User talk:Plutocow/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 18 November 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Tech

You have been demoted to tech. Feel free to let your newfound ABSOLUTE POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, read our tech guide here: . Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to link the guide. Vee (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the funny part, there's no guide for the tech role. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah. OK, joke's on me then. Vee (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Suppression

FYI, there's no need to add yourself to the bot user group when doing suppression. Suppression has its own log separate from the delete log, which already doesn't show up in recent changes. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yo

I don't appreciate being accused of whitewashing an article when at least 70% of it is my own writing. "Innocent" being used 8 times in one section to redundantly modify the term "civilian" is bad writing. Bolding random sentences in a quote is bad writing. Thazzit, bro. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Larson's dead

I don't really see the point of promoting an account that will never be used again. Is it for the example? Vee (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks bad if we have a known pedo as a sysop, and I can't believe no one noticed this beforehand. Plus, a dead account with sysop powers could be a security risk, and while it's unlikely it's preferable to shut it down. Plutocow (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new here, didn't even know the account existed until recently. Either way, that's a good point. Vee (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

…Who gave him sysop rights in the first place?!? --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that led you to believe Nathan Larson was behind User:Landmartian? I agree with you, he probably was, and even if he wasn’t the articles should go. Just wondering. Christopher (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:David Gerard said so, and apparently a few others had suspicions. Plus, looking at their edits, it's pretty obvious, and Landmartian at least should have been banned for CP apologia. Plutocow (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lost old account, can I get autoconfirmed?

Hey! My last account (user:swamp fox) is a little gone (password forgotten). Could I get user autoconfirmed or equivalent user permissions to the old one? Thanks. SwampFox (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I can give you autopatrolled, but keep in mind that that's not the same thing as autoconfirmed; you'll have to wait for that to be automatically added to your account. Plutocow (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, all good. It's mainly so I could edit the saloon bar but I can wait a few days. Thanks for sorting the matter out. SwampFox (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Boy, uh, that BoN is really pissed at you.

I’ve been away for several hours, and came back to see the block log full of IP blocks and reverted edits with someone whining about being censored. Anyone care to fill me in on what I've missed? @Bongolian @Spud @Techpriest --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's some moron who tried whitewashing the Thomas Jefferson page then threw a hissy fit when people didn't like his apologia of rape. Sooner or later he'll get bored. Plutocow (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Stallman wasn't fired from the FSF

It was a resignation. Saying he was fired from the FSF sounds is legally actionable defamation 2600:4040:403C:F300:2D1D:52FB:9C8F:5E1C (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The entire edit was whitewashy so I reverted it. Also, I would be careful about making legal threats. Plutocow (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How do I sign up to become a tech again?

I want to sign up for two reasons. One, so that I can actually know whether or not an edit filter-prevented edit is a false positive or a filthy spambot and I can know what to do with accounts that trip the edit filter on their own user page once or twice — as is, I have to either put them in the vandal bin or impose a limited block because the possibility of a false positive is high enough that an immediate banhammering seems unfair. Two, because I want to join in on renaming users so that I can free up good usernames that were taken by shitty ban evaders (like, say, School Bus — that sounds like a decent username) or clean up really terrible usernames. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You are on incredibly thin ice regarding your sysop rights, so people are very unlikely to vote for giving you tech rights. Furthermore, since you don't seem to understand how spambots work I doubt you have the technical know-how for the job. For now, keep in mind that nobody is asking you to deal with spambots — if you want to perma the obvious ones who attempt to create obvious spam pages, that's totally fine but for cases that you are unsure of, let the techs handle it — the last time a spambot slipped past the filter was months ago. And please try to demonstrate maturity with your use of sysop rights so that people would be more willing to let you have more rights. And also, have patience — I was here for more than a year before I had tech rights and that is with years of prior experience with MediaWiki. You have to build good faith with the community if you really want tech rights. Plutocow (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you have any chances at tech. People in this role can access almost everything in the MediaWiki interface, and unlike regular sysop tools, we can perform actions outside of the reach of almost everyone on the website (editing the MediaWiki: namespace, home to interface messages, gadgets, and the sitewide- and groupwide- CSS and JS, only editable by techs), as well as actions outside of the public eye, such as suppression, which can only be seen by other techs and by the 6 moderators, and private edit filters, which can only be seen by other techs. Not only do you need some technical knowledge, as Plutocow said above, you also need to be trusted enough to operate where other people can't see you, which I think, given your ATIM case, you aren't. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could thank you for blocks.

You do a great job of keeping the spambots under control. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

0-second blocks

I recently noticed that you briefly blocked me for issuing a few 0-second blocks to accounts with no activity (including in the edit filter), so let me explain myself. I did that because the accounts in question had no activity whatsoever. Why would someone set up an account on a website and then proceed to do absolutely nothing with it for an extended period of time — not even setting up their userpage, patching up a few grammar errors on a low-activity page, or dropping in to the Saloon Bar to say hi? It seems slightly suspicious to me… like it's an attempt to deceive the mods and sysops. My suspicion is that at least some of these inactive accounts may have been set up by a troll, wandal, or spammer — possibly one who's been (permanently) blocked a few times already and is trying to dodge another banhammering. Maybe they think that having a long gap of time between the creation of their account and the start of their [disruptive] activity will confuse the sysops and/or mods by virtue of their account creation not showing up at the top of the recent changes and/or global RationalWiki logs. Maybe they don't understand how user rights work here and they think that they can get autoconfirmed, eligible, and/or autopatrolled (and thus fly under the [metaphorical] radar) by just having their account survive for several days without being blocked or banned. Or maybe they're completely innocent and they just lost their train of thought and/or had something else to do after creating their RationalWiki account. That last possibility is definitely the most likely, and maybe I'm just a little paranoid and trigger-happy, but seeing an account get created and then do absolutely nothing (not even anything that doesn't show up in their contributions list because the page got deleted and/or the edit filter disallowed it) for several hours or days makes me just a little bit uneasy. Thus, when I put a 0-second block on an account that's done literally nothing, that's me sending a message to the other sysops — that message being "hey, this account is just loitering, and because of that, I think that there's a small-yet-not-small-enough-to-[completely]-ignore probability that this account was created in bad faith, so let's keep an eye on them". --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

What? There's a lot wrong here:

• They may very well be in the process of editing something. By blocking them like this you can scare away any potential editor (WP:BITE)
• They can't deceive any sysop because 1) spambots are almost always catched by our almost-perfect filter 57 and 2) vandals make themselves know soon after signing up.
• Yes, you're being paranoid

Just letting you know, you barely returned to sysop and are already close to going back to sysoprevoke. Actions like these and the preemptive protection you issued of User:Coomsikdebris just put you that much closer to sysoprevoke. I recommend you cease this behavior immediately, lest the mob take away your mop forever. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was of the impression 0-second blocks had zero effect as far as blocks go. Vee (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It can be intimidating to newcomers if they happen to see it, so blocking is better reserved for the unfunny wandals, spambots, and for dishing out mob Justice^TM. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rabbitseatcarrots Well, excuse me for taking the time to take the wind out of the sails of any potential trolls seeking to make an incredibly unfunny joke out of @Cosmikdebris's username. If I thought of that, it was only a matter of time before someone with bad intentions did. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

…Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, thanks for setting me straight. Luigifan18 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dud account wave

Over the past few days, a whole lot of accounts with names that fit the usual spambot mold have been made and proceeded to do absolutely nothing. I'm starting to suspect that they're waiting to all start spamming at once in an attempt to overwhelm the sysops. @Cosmikdebris, Christopher, and Vee Get ready, there may be a storm coming… should we do something now? --Luigifan18 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

How long will it take you to understand, spambots aren't real people, they are automated scripts made by people who want to boost the SEO rankings of their shady businesses. They cannot plan out large-scale attacks, because they aren't real people, and can only do what they are programmed to do. Besides, a large-scale attack of spambots isn't a major concern, as the filter will stop the vast majority if not all of them. Please stop worrying about spambots, the techs are already doing a good job of handling them and you shouldn't be making a big fuss over accounts that should be ignored. Plutocow (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, see, that's what I'm worried about — the spambots may not be able to plan large-scale attacks, but the people making the spambots can! --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Number one, no, spambot accounts are created and run automatically and absolutely no planning goes into it, and number two, they still can't get past the filter. And also, I can't believe I have to tell you this again but please stop fucking engaging with suspected spambots. If you are unsure if an account is a spambot just wait for a tech to deal with it since they're not getting past the filter anyway. What you're doing isn't helping the situation in any way, shape, or form and is probably making things worse since we absolutely do not want to give the spambots any SEO engagement. Plutocow (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What is this "SEO" thing anyways? --Luigifan18 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Search engine optimization Plutocow (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. As for "engaging with spambots", that's me understanding that one or two trips of the edit filter on one's own userpage could be a false positive, so I would prefer to give them an opportunity to appeal the ban, which requires allowing them to access user talk pages so that they can contact one of the site mods. (I'm currently blocked on the Team Fortress 2 wiki for "numerous repeated small edits", which I understand to some extent because it's a huge pain in the ass to review and patrol large numbers of small edits made by BoNs and fresh accounts here (as one of our block reasons states, "Use the preview button!"); however, I can't reach out to that site's mods to talk about the problem, and it's driving me nuts, so I don't want to inflict that same frustration on someone who doesn't clearly deserve it.) Three or more filtered edits or an attempt to create a clearly-useless page reduce the odds of innocence to practically zero, though, so in that case, I feel that a full ban is definitely warranted. So, basically, I'm just trying to be reasonable. --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If they "could be a false positive", leave them alone, end of story. If they are a good-faith user, being welcomed to the tune of "you're a suspected spambot, you might be blocked!" isn't exactly, well, welcoming, and plus you want to avoid giving actual spambots (which >99% of the time they are) anything resembling SEO engagement. Plutocow (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a more responsible sysop, and I think I need some help.

I just saw a user named "Christian are useless" in the user creation log. Given the extreme similarity of usernames, I think this is the "Christians are dumb" user who you blocked the other day making another account. However, they haven't actually done anything yet as of my typing this message. Since my sysop tools are at risk due to my history of overreacting or jumping the gun, and I'm trying to be more responsible with them so that I can continue being a sysop (and more importantly, continue being useful to RationalWiki), I'm really not comfortable with tackling this without firm evidence of actual misbehavior. Could you please take a closer look? (On a similar note, I just issued a partial block to a user who tripped the Blackhat SEO filter exactly once on their own userpage; they could be a spambot, but one filtered edit that isn't a blatant attempt at junk page creation isn't enough evidence for me to issue a total block. Could you please review that block as well?) --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it's ban evasion, the username was inflamatory enough that it shouldn't be allowed. Also, you were told multiple times to stop messing with accounts that have only one hit on the filter. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

All right, I'll do that. You're better at handling spambots than me, anyways. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

VeryLazyPizza

Heh. I had a hunch that VeryLazyPizza was just LazyPizza messing with the Ted Cruz page again, but I didn't want to take firm action until I was absolutely certain. I just checked the Ted Cruz article fossil record, and yep, there's a pattern. I went ahead and protected the article for six days. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are the trolls after You

I have seen many troll accounts trying to copy your user name I even Blocked One named plutohorse. Why are they after you specifically Why not LeftyGreenMario,Bongolian or anyone else --Edward the eight (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably because I have blocked a lot of them and I thus have directly caught their ire. Plus, "celestial body + domesticated animal" isn't a pattern that's hard to imitate, and being autistic and nonbinary makes me an easier target in their eyes. Plutocow (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they've gone through all eight planets by now (at least with a "cow" suffix). --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of "planet" one is using. The IAU definition is the astronomical definition of a planet, not the geophysical one. There's still hubbub being made over the definition. Vee (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WAIT until an edit is made please

Yes the username is weird, but the account made no edits. Wait first, it's not like lasting damage occurs if they do end up making a disruptive edit. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that someone should be allowed to have a username that is a euphemism for cunt? Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, and it seems clearer with the slang once you shared it. Should've made clearer on the block summary, thought you blocked because, without context, looked like a trollish username. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Castillo

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.

Don't whitewash him. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Who? --Luigifan18 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the edit back and forth on Pink Tide you’ll have your context Luigi. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the coop, don't worry it's nothing bad though

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

King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocking account reasons

Noticed the logs recently. Don't attach a name. Just block their accounts and cite the normal reasons ("ban evasion", "harassment", "generic vandalism", "troll", etc). If you insist on insults, be more generic instead. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 07:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a long-term ban evader User:Gorilla lover/User:Kamen rider saber. All of their accounts should be perma'd on sight with TPA revoked, since it's not like they even pretend to be good faith accounts. Plutocow (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fully aware. However, we are giving the troll undue notoriety in these block logs, which is why I recommend referring in generic terms. Besides, their edits alone are obvious in their attempts at disruption to long-term ban, so notification on who is ban evading isn't necessary, unlike blocks on suspected Ken socks or Oliver D Smith socks, which are, in contrast, sometimes more subtle and don't immediately break our Community Standards. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 08:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What specifically was wrong with the edits

Or was it like a reflex Bob-smith (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to that page, as well as your seeming vendetta against RW, are heavily reminiscent of a certain (relatively) recently banned user. I don't have enough evidence to indict (yet), but I have my eye on you. Plutocow (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that individual edited dozens of pages since he was banned and you only care about that page becase you are a bigot Bob-smith (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Virgin shaming is the realm of low-status bullies and bigots. Bob-smith (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

agreed 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC)Is it really a coincidence that we have two people with an extreme vendetta against RW and an obsession with whitewashing that page? Choose your words carefully, for I am this close to taking you to ATIM. Plutocow (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

So you can ban bob-smith again or? It was obvious neil was writing for months as it was all on the same types of pages. .wiki has sent him legal notices to stop editing incel wiki and he hasn't stopped so good luck 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it to ATIM to be sure, but yeah that's what I want to do. Plutocow (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well no laws are being broken because ya'll didn't /64 ban any of his non-proxy clearnet IPs for months of his accepted writing 2600:4040:403C:F300:9254:9EBC:7A0A:9106 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

Two mods ask you to stop changing blocks of previously blocked users and you start changing blocks from a year ago. Why? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Number one, when did this happen, number two, those were socks of banned users, number three, it's just routine maintainance of the vandal bin so it only shows users that are actually, well, binned. What's your problem? Plutocow (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Number one Me and LGM sent you messages via blocks. You even unblocked yourself when she blocked you. Number two, we believe these are socks of banned users, that's why we used the vandal bin. Number three, you're giving them attention when you block older accounts that they don't even use anymore, so there's no need to block them just to make them think that what they did a year ago still matters (it doesn't). Number four, do you see anyone else regularly changing blocks? I honestly don't. I'm not going to dispute this anymore, but I'm politely asking you, don't change blocks unless you have a good reason for it. I'm sure you understand that other users are just as capable as you to judge whether a block was enough or not. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocking socks of banned users isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of policy. If you think this is a serious issue, take it to ATIM, but blocks on a sysop account that can easily be undone aren't exactly a binding ruling. Plutocow (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

But I didn't say you're breaking any rule, I'm saying that you shouldn't block older accounts and give trolls attention. Anyway, this was just an advice. You're free to follow it or not. Again, I'm not going to dispute your decision. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, in some cases it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to potential socks. In most cases the socking user usually can't contain themselves when needled even slightly or tends to fall in patterns of editing the same pages. That being said, wantonly going on a blocking spree of potential socks is no better than that time where Oxy spend several months blocking random accounts until people reminded her that she wasn't an elected mod to begin with and even if she were, that's not within her capabilities. We don't have CheckUser (thank god with all the privacy laws around these days), and a part of that is that we assume good faith on behalf of those editors. The vandal bin is a nice go-between for a potential sockpuppet; if they're a regular user they'll just continue on as they're doing and maybe after a bit complain and then we empty the bin. Most of the sockpuppeting users just get completely unhinged about how we're "suppressing their ability to edit RW" like its some sort of innate right everyone has. I warned you about being a zealot with tech tools back on RW:BASEMENT but really that goes for sysop tools as well. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In none of those cases was there any room for doubt, as there is only one troll with an obsession with cheerleaders and I'm pretty sure that Ken admitted in one of his essays that he was the one spamming the "dramagate" crap. Sometimes, ban evading accounts can get more obvious in hindsight, which seems to be the case with these now-banned accounts. Plutocow (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop changing blocks of these accounts to indef when the ones originally imposed are good enough? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I said stop. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninja

You give me Ninja when I clog up recent changes (not that I'm ungrateful) but I never see you use it when you clog up recent changes. Vee^Meow? 04:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing six category pages isn't exactly clogging the recent changes. Plutocow (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. Vee^Meow? 04:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Suppression of Special:AbuseLog/86925

Why was Special:AbuseLog/86925 suppressed? I wasn't around back then, so I don't know what happened. If it's just something that was going on back then just say so, no need to get into the specifics. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential doxing. It's usually best to be safe in these instances. Plutocow (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem then. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of user account

Hi, were you aware of the community standards on deleting pages when you deleted that person's account (RationalWiki:Community Standards#Deleting)? I was aware of the person's potential desire to hide personal information and gave them the option of hiding personal information and renaming the account, but indicated to them that account deletion was not normal procedure. Bongolian (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that I deleted the account? I just renamed them as requested. Plutocow (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I see now that person deleted his own account. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please participate in the Talk page. Umaru16 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason to oppose my editing? I am not trying to attack Japan, I am talking about the human rights of sexual slavery victims. There are even survivors. If Trump had made such a misogynistic agreement, not Obama, you wouldn't have canceled my editing. Umaru16 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Question

Should I revert sumka to a draft and rework it rather than delete it? Rational Dude (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You can if you want. Just try to find some better sources and focus it more on their actions, historical influence, and views rather than speculation of how they might influence hypothetical future fascist movements. Also, if you can't find enough content for the article to stand on its own, merging with Davud Monshizadeh is always an option. Plutocow (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I will. I’m not obsessed with Zoroastrian fascism, I was just trying to raise awareness on the possible threat it’ll pose since fascism shouldn’t be underestimated.

I’ll move it back to a draft and try my best to find better sources, although such sources are easily found as there isn’t much immediate public info on groups that haven’t been well studied. But still, I’d rather keep it as a separate article rather than merge it since there’s enough info about it to justify it having its own page. Rational Dude (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Fascist

I left some questions on talk pages for supposed fascists like Alex Jones and Viktor Orban, and while they do fit some of the definitions, would they count as para-fascists? For example, do Orbán and Jones have any paramilitary groups that they control in some way? I’m not defending them, I’m just somewhat asking if there can be reasons left in the articles as some people have been some people labeled as fascists and para fascists without proper explanation in the articles. I feel if an explanation was added as to how they’re fascists, it would make much more sense than just adding it. It’ll help us avoid confusion for first time visitors like when I first came here. Rational Dude (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Orban has been moving Hungary in an authoritarian direction and Jones supported the Capitol riot, so neither is a huge stretch. Regardless, fascism is not something that has ever been well defined (the best definition I can come up with that describes all groups commonly defined as fascist is ultranationalist right-wing authoritiarianism aimed at purifying the state, but that's not too far off from standard conservatism). Plutocow (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That, and both of them are far rightists. But we should offer more explanations to prove our case. Rational Dude (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Excellent job with the new imperialism navbar, but…

can you make a navbar and icon for genocide? I think the topic is worth a navbar, and we have enough pages. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be hard to make a genocide navbar that fits in with the rest of our navbars, since it's a much darker subject than any of the others (I mean, you can at least make fun of Nazis). Regardless, I might try when I have time (I actually finished the imperialism icon a long time ago, but that was when this wiki wouldn't allow us to upload new images and I forgot to upload it until a few days ago) Plutocow (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m not sure how to go about it either. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Pardon

I wanted to explain myself if that's alright, it seems that you might've gotten the wrong idea. Rational Dude (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s about what you perceive as my obsession with Zoroastrian fascism. You seem to think that I hate Zoroastrians even though I’m a Zoroastrian myself. Rational Dude (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Privacy Concerns

How do I raise an issue with the mods around here? —Chbarts (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

RW:ATIM would be a good start Plutocow (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So

Am I in trouble or anything? I saw that you blocked me for no reason and accused me of abusing my power. I didn't, and I'd like to explain why.

If you have time, I would like to discuss this misunderstanding with you so we can sort this out. Rational Dude (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocks mean nothing for sysops, and while a short page protect for edit wars is IMHO fine, infinite protects are not (especially only allowing adminstrators, autoconfirm was the minimum needed to stop the edit war). That being said, I think it would've been better to use the talk page first instead of a block, and Pluto really needs to look at edit history before declaring something was done for "no reason".BobJohnson (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks bob. I wasn't familiar with setting amounts for page protections. Plus, the person doing the edit war seems to have anger issues and is a "my way or the high way. Rational Dude (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You perma sysop-locked four pages, only one of which had one edit that was reverted, which is not an edit war. Please get some perspective before using sysop tools. And we don't lock pages because they might be the target of vandalism or an edit war, we protect them when these become a repeated issue (and in the vast majority of cases only temporarily and autoconfirmed-locked). Plutocow (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I made a mistake and I wasn't familiar with sysop tools. And instead of blocking me, let me know what I should learn next time to avoid something like this. Rational Dude (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with drafts

Sorry about the fiasco last time, I've read on the rules and I know better now. I wanted to ask for your help if on the draft for Renaud Camus. I need as much help with this article as possible. Rational Dude (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You were right about one thing on the Dean Baker AfD

While I still belive that he's not relevant enough to have an article here on RW, creating new articles is more productive than deleting existing ones. I'll try to start a draft on Paul Samuelson this week (probably the single most important economist we don't have an article yet). I don't like encyclopedical articles on RW, so it will be a critical analysis on his contributions to the dismal science, not a biography. Just wanted you to know since the page is now archived. You are, of couse, free to contribute to this future draft, as well as suggesting/requesting others. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Signature

I'm trying to do that, but there's little alternative to using <a> tags, which are disabled by mediawiki. I could use [[ LINK_HERE ]], but then the links will have that ugly underline. --

This user is RWs self-appointed culinary expert

N A Z U N A -H I W A T A S H I-

I'll burn ya!TheAlePower (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Number one, please respond to comments on the page they were left on rather than trying to have a discussion across multiple pages. Secondly, the whole purpose of having a signature template is to use it to replace your signature, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by having a signature on top of your template. It's as simple as just adding a couple links in your signature template. Plutocow (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is "suspicious" about the Sino-Soviet split?

It's not debatable that the Sino-Soviet split happened and that Soviet media in that time devoted a great deal of energy compiling doomsday predictions China under "Maoist reactionaries". And clearly the Russian predictions didn't come true considering that Uyghurs are have been around for decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also beard bans are not invented by China, Enver Hoxha literally forced all men entering the country to shave and Tajikistan police do mass forced shavings. Heck, even Imperial Russia and France have taxed beards. And frankly I don't care for the mental gymnstatics of "Tajik beard ban good, Albanian beard ban good, but China beard ban is bad" this is Rationalwiki after all.--PotterGarry (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of adding that sentence? Would we add to the Holocaust page "it is worth noting that Nazi Germany isn't the first country to try to exterminate its ethnic enemies"? The sentence just serves to deflect from China's policies. Plutocow (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but we consider the Lutheran rhetoric against Jews that inspired the Nazis to be genocidal and anti-semetic. That is in sharp contrast to the policies of other Central Asian countries that China has copied which are NEVER called genocide. Nothing that China does to Uyghurs is unique to China and in fact China isn't nearly as aggressive compared to regional counterparts in Central Asia. The problem is that somehow beard bans and anti-religion and politically controlling policies are called genocide in China but the second you cross the border to Tajikistan those exact same rules China copied are not called genocide.--PotterGarry (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Nothing that China does to Uyghurs is unique to China". This is blantant whataboutism. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaand there it is folks. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So, you're a Denialist, then? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrians

Could you please undelete the category for Zoroastrians sometime soon? I plan to make a few pages about Zoroastrians, and that’ll make the category warranted. Rational Dude (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please make those articles before I readd the category; there's no point in having an empty category. Plutocow (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, that’s the plan. Am I allowed to make a page for famous figures like Freddie Mercury? He’s a Zoroastrian, so he’d be relevant to the category. Rational Dude (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you could make it missional. Plutocow (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury suffered under the adverse effects of racism (he was a Parsi in the UK) and homophobia (he was gay in an era famously homophobic). Making it missional shouldn't be too hard. Carthage (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I’ll get to it when I can. Rational Dude (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Board nomination

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

I just made a draft for Freddie Mercury. Can you please undelete the category of Zoroastrians and add the category to his article? Rational Dude (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, you should finish the article first, secondly, we should probably have at least two or three pages on Zoroastrians before adding the category is justified. Plutocow (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also the Zoroastrianism article itself still sucks. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

True. I'll work on the article and add more pages so we can revive the category. Rational Dude (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Navbox

I'm trying to make a personalized navbox on my userpage for fascism. How do I add people and groups to the navbox? Rational Dude (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at the source code for a template like {{nationbox}} and you should be able to put one together; it's basically just a list of links. Plutocow (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I do want to add individuals rather than use a pre existing one since it's missing a lot of people who don't have articles on here yet. Rational Dude (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Fauna list

I asked duce if I could remove the fauna list, and he allowed it. Why did you undo it? Rational Dude (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've made my opposition to removing it clear, so now it goes to a talkpage discussion. Plutocow (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Africa

If i can't move the list for Australia to a sandbox, then can I make a similar gallery list for African megafauna? Rational Dude (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want in your userspace, but don't add it to the article without talkpage consensus. Plutocow (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to make a short description about megafauna for the African article, but I'll bring the subject on the talk page over there. Rational Dude (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories in Superstição, portuguese translation of Superstition

Why did you delete the new portuguese-language categories Psicologia and Folclore? I will create new articles using such categories. _{kontribuaĵoj}Marsjo^{e aí?} 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't add red categories to articles. Plutocow (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter archiving

I removed the bit about twitter from the sitenotice. There are more than 3000 mainspace links: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=50&offset=100&target=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com&namespace=0, so appealing to people to do it by hand isn't going to make a meaningful dent. If you have any coding experience https://pypi.org/project/waybackpy/ seems easy enough to use, although the 15/min rate limit means your script would take several hours to finish running. Christopher (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Artice restoration

I confirm that the article '2021-2022 Email hackings incident' is not spam or a hoax ^{— Unsigned, by: Slapp3dHäm / talk / contribs}

I don't believe it, I read the deleted article and it looks like the "hacking" was a stalker attacking a single individual. I don't think it's hacking. There's no publicly known successful hacking on Gmail on 2022 like the one described in the article. Besides, attacks against gmail are usually done by state-level attackers, like [1], I don't believe a hacker would burn an exploit against Google for that when they could get millions selling it on black markets. If you have any sources on the attack, now's the time. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This hacker attacked many individuals, I will provide some sources in a few minutes ^{— Unsigned, by: Slapp3dHäm / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 21:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hacking in general really doesn't fit this Wiki's mission, and your story is way too generic anyways. Your account sounds like email spoofing. That's been around forever. BobJohnson (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

If Hiroshima is racist, why is the slaughter of North Koreans not racist? The Korean War is obviously Kim Il-sung's fault primarily, but there is no reason why civilians should die in the bombing. North Korea's anti-Americanism is not just the regime's cowardice, but rather more like a civil religion. Do you really think North Korea's nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the trauma of American war crimes?

You sympathize with the Japanese in the Hiroshima article, but why don't the North Koreans sympathize? Your view borders on Cold War bias. If we apply critical race theory to Northeast Asia, who is more the victim of discrimination, Japanese or North Korean? Umaru16 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Is there a reason why you removed 2 userboxes on my page before putting them back & the Lynn Andrews thing? Like, I was diagnosed with Chronic stress a few months before I turned 18 in 2005. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Accidental rollbacks on mobile Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Chordata

Can I please at least add the 4 main tetrapod groups within chordates? And am I allowed to add fish and mention they’re a paraphyletic group too? Rational Dude (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that model, such as there being no way to define a group where both crocodilians and lizards are both reptiles but not birds as well as tetrapods being a subclass of lobe-finned fishes, and these problems have caused that model to fall out of use scientifically, and while it's commonly used as shorthand to make the diversity of animals easier to understand for humans, it is woefully inaccurate and RW goes with what is scientifically accurate. Plutocow (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I know. I just want to simplify it for laymen. Not to mention that amphibians and fish are also not a well defined group since they’re also paraphyletic. I did mention that birds are technically reptiles by descent in my previous edit on the page. Rational Dude (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

So

Can I add how the classification of vertebrates have changed over time in the chordates section? Rational Dude (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I might start working on a seperate article for chordata once I have access to my laptop again so that the subject can be explored there, but for now it's best not to unnecessarily bloat that section of the animal article. Plutocow (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Can I help you with making an article for vertebrates and tetrapods? Also, the amphibian article should be updated because (like reptiles) amphibians aren’t really a clearly defined group since there were many amphibian like tetrapods in prehistory that had the same characteristics but don’t fit neatly into cladistics. Rational Dude (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll create an outline as a draft. Plutocow (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. But for which one though? What page are you making right now? Rational Dude (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Belated explanation...

actually, an apology. I do regret disrespecting you in the matter of the Pinker article reverts, that occurred some time ago. I think now that you were not wrong to question my edit, and I should have posted a warning in the talk page. In any case, I appreciate the effort you put in on the wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

at least add the fact that the jacobins abolished slavery in 1794.

Thanks. A somebody. (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Metaphoricallybad

I didn't see any evidence that this user is a sock of a banned user, so I unblocked them. They also sent me an email saying they weren't a sock of that person. How did you find the IPs? Bongolian (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Metaphoricallybads shared an IP with a blocked Alec Gargett account, as evidenced by them sharing an autoblock on the block list. However, I guess it is possible that Gargett was impersonating this person. Plutocow (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering they're now continuing Gargett's edit war, I'm not convinced that they aren't the same person. Plutocow (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think edit warring in that way is sufficient then. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to jump in here and clarify something. a) Take note of the difference between my account and User:Metaphoricallybads (note the s at the end) which I believe is an actual sock puppet made to use a similar name to mine to muddy the waters: and b) I'm not trying to continue some edit war that originally seems to have happened 3 years ago, I just wanted to add my changes back in that got reverted by User:178.62.14.160 due to bad faith reasons (note their now reverted addition to the talk page for example https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dietary_cholesterol&oldid=2569535). I'm really not interested in some edit war, but the changes I made have been discussed in the talk page and there was agreement with the page's primary author that they made sense. I'd be happy to drop it if needed but I really think there are some valuable changes that can be made to that page. Metaphoricallybad (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Plutocow apologies for this revert, I must have miss-clicked while scanning through the revision logs? Not sure how I accidentally did that. Just wanted to flag that given the above context since it might seem like petty squabbling otherwise. Metaphoricallybad (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Plutocow are you comfortable with me adding my original changes back in now given what I mentioned above regarding me not being the actual sockpuppet user, the agreement about my edits from one of the original page authors in the talk page, and that I wasn't edit warring just because I reverted a revert of my edit by a user who was clearly just stirring shit (and you since deleted for other dumb changes). I don't feel like your original interpretation was fair at all and I question whether you read my changes and the justification before taking action, but I want to make sure you're happy with this before going forward. Metaphoricallybad (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Anti Woke Category

I was thinking. I understand why you deleted my category. I just think the anti woke movement and naming who belives that is a great fit for the site & our mission. I'm still learning & this is my first time making a category. But I hope someone tries again.Yacob01 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2023 (AEST)

I think Plutocow deleted it because drafts don't really work for categories, categories can only be used if the page name starts with "Category:". You could make a page like Category:Anti-woke movement for such a category. A difficulty may be that it will end up a very broad and nebulous category. After all, "woke" is so ill-defined that one person's woke is another person's anti-woke. (Many European anti-woke people would be viewed as woke by American conservatives.) It may end up contradictory, or else greatly overlapping with American conservatism in general (which I think it would mainly be used for). But others may have different takes on this, that's only my own view. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's valid as blair is passionatly anti woke but he is labour so i think he would be liked by american extremists. but i still think the category fits the site mission Yacob01 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2023 (AEST)

For the bar discussion

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.

Seriously, accusing me of denialism, arguing that I'm downplaying the current climate change scenario when I posted a source calling it "a disaster", comparing me with Gary Johnson and not even apologizing? This is abusive behavior. I'm really, really disappointed with you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't compare you to Gary Johnson, I just said you should be careful in your wording because it was similar to an argument Johnson made. And you've accused people of denialism all the time, don't see why you think it's abusive behavior. I'll admit I was a bit presumptive there, but you have argued for endless growth being possible and cited sources that claim that advances in technology mean we won't have to worry about climate change before. Plutocow (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've accused people of denialism when they lived up to this word, which wasn't my case, I think. Anyway, that's tu quoque. I don't think I ever said that "advances in technology mean we won't have to worry about climate change", what I said is that technology advance will definitely help us, but it won't do a miracle alone if we don't change our culture and some of our beliefs. Heck, even on the bar there is a discussion where I said that I believe that climate change denialism is more dangerous than holocaust denialism. The IPCC publishes their "summaries for policymakers", I've read a few of them (there is even one about what we should do in order to achieve only 1.5C, though I haven't read this one), and they always cite technology as a mean to tackle climate change, I don't remember them saying that fast economic growth is a problem though, so, I don't think there is any denialism from my part. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite economic growth is impossible in a universe with finite resources and energy. That's an area where mainstream economics directly contradicts thermodynamics. Is it "economic denialism" to say otherwise then? Carthage (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Where are we on the Kardashev scale, Vee? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Scientific American also notes the prohibitive costs of "green tech":

The electric vehicle (EV) has become one of the great modern symbols of a world awakened to the profound challenges of unsustainability and climate change. So much so that we may well imagine that Deep Thought’s answer today to Life, the Universe and Everything might plausibly be “EV.” But, as Douglas Adams would surely have asked, if electric vehicles are the answer, what is the question?

Let us imagine the “perfect” EV: solar powered, efficient, reliable and affordable. But is it sustainable? EVs powered by renewable energy may help reduce the carbon footprint of transport. Yet, the measure of sustainability is not merely the carbon footprint but the material footprint: the aggregate quantity of biomass, metal ores, construction minerals and fossil fuels used during production and consumption of a product. The approximate metric tonne weight of an EV constitutes materials such as metals (including rare earths), plastics, glass and rubber. Therefore, a global spike in the demand for EVs would drive an increased demand for each of these materials.

Every stage of the life cycle of any manufactured product exacts environmental costs: habitat destruction, biodiversity loss and pollution (including carbon emissions) from extraction of raw materials, manufacturing / construction, through to disposal. Thus, it is the increasing global material footprint that is fundamentally the reason for the twin climate and ecological crises.

The global material footprint has grown in lockstep with the exponentially rising global economy (GDP) since the industrial revolution. This is largely because of egregious consumption by the super-affluent in a socioeconomic system founded on growth without limits. Can we resolve this fundamental conflict between the quest for limitless growth and the consequent environmental destruction? [2]

As for the Kardashev scale, we're nowhere near being a Kardashev 1 civilization, only being 0.7, and there's serious concerns that we'll never reach a stage of serious expansion into space. We're using up scarce resources here on Earth, so it's very possible we'll run out of scarce resources before making it into space. As of right now, we're limited to Earth. Earth is a closed (not isolated) system with finite resources and energy, and we're using them up at exponential rates. Carthage (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

EVs are a bloody stupid idea (even if they are better than gasoline) and I don't think I had ever used them as an example, this is a huge strawman. If you can use a blog post as a source (just read your own link, it has a disclaimer saying that is not not necessarily SciAm opinion), I can do it as well [3]. We're using less and less resources to do more and more, saying that "and we're using them up at exponential rates" is wrong, we'll probably reach peak oil this year. We will use even less in the following decades as population stagnates and alternatives become available. As I believe Greg Mankiw once said, If we were running out of natural resources, we would see their prices skyrocketing in the long term, but this is not happening. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You haven't, but other people have. Also, a peer-reviewed study in 2015 found that, using a metric of the material footprint, that exhaustive usage of natural resources by developed nations can't be decoupled from economic growth: [4] This is cited in the SciAm article:

The inescapable inference is that it is essentially impossible to decouple material use from economic growth. And this is exactly what has transpired. Wiedmann et al., 2015 did a careful accounting of the material footprint, including those embedded in international trade, for several nations. In the 1990–2008 period covered by the study, no country achieved a planned, deliberate economywide decoupling for a sustained length of time. Claims by the Global North to the contrary conceal the substantial offshoring of its production, and the associated ecological devastation, to the Global South.

Recent proposals for ecocidal deep-sea and fantastical exoplanetary mining are an unsurprising consequence of a growth paradigm that refuses to recognize these inconvenient truths.

Also your disclaimer that the article isn't the official opinion of Scientific American is irrelevant to the content of the article. Carthage (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It is in fact older, from 2013, the current literature disagrees with it.[5][6] What others have said is irrelevant, the fact that this person is using EVs as an example shows that the author didn't even made a decent research on the topic, they could have used a better example, such as solar panels. And yes, it is important to tell that this is not the official opinion of SciAm because you basically said it is. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is going to be my last post on the subject by the way. I don't want to bother Plutocow anymore. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Filter

At least do a cursory google search before banning a word/phrase from the wiki. Christopher (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

YouTube vote fails the 2/3 majority

Moved to RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation

Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Deletion of my userpage

Hello. I see you have deleted my userpage, which served as a redirect to my talk page. Redirecting a userpage to a talk page is actually fairly common practice. As such, I would like to request that it be undeleted. Now without a userpage, WetWilly (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your talkpage should be created first so that it's not a broken redirect. Plutocow (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I remade WetWilly's userpage with a redirect to his talk page. If that's okay.The Krusty Krab (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Mod notice

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

Carthage (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Based sysrevoke of Mikeypoot

@CircularReasoning IIRC from when I had a mop, sysops can grant sysop status to whomever they see fit, but only a moderator can adjust sysoprevoke status, and sysoprevoke supersedes sysop. Ergo, Plutocow made the right call in assigning sysoprevoke status to these known major trolls, because it prevents them from (ab)using sysop rights (such as blocking and unblocking) in the event that an extremely clueless (or worse) new sysop stumbles upon them and assigns them sysop rights. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sod it… I know I'm right, because I took the time to read our descriptions of user rights. Even if a sysoprevoked user such as myself were to be granted sysop status, they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it unless a moderator or admin took the sysoprevoke status away. And while RationalWiki will hand out a sysop mop to anyone who demonstrates basic good faith (which can sadly be faked), we have community procedures like All things in moderation, the chicken coop, and moderator elections to make sure that the mods are trusted users who know full well what they're doing with their privileges and don't use the moderator tools carelessly (like, say, only slapping sysoprevoke on users (like myself) who were really bloody careless with the sysop tools). I fully stand by Plutocow's decision to sysoprevoke any and all accounts that have been clearly demonstrated to be sockpuppets of major trolls such as Ken and Mikey — if careless sysop tool usage is bad, then malicious sysop tool usage is a potential disaster. Thus, sysoprevoking major trolls — even the ones who were caught before they could be made into sysops — is good insurance against a worst-case scenario of a Conservapedia sympathizer somehow managing to fake sufficient devotion to RationalWiki’s ideals to be granted sysop status and proceeding to hand it off to the likes of Ken or Mikey to go on a mega-vandalism spree. (Not that the mess they'd make couldn't be cleaned up, but RationalWiki might end up as a metaphorical smoking crater for at least half an hour.) Luigifan18 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Luigifan18 I guess that makes sense. Lately we’ve had to promote and/or ban several rogue sysops- like that one Wiscon-whatevs who thought he could dedicate this wiki to the glory of Stalin, GrammarCommie being sysrevoked when he left for his promotion sprees and then going “YOU HATE ME!” and weaponizing his mental state when called out on it, and Oxy for being a walking HCM-3. And I was there on that one occasion Hastur unbanned one GR- and we all had to ban him --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I've been messing around with} 18:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

We have sysoprevoked people who have never been sysop, User:Grawp as an example. But the main reason was, if anyone who became sysop wanted to troll RW, Mikey would probably be the first choice to demote, and since Mikey is still socking nine years after his original ban it was probably best to nip that in the bud. It's unnecessary to sysoprevoke every Mikey sock as they are mostly forgotten, but for the main account that is linked to from mainspace, it's probably a good idea. As for LT and Ushit, Unclescrooge is another LT sock that was already sysoprevoked and thus sysoprevoking the other two accounts was a manner of enforcing that original sysoprevoke. Plutocow (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Rogue sysops happen all the time, good job taking care of that potential time-bomb. You also might wanna sysrevoke this guy. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I've been messing around with} 19:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

He was already sysoprevoked by Bongolian. Plutocow (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I need to break silence here.

About a week ago (December 16th), someone registered an account by the name of "I Cannot Be Blocked", which got quickly blocked by @Carthage. A day later (December 17th), someone registered an account by the name of "Dareyoutobanme", which (given the timing) seems like the same person ban evading. I noticed this instantly and would have blocked them if I had a mop, but I kept quiet because I wanted to see if the other sysops would take notice and take action. Well, it's been a week, and nothing’s happened, and I can't just stay idle anymore. I get not feeding the troll and all, but this is pretty flagrant rule-breaking, and I think it needs a response. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If nothing's happened, it's not a big deal. Plutocow (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

An excellent demonstration of why Luigifan Should never have a mop. Scream!! (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what is that supposed to mean? --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia

For the section Bias, the only sources of the removed content were primary. Ledes do not need sourcing, and theoretically there shouldn’t be sources for ledes. (Only many articles fall out. You might see one editor or another removing them any time on such articles. Ww2 is a widely known subject). If sources are in contradiction, it will be presented as debated, and all POVs referenced with reliable sources will be shown. The only exceptions are niche subjects, which is a big flaw of Wikipedia. Cheers. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Note for the future: please keep the discussion contained in the talkpage of the article under dispute. Spamming the user talkpages of everyone involved in the dispute is not a good idea. Plutocow (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Then let’s discuss in the talk page. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems we’re not discussing. It’s unsourced information, which is, at least the second paragraph deleted, objectively wrong. As to the fact no sources were named in the lede of WW2. There are enough. The user who added it probably had a heated discussion over there. But the argument is null, since there should not be sources in lede. Not many, that is. In this case, a large majority of sources state it started in 1939 and ended in 1945. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if your writing an answer, but this Wiki is underpopulated. I won’t get an answer. If you reverted my deletion because you think there is something to discuss, feel free to discuss. The only sources were primary, and it wasn’t obvious thinking. It was bad OR, the type that is your very original, individual, and not widely known opinion. It’s unsourced. The edit was justified. Cheers. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I get an answer, like I’m not conservative, if that’s the problem… I kinda feel dumb now. Should I crate an account to be taken seriously?

You are a gem

Thank you so much for helping me out. I was surprised we had no wikibreak template for a user's passing in real life after all of these years, and no official contingency procedure to safeguard their memory from potential data leaks. --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I've been messing around with} 02:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I got the four who were mentioned at RW:Shrine, are there any others? (Nathan Larson doesn't count) Plutocow (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

None whom I know of, unfortunately. And I'm pretty sure Koekritz doesn't count either. Does he? --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I've been messing around with} 02:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd assume not. Plutocow (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Round 2

I am still not getting an answer on the talk page of Wikipedia. Pls, pls, something. I will say it again here, if you have not read my previous arguments: there are specific policies which force Wikipedia to take the supposedly biased approach described in the paragraph, however the paragraph does not critique these, it simply states things, which are in contradiction with those policies. As a direct consequence of this, if you read the policies, you’l realize that they are essentially a response to everything claimed in that deleted paragraph, bc they specifically address the issues, and give rules and regulations for them. The claim that if one reliable source is disproven by another, that is ignored, is wrong. Again, niche subjects fall out. But nobody would recommend you reading something on Wikipedia about Muisca people in Bogota, Hawaiian history, oceanic politics, or the Inca, and then taking everything for undeniable fact (on those niche and unknown subjects, yes, mainstream works are often a summary, in contradiction with some details given by respected experts).

Let’s give you a detailed exemple: you may see the dates of the reigns of Inca emperors or events of Inca history in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Well I, as someone who dug (a lot, I am actually interested in the subject, academically) deeper (I.e I read books from the specific historiography, and studied the subject) can tell you that those dates come from the 40s, from someone named John Rowe. Very influential historian, who’s chronology spread quickly and set a main frame work for History (previously, and to a certain extent even today, Inca "history" was and is based on whatever the fuck a Spanish chronicler said, and if that chronicler has written the favorite book of that 19th, early 20th century historian…). However, Rowe’s chronology doesn’t correspond with archeological data. This also isn’t this type of one sided, easy debate. Inca History is just as researched as say, Roman history, or German history, or whatever else really. It’s just that Rowe’s chronology is one of many of the modern age, and all aren’t really supported by the data available, and they all are only estimates which admit themselves that they are 100 percent wrong. Those estimates are made for convention and unity in historiography, it is impossible to actually know if chronology X made by Y, or if anything of what the chroniclers said, is true; that is the actual debate in historiography. Setting dates, (and actually wanting them to work) for Inca history is literally impossible, and nobody has ever tried it.

So you just had a specific exemple of a niche subject on Wikipedia, which I myself have tried to improve (I am User:Killari Wanka). However, most subjects just aren’t concerned by this, meaning… that the debate is explained in depth further down the article, with all views being presented. Regarding the first deleted paragraph, the one about the start date of WW2, Wikipedia is like a person without memory, it’s brain is blank. And so nothing exists, only sources know what and how things exist. This is done to make neutral (not objective!) editing. Pov-pushing is not allowed. This is why the Wikipedia article, since a majority of sources say it all started in 1939, says a (huge, mind you) majority of sources say it started in 1939. Again, the contradicting view is presented down below. It would be against the basic logic of just trying to do good-faith, unmotivated editing, to put a non-majoritarian view-point in the first phrase of the article. It would be bias, as it goes strictly against the policies given. It would be POV-PUSHING. And so, the deleted paragraph is misguided in it’s belief that the fact that the first phrase of the lede of the Ww2 article only mentions 1939 as a start date constitues bias, as instead this is made to avoid bias. The second claim made, that if a reliable source is disproven by another, that fact is ignored, is not just misguided, it is wrong. If one source (reliable) disagrees with another (reliable), what will the blank-brain neutral third person say to that? It will present it as debated, and attribute each claim to the respective claimant (This is policy, at least). If both claims are respected that is. If a otherwise reliable journal for example says something completely ignored or debunked by the consensus of Academia, the claim is not shown, or not shown as a respected claim, but simply a non-accepted claim. In addition to this, I have looked up the history of the WW2 page, and it’s talk page, and the editor who added this is probably a very disruptive ip. Cheers, and pls, give me an answer, even if it may be negative. New world (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A drive-by request for some peer review

Sup Pluto? Sorry to bug ya.

I have written a new article debunking a shitty UFO doc and I thought that it would be doubleplusgood to ask for a second opinion before I yeet the thing into our precious mainspace. I chose you for this unenviable task because it was you who moved my crappy Vitamin C draft into mainspace while I was away on my wiki break, so I know you are capable of parsing the dross that slides off my keyboard. Not everyone here has such patience.

So, yeah, if you have the time could you give it a once over? Anything major that needs fixing? You don't need to have seen the movie, I meticulously transcribed the relevant scenes so that the readers know EXACTLY what I'm addressing. (Though I do kinda recommend it, it's a fun watch. I heard that it's possible to watch it while... uhm... cough cough... wearing an eyepatch and singing sea shanties, ya know? Mere gossip, I'm sure.)

Only if you have time though, and no rush. Next week or next month, whatever. (If you don't wanna, just say so, I actually have a long list of sysops I need an excuse to harass and annoy with my obnoxious shit say hello to.)

Sincerely. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 05:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit review request

Hey, I recently undid a BoN edit at Internet Research Agency that looked like it was harming the page. However, I'm not fully confident of my judgment in this case, so I'd like a second opinion. Could you please take a look at it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Header quotes

How do you feel about me using quotes from fictional material on a page if it's appropriate for/relevant to the page's content in question? BJA2112 (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They should probably be used sparingly. In pages about concepts that are largely fictional, it may make sense to use a (adequately sourced) quote from fiction, but probably not for real-life political issues. Plutocow (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

👍👍👍BJA2112 (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion on this on the Mod noticeboard. Bongolian (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Mediawiki bug?

Idk, but it has been well over a minute. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.86.42.248/32 2600:387:F:D16:0:0:0:6 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

When trying to unblock, it says the block was already removed. It's likely just a visual error. Plutocow (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've confirmed it as a purely visual bug. The thing is, 72.86.42.248/32 is technically blocked, as the "range" is equivalent to 72.86.42.248 which is blocked due to being a ban evasion of Neiltyson1fan/Willwill0415. Since the two are equivalent, it treats 72.86.42.248/32 as blocked, and since a block log exists, it displays the latest entry. I confirmed this by doing a similar one minute block on 178.214.248.169/32, but since 178.214.248.169 isn't blocked, 178.214.248.169/32 isn't displayed as blocked and thus the block log entry doesn't show up in their contributions, while after blocking 63.115.31.130/32 for literally zero seconds, the block log entry still shows up as 63.115.31.130 is currently blocked. (Compare to 185.238.168.89/32, which has isn't displayed as blocked despite 185.238.168.89 being blocked as the block log for 185.238.168.89/32 is empty.) Ultimately, the "block" on 72.86.42.248/32 will go away when the one on 72.86.42.248 expires. Plutocow (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice

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

Noodles (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The Theater Principle

Hello, I reckon the latest article I've edited is ready for mainspace, could you confirm please? If so, please move it to the mainspace, I have no idea how to, instructions very vague. If otherwise, let me know what needs to be improved. Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tyler087h / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Edits

Why are my edits always undone? I’m just having a little fun by adding some snark, it’s not a big deal. Rational Dude (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There’s a fine line between funny and childish. “Andy Taint” is the latter.Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Strike-out humor isn't looked too kindly upon nowadays anyways, and those instances were particularly trite. Plutocow (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, Andrew Tate is a douchebag and a bully who mocks everyone else, so I thought it’d be funny to do the same to him. Ngl they are funny, even in a childish way. Rational Dude (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Funny to you, maybe. Carthage (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It is funny, you gotta admit it’s pretty funny. Rational Dude (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I saw your edits to the AoC page, and I should point out that it was intentional for the "against the AoC" section to be about explaining why the "against the AoC" arguments are incorrect. Also, why'd you undo my restructuring of the page? Those edits only contributed to minors being harmed.

2600:8800:8809:1C00:4885:4FA4:11BC:439 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I explained my thoughts on the talkpage. Plutocow (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mainly relied on morality, common sense and common knowledge for my edits. Also, there is NO valid argument that debunks the fact that the age of consent (whether legal or moral/mental) is 18 years old.

2600:8800:8809:1C00:9CF5:DAC0:F0E2:BAF8 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the kind of stuff you need sources for, and there certainly exist jurisdictions where the age of consent is lower or higher than 18. Plutocow (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"That's the kind of stuff you need sources for"

You mean morality, common sense and common knowledge aren't enough?

"there certainly exist jurisdictions where the age of consent is lower or higher than 18"

That doesn't change the fact that the mental/moral age of consent is 18 years old.

2600:8800:8809:1C00:9CF5:DAC0:F0E2:BAF8 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow holy shit

How do we know Men's Rights EXTREMIST was Nathan Larson apart from their edits and viewpoints? (Which, to be fair, given the nature of the edits and the defense of CSA (though I have thankfully not found it myself) is good enough reason to ban them) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't, but regardless of whether they were or not, the offensive pro-child sexual abuse views they promoted are enough to justify a permaban either way. Most of the offending edits are in now-deleted pages. Plutocow (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that you could erase editing history? You should erase all of Larson's editing history so that no one would see any bad things. 2600:8800:8809:1C00:20D0:925D:C77A:AD72 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic

Do we have a page on social cleansing? I was thinking of making one. Rational Dude (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave up the wiki username

Claim it now before another rando does. Cheers, MartianTechnician (talk)

It won't let anyone register under the Plutocow name apparently. Regardless, thanks. Plutocow (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

From wiki

Recreation of previously used usernames is prevented by the anti-spoof check to prevent impersonation. Users can request to register old names at Wikipedia:Request an account.

Cheers, MartianTechnician (talk)

As long as no one else takes it I'll be fine, but I sent a request just in case. Plutocow (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You got nominated for Board

Some asshole did itChef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused

You took issue from me "uploading from Wikicommons," but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do instead. I thought the issue before was that I was using images when there were better equivalents available on Wikicommons, how do I get images from Wikicommons to Rationalwiki without uploading them? I'm willing to say I'm the one in the wrong here, I just am unsure how I do what you want me to.--Ephrom (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I think I figured it out. Apologies.--Ephrom (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoops

Thanks for fixing the issues caused by my page relocation! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Statism

Can I bring back the page? Or should I make an ATIM first so we can get a consensus for reviving it? Rational Dude enter thy lair 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's freshly AFD'd, so shouldn't be brought back to mainspace. But you're free to make a draft for the topic, whether or not you reuse any old text for it. I don't really think this is a moderation/ATIM matter. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair. So no undeleting it? Rational Dude enter thy lair 22:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just start from scratch, the "article", if it can even be called that, was a stub of really poor quality. Plutocow (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Rational Dude enter thy lair 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Funspace page question

Do funspace pages require references and links? I’ve see most of them don’t have links. Rational Dude enter thy lair 19:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not all of them need references but ones that try to be factual probably should have them. Adding interwiki links to them is fine, a lot of older funspace pages are ones that the old guard decided were too crappy for mainspace and still reflect that today. Plutocow (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So can I add the list page I recently made back to mainspace? Rational Dude enter thy lair 03:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That "article" is in a very poor state, with it having a misleading title (should be "rendered extinct" rather than "killed"), lots of empty sections, is nowhere near complete, and what content that does exist isn't very good (failure to critically engage with the "overkill hypothesis" which is falling out of favor in modern paleontology, the dodo section not mentioning that the biggest factor in its extinction was the destruction of its nests by introduced animals like rats rather than being directly killed by humans). It was sent to draftspace for a reason. Plutocow (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been been filling them out, and the overkill hypothesis might have some basis from recent evidence published. But its not a mainspace article, its a funspace article. Rational Dude enter thy lair 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Socks or Copycats?

Might be worth taking a look at these IP's:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigifan18&diff=prev&oldid=2681205

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigifan18&diff=prev&oldid=2681289

They seem to be registered to AT&T, and are based out of Florida like 71.208.249.110

Might also be worth checking out this IP registered to a VPN server in Belgium:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigifan18/Fun:Progress_%26_Regress_Pok%C3%A9mon&diff=prev&oldid=2682193

They are either a copycat or a sock of the troll mentioned in ATIM, as their editing history and language seems similar Y2hyaXM (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They're likely the same user, and should probably be blocked if they continue editing in the same manner, but for now things might calm down after the Luigifan18 ban. Plutocow (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, always best to ignore these idiots, hopefully this one isn't persistent, from my experience on WP those ones are the worst, but rarely encountered Y2hyaXM (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For basically claiming that education is not affected by cultural aspects

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.

What the fuck, Plutocow, did you even read my post? You might not like it, but cultures that put enphasis in education fare better than others that don't. This is nothing genetic (I've never read The Bell Curve, but I doubt that their main argument is similar to mine). I would swear to god if I wasn't an atheist. Your post is the sort of reason why it's so hard to change things. You're basically enabling people for thinking that education does not matter. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Responded on your talkpage why this argument is incredibly stupid and bigoted. Plutocow (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't even understood my point. You clearly acted with your gut. Since you're incapable of admiting mistakes, from my end this is over. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I was arguing from the point that you were just misinformed about how shitty the US education system was and not that you were expressing pure racism/classism. But oh well, I learn. Plutocow (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So, you're saying that a post that claims that systemic racism is the main cause of the race gap is racist? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not prejudiced, but... "Ghetto culture" is a racist dogwhistle. Plutocow (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Your problem if with the term? If the term is racist I won't use it again, but if you think that cultures (and again, I can be wrong about the specific example) don't play a major role on development, you are a denialist. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this is still a contested issue in economics and your cited sources are not without dispute, so that's like calling someone a denialist for not believing in string theory. Also, you are doing a motte and bailey, arguing that "culture can have an effect" (motte) and "black culture is a part of the reason why they are poor" (bailey). "Ghetto" is a racist dogwhistle Plutocow (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From what you read in the last five minutes, you mean? I don't think that anyone believes that culture is irrelevant to development, though most people think it's not as important as other factors, myself included. You don't know what motte and bailye is. My argument is that culture and education have an impact on development. The rest wasn't an argument, it was an example that I said myself that could be wrong. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You will find brilliant studies claiming that culture is not as relevant as other factors, like the ones by Acemoglu and Robinson. That's not the same as saying that it's not one of the factors. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if anything you are the one using a motte and bailey (i.e. gave an example that is possibly wrong, ergo said something racist). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your comment was racist because attributing black people's poor outcomes to "culture" is a common racist trope. And you still have not provided any evidence in favor of that specific claim! You can just say "I was wrong, I will no longer throw around these incendiary claims that I have no evidence for." Plutocow (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is getting tiresome, and I really think you should rethink your attitute here on the Wiki, Plutocow. That was just an example. Saying that southern Italy is poorer than Northern Italy because of culture is racist too? I can provide a citation for that if you it is. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your "example" was blatantly wrong, which is the whole point of this. Also strawman fallacy, as I took issue with your classist comments of "redneck culture" as well Plutocow (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, now you say, after calling me a racist and comparing me with Charles Murray, that you think that I just used a bad example (something that I acknowledged that was possible). How rich from you. No, the whole point of it is you denying that culture matters (even if other factors can be even more relevant) and, more importantly, intentionally misinterpreting my post and my argument. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

He has used the same arguments about culture being responsible for poverty in the U.S., the main difference being that you didn't bring up IQ. "something that I acknowledged that was possible" bro, just admit you have no evidence and made it up. You can't accuse people of disagreeing with you of "denialism" when you refuse to put in the work of actually establishing this is a real thing. Plutocow (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)