User talk:Luigifan18

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Luigifan18! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Yo

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

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

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

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

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

Again, stop feeding the troll

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need your help

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

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

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

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

For saying that eugenics is "scientifically sound"

Smash!

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

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

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

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

Theocracy

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

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

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

So, about that deleted ATIM revision…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undo

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

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

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

ATIM Lumping

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

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

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

On the reasons why people do things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, guys?!

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

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

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