I suspect that they need therapy. --Luigifan18 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That will not work and has never worked. How many times have you been told to stop feeding trolls and how many times have you actually listened? Plutocow (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Give them no attention" was the first thing I tried. It doesn't seem to be working. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

strikeout “humour”

why do you still add strikeout humour? it’s not funny and many users here don’t like that type of humour. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:39a6:c845:355b:c323:dbaa:7ad5 / talk}

We're currently having a conversation about this in the Saloon Bar, take it over there. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Small edits.

I'm impressed by the sheer quantity of your minor edit improvements to the wiki.

It's normally a thankless task so "thanks". Good work! Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yo

Thanks for your help with the drafts. And I’m sorry about what happened to you on your subreddit, I hope you’re gonna be alright ht. Rational Dude (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on a response on the secondary appeal, but since I had to submit it as a help ticket, I expect it to take a while. Thanks for the concern. I really should have found backup mods while I still had the chance — the whole mess is my fault. --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome, and it’s okay. It’s not your fault, it was just a stroke of bad luck. Hopefully it gets better for you from here. Rational Dude (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely should have known better than to post "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi"… *facepalm* I didn't mean that as a recommendation to go on a Nazi-killing spree, but it could very easily be taken that way. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Nah, it’s okay. You meant well. Nazis are pure evil. Rational Dude (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, stop feeding the troll

This is something that you've been told a million times and yet never listen. I'm blocking you for three days for your repeated disregard of this issue. Please consider your actions carefully in the future. Plutocow (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What troll he's feeding? ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably this one Ioe bidome (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow Uh, no, I was just trying to bring the matter to the sysops' awareness. I didn't mean that to be taken as "troll-feeding"; more of a warning that "hey, we're not cool with what you're doing". Seriously, what was with that username?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's flagrant interacting with trolls and feeding them. The username is designed to piss people off, pointing it out on their user talkpage is just giving them the attention they want. If necessary, you can bring the matter up on a sysop's talkpage but you really don't have to as sysops will easily handle such a blatant vandal/troll without you needing to interfere. Furthermore, if you want to actually show you have the maturity for sysop tools you might want to actually apologize and admit you're wrong instead of trying to justify every time you're called out for the same thing. Plutocow (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. Again, my intention was to alert the sysops to the problem, nothing more. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I need your help

Since you are known for your Grammer checks. Can you fix the grammer and punctuation errors in the Alexander Finnegan article - - Reichtangle (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

in the Alexander Finnegan there are many grammatical and punctuation errors.I think you should fix them ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll say. I can see a lot of errors in your messages right here. I'll see what I can do, but right now, I'm getting ready for work. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Note,remember that you will have to fix the grammar and punctuation in the Alexander Finnegan article ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Theocracy

I didn’t know what it was supposed to be in alphabetical order, the one for Christianity isn’t in alphabetical order. Rational Dude (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the list is already in alphabetical order, why change it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I put Iran in the top because it’s the most prominent example of an Islamic theocracy. Rational Dude (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

For saying that eugenics is "scientifically sound"

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

Carthage (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Much like with communism, the problem with eugenics isn't so much the concept (i.e. improving humanity through the promotion of good genes) as it is severe and arguably-inevitable errors in the planning and execution. First of all, eugenics can be (and very often is) a gross violator of human rights, e.g. everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Second, eugenics is ignorant of some very important realities about evolution and natural selection, such as evolution not being inherently goal-oriented and normally-deleterious traits potentially conferring advantages given the right circumstances (such as sickle-cell anemia countering malaria and not being cripplingly harmful to heterozygous carriers). (There's a reason why the bottleneck effect and other instances of low genetic diversity tend to substantially increase a population or species' risk of extinction.) Third, despite any good intentions the basic concept of eugenics may have, it is way too easy for bigots (like, say, Nazis) to weaponize as a vehicle for the extermination of outgroups. I could probably think of more weaknesses of eugenics if I was so inclined, but those three reasons are probably enough to throw it into the dustbin of "ideas that seemed good on paper, but weren't thought through well enough to avoid becoming something absolutely awful". --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that there are serious problems with the concept too; the phrase "improving humanity" implies that a human is some kind of manufactured product that can be refined rather than an autonomous living organism, and "good genes" is inherently ableist language that implies that there are "bad genes" and that people with genetic traits which shorten their lifespan or limit their mobility or impede their ability to socially conform are defective products that need to be recalled and fixed. At the very core of eugenics is a very specific and arguably narrow view about humanity and life in general which just by itself is problematic even before we start talking about imposing it on others without their consent. To put it more eloquently, it's a shit sandwich. 🥪 --Bjorn (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

So, about that deleted ATIM revision…

Oh dear, I've really put my foot in my mouth this time. @Plutocow, could you please reconsider your permaban vote in the current ATIM? When I said I was feeling "slightly suicidal", I really meant slightly suicidal, meaning that no, I am not seriously considering or threatening to take my own life. I was just mentioning in passing a thought that came to my mind and that I quickly dismissed. I should have made it clearer that I was only sharing my feelings and not trying to manipulate people; I thought I did make that clear when I acknowledged that it was disproportionate and might appear to be manipulative, but apparently I did not. I'm very, very sorry that I disturbed and disgusted everybody with that ridiculously poorly-worded remark, and I will not do anything of that sort ever again. I'm just really sad about being dogpiled in ATIM again, and I'm very upset that everyone seems to be turning on me, tearing me apart, and calling me trash (with the exceptions of @UncleKrampus and @DuceMoosolini, who (while not using those exact words) referred to the sanctions as tough love, and @GeeJayK, who was the one who believed in me enough to make me a sysop long ago and even now has acknowledged that I am not and never have been a vandal). The dogpiling especially hurts because I truly like and respect each and every one of you. I know I deserve to be sanctioned for making numerous mistakes with my writing and not listening when people tried to correct me, and I really want to correct those mistakes and do better going forward. I just love this site and I desperately don't want to be permabanned or topic-banned so severely that I can't do much of anything to contribute to the site and its growth.
I also agree with the blocking policy revision to stamp out suicide threats. Not everybody who says things like what I just said will be so straightforward about expressing genuine anguish and sorrow as opposed to pulling cheap manipulation tactics, and I was very, very stupid to say what I said in a way that could even imply that I was doing the latter. We shouldn't tolerate such chicanery going forward. Anyways, thanks for your time. It's a pleasure working with you guys. --Luigifan18 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are considering suicide, you are not alone, and there is help. If you know someone who is considering suicide, the same applies. In the US, call or text 988 toll-free, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How to help someone who is suicidal In the UK, call the Samaritans on 116 123 freephone

I for one do not hold malice against you, but it's clear that things aren't working out for you here. I wish you the best. There is more to life than the internet. Find some enjoyment in real life: go out in nature, read a book from the library, find local activities that you want to try. Bongolian (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bongolian Thanks for the concern. I’m not suicidal, I just phrased a request for sympathy very poorly. All I really need is some remembrance and acknowledgement of what I've done well on RationalWiki and votes against permaban — I know I need a time-out, but I desperately don't want to leave RationalWiki behind forever. I love this place. Hey, remember the Laird Shaw AFD, when we smelled a rat and realized that Boar and BUFO were up to no good, and sure enough, they turned out to be Coombs? Good times. Luigifan18 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting so far looks like you will get the 3-month block. A 2/3 majority is needed for temporary or permanent bans (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Voting), so permaban looks unlikely at this point. I hope that you make good use of your timeout. Bongolian (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to. I have a few things in mind: WiKirby, video gaming, book reading, video watching, cuddling with my pets (two cats and a dog), Discord, my custom Pokémon (I have way more than the Progress and Regress Pokémon that I haven't mentioned on RationalWiki due to being completely irrelevant to it), some Sonic Robo Blast 2 mods I was working on for a few months last year, maybe trying to talk Lockstin into joining from his Discord (look, opinions on "influencers" aside, bringing his audience in would help RationalWiki grow and reach more people)… --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Are they the kind of people we want? I find this method of growth to be dubious as to its effectiveness and to the results. Carthage (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

…Okay, that is a valid point. Again, the shtick of Lockstin's channel is detailed scrutiny and analysis, but there is a line to be drawn between people who actually care about due diligence and scientific research and… ahem… "gamers". I am somewhat on the fence as to whether this is a good idea. I still think Lockstin himself would love RationalWiki, though. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)