2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

User talk:Plutocow

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

deleting my edits[edit]

Crustyclown.jpeg 🤡Concern Troll Alert!🤡

Krusty the Clown finds concern trolling dull and not amusing.

Imagine being on fire, running up to a firefighter screaming for help, and they hook their hands in their pockets and say, "Actually, before we start, I think you should say you're violently oxidizing. Not all oxidization is bad. I mean, some of my cells are performing oxidation right now, and I think it would be better if we ..."

why are you and cosmikdebris deleting my edits for no reason? Adolfus (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you plan on replying to me? whats the point in deleting something for no reason, and refusing to provide an explaination? this not something I would expect from an admin, and its just disrespectfulAdolfus (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your "edits" were childish and detracted from the article. You know, if you are really attached to your changes you can bring them up on the talk page but right now you're being a twat by repeatedly annoying everyone. Please learn to behave. Plutocow (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I edited the opinion based table, and everything on there was childish, and I think they were valid edits, so I don't know why you are trying to belittle my by using quotation marks. Also, how am I a twat for asking the 2 people who deleted my edit's for an explanation (not everyone like you said)? I believe Carthage told us to "take it to the talkpage" in this diff, I pinged both of you there 2 DAYS ago, and no response, I even left you a message on your talk page, which you couldn't be bothered to answer or even respond to, if you wanted clarification as to what I was asking, you should have asked me for more information (in this case ask me to attach my changes), of course I find it hard to believe that you didn't know what I was talking about, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think I behaved wrongly at all in this interaction, however you on the other hand chose to ignore me, and then accuse me of being a twat and call me annoying, because I followed up on my question to you, which you hadn't answered for 2 days, I'm not accusing you of anything, but I think you need to reevaluate how you handled this situation, because I found it appalling and unacceptable, I did not expect this kind of a response from an admin of a wiki project, I really expected more from rationalwiki and wanted to give it a chance, even though others warned me that it's tough to edit as a newcomer here. So far, they've been right, my short time here has been even worse than my time at wikipedia, so it turns out rationalwiki isn't so rational after all. It's a shame, because I really hoped that this place would be more welcoming than wikipedia, and I would be able to contribute a lot, but apparently not. Adolfus (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Real mature (adding that template), I don't have a concern about the site rules, in fact Cosmikdebris replied to my question (immediately on their talk page) and gave me a proper answer, instead of ignoring me, dodging the question, belittling me, and now accusing me of being a troll in order to downplay your actions. To put it simply, I don't have a problem with the site or its rules (and I have no intention of "disrupting the site", unless asking a question about an action against me is "disrupting the site"), I have a problem with how you decided to treat me, and now how you're downplaying your actions instead of taking responsibility for them. I wasn't expecting a response for that statement, so you literally could have not replied to it, and that was the least you could have done. Ever heard of the saying, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it"? Well, that applies here, and you should probably take it to heart when interacting with new editors, if you don't want to shoo potentially valuable contributers away from this site. Don't bother replying to this statement, because I don't expect a response, and I'd rather not interact with a person who not only isn't willing to be helpful, but also thinks it's funny to intimidate and belittle someone who's asking for help. In the future I'll direct my questions to more senior and helpful members such as Cosmikdebris, seeing as you don't intend to help newcomers. Adolfus (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you made an edit belittling this site, when it got reverted you spent your time throwing a hissy fit instead of doing anything productive, then when I don't kiss your ass in response you write some spiel about how you knew RationalWiki was unfriendly to newcomers, and then you expect us to take you seriously as if you were not fishing for this reaction? Get a hobby, kid. Plutocow (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't "belittling" this site, and if you had actually bothered to look through the diff, you would know that I edited in line with the table, and I didn't say anything wrong (just looking at recent changes we get several trolls and SEO spammers blocked in a day), and I also edited the descriptions for other wiki's on that table. I didn't throw a "hissy fit" when it got revereted, I asked you a question as to why you reverted it, and you didn't bother to answer it, if asking you a question twice is throwing a hissy fit, I think you are the one with the problem, not me. Like I mentioned before, I didn't expect a response to the "spiel", I expected a response to the question, which I wouldn't have to "throw a hissy fit" by asking it twice if you responded in the first place (or responded without calling me a twat and telling me to behave when I had done nothing wrong), in fact I mentioned I didn't expect a reponse to that, as it was a statement. I was not fishing for this reaction, I decently asked you a question, and you decided to rudely brush me off, and when I confront you about it you're getting defensive. Also, you are the only one who reacted like this, Cosmik took me seriously and got to the point, I think the problem here is with you, not me. If asking you a question triggers you, I don't think you should be managing a wiki project, where the main goal is literally collaboration. "Get a hobby kid?" I was planning on making this my hobby, and this is my hobby now. You're probably a chill person, and maybe you had a bad week, but being a bully and taking it out on others isn't going to help either of us. I hope we can put this behind us and work constructively in the future. Adolfus (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Talking with you is getting exhausting, bitch to the actual moderators here for all I care. For a supposed "hobby" you sure aren't doing anything productive here but whine about how reverting one edit makes me a "bully" (and if you're gonna have that big of a reaction to that you're not gonna like it here, assuming you're not just intentionally wasting people's time). Also, given your username is apparently a reference to a certain dictator, I would be careful of how you handle yourself just saying. Plutocow (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said reverting my edit made you a bully, I said the way you decided to handle my question and insult me for it then (and now) makes you a bully, and I don't want to escalate anything and cause drama (which would backfire on me), which I was I didn't rope others into this or bring it up elsewhere on the wiki. I think I'll get along fine here, because the only other editor I've talked to besides you was fairly amicable and helpful. I guess my name is a little concerning, though I explained why it's like that on my userpage, though I will probably end up getting a rename to avoid others taking it the wrong way, if that's something you can do could you rename me "Bratwurst"? Thank you in advance, and I really hope we can put this little conflict behind us and move on. Adolfus (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Uyghur article[edit]

I'm kind of curious why you rolled back my edit given that I think I made it is pretty obvious that the section I was editing discusses denialist viewpoints and why they are wrong, and thus should not be taken as truth by any reader. In this case though, I mean the original reason for your rollback and not a retroactive justification. — Unsigned, by: 2600:100f:b121:16e:e5ff:10fd:ed47:c15b / talk / contribs

You can say it's not the case but your edits do nothing to engage with this viewpoint and just feels like some obvious POV-pushing. If you're not gonna refute the line of argument then you're just promoting it regardless of what you say in the edit summary. Plutocow (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
And why would I have a POV to push? I have literally never been to China nor even Xinjiang. I have no authority to speak on what is happening there. If you think the statement may cause someone to have denialist views, then I don't know what to tell you. It literally goes on to state why that form of denialism is logically wrong, referencing to poisoning the well. — Unsigned, by: 2600:100f:b121:16e:e5ff:10fd:ed47:c15b / talk / contribs
If you "have no authority to speak on what is happening there", what is the point of your crusade? Your edit made the article shittier and that's that. Also, For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. Plutocow (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
If you think it makes it shittier then I suppose you are welcome to have that viewpoint. But as far as I am concerned, the purpose of that section is to bring up denialist viewpoints and explain why they are wrong. Which is exactly what the edit does. It seems like I have put you on the defensive and I really don't have time for internet flame wars, so I probably won't look at this site for a while. I just wanted to hear you out first, since sometimes people give insightful takes that I hadn't thought of before. 2600:100F:B121:16E:E5FF:10FD:ED47:C15B (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
But you don't explain why it's wrong! Whatever, this is a waste of time Plutocow (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Original research is allowed to some extent on this Wiki, but generally speaking, it is better to have references when making a statement.
What were you trying to say anyways? Your statement honestly felt kind of disjointed to me. It was something about comparing white genocide conspiracies and genocide denial conspiracies I guess, but it wasn't very clear to me on exactly how they relate. Without a reference I have no way to clarify the comment, either. BobJohnson (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The part I added went into the specifics of how Adrian Zenz's research on the topic uses similar tropes as Great Replacement Theory (given the significant focus on abortions, IUDs, racial replacement, birth rates, etc). It is still fallacious to use this comparison to deny the Uyghur genocide, because it is poisoning the well. And that rebuttal was stated in the section in question. Just because they have similar tropes doesn't mean he is wrong. If someone has a better rebuttal to this I would love to hear it, but I think that rebuttal is adequate. 2600:100F:B121:16E:49:46D8:941F:59CB (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Tireless Worker Award[edit]

HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
Presented to Plutocow on 14 January 2024 for fixing innumerable typos and accidentally repeated words. Excellent work, tovarisch!

Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Would you be willing to turn on your RationalWiki email feature? I'd like to discuss something about the latest impersonation account that you recently blocked. For reasons which should be obvious, that's a conversation that I think it would be best to have in private.

My own account's email function is turned on, so if you could send me an email so I can reply, that would work also. Tetrapteryx (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason it has to be me? I'm not currently a mod or member of the board, so it might be better to reach out to one of those. Plutocow (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
You're who blocked that impersonation account and reverted all its edits, and it isn't clear if anyone else noticed it. I'm concerned it would be seen as pushy if I try to involve another person in this issue, because Arcadium Trancefer's comment here suggests the people here dislike having to deal with this type of thing. I'm also not familiar with most of the moderators, so if there's someone specific that it's best to contact about these issues, I don't know who it is.
If you let me contact you privately and then you decide the issue is better dealt with by the moderators, I'd be fine with you forwarding my message to them. I'd already been intending for my email to offer that. If you'd rather suggest a specific person to contact instead, who wouldn't mind being contacted about something like this, I'd appreciate that also. Tetrapteryx (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what there really is to discuss here, as I don't think anyone would argue against those accounts being banned. Nevertheless, Bongolian is probably a good person to contact. Plutocow (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

New category creation[edit]

Do I have to ask people before creating a new category? Trump face.pngWe need brain! Give us brain! 17:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is not a Dharmic religion. Plutocow (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
How so? It shares common roots with Hinduism, in fact the deities are inversed (devas and asuras). Trump face.pngWe need brain! Give us brain! 17:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
If you won’t give a good argument, I’m just going to revert your edit. Trump face.pngWe need brain! Give us brain! 17:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The only sources I can find that claim Zoroastrianism is Dharmic are Hindu nationalists who claim every religion is Dharmic. For the purposes of religious studies etc. it's not considered Dharmic. Plutocow (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Alright. But Zoroastrianism being dharmic makes more sense than other religions, because it shares more similarities to Hinduism than non-dharmic religions. Trump face.pngWe need brain! Give us brain! 22:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
You have to provide an actual source. "Dharmic" has an actual definition you know. Plutocow (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)