User talk:Lumenos

Users Online: <whosonline/>

Thanks for helping in the debate, I'm sorry I can't stop them getting at you as well because if I try they'll say I'm using admin status in a case that involves me. Usually this is a polite wiki but it is deteriorating rapidly and unless things improve they can look for someone else to look after the wiki. Proxima Centauri 14:39, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I have no issue with Lumenos; I am merely pointing out that you are not being attacked by zombie computers. Phantom Hoover 15:46, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I should add that I like you too Phantom Hoover, even though you have apparently claimed to be "a dude" and I am critical of a number of your arguments as well. :-) Lumenos 02:37, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure what this is about. If this is in reference to the policy page, I'm not worried about my privacy. If this is about the edits to the RationalWiki article, I didn't post my edits intending them to be set in stone. When I came back and looked at the waring over that article I wondered if you weren't defending me or maybe following that etiquette policy? I don't think you should block people over that, at least not until we write some policies that have community support. Otherwise who is to say what is trolling, vandalism, or unwarranted blocking in a case like that? Lumenos 15:59, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Proxima, I forgot to say that you are welcome for my help with the debate. I don't know if it means anything to you but my "critical" comments don't change the fact that I like you. Lumenos 17:14, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

IRC

Can we take the 3-odd discussions we are holding right now to IRC? If you're using Firefox, install ChatZilla and click on the #wikiindex link on the left; otherwise google for a client for your OS, install one, then at the IRC command line type "/server irc.freenode.net", then "/join #wikiindex". Phantom Hoover 15:23, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

I didn't get this message until a few hours ago. I may be up for it at some point but I have got so much to do now. Lumenos 01:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

For future reference I put together a list of ways to contact me either "privately" or in real-time on my Lumeniki user profile. Lumenos 01:56, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

If anything really important happens at IRC you might ask the participants there if they would mind if you copy the transcript and email it to me. If you email me through Wikipedia or my wikis email this email is shttp, if "privacy" is a concern. I should be checking this address lately, because someone is interested in the solar steam electricity generation system, for which I have done a review/interview. Lumenos 23:46, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Reordering talk page comments

You have just made Talk:RationalWiki impossible to follow. Please stop doing that. Nx 03:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

[For others who are reading this, I believe Nx is referring to the dialog beginning with the Similar Wikis "debate map" that I and Nx created on that talk page (although he is presently acting as though he was unaware of this) and subsequent "mass quoting" to which Nx expressed no objections that I remember. Bob is also apparently acting as if he is unaware of this, thus prompting me to create this clarification notice. Lumenos 05:36, 4 September 2009 (EDT) You could reorder it. I thank you for helping by posting that message showing that I had moved something that seemed off-topic, in my view. My ideal is something I call a wikiforum. Isn't there are way we can create debate maps, and remove dated or otherwise irrelevant information? I suggested a separate article for criticism and Proxima stated that she would prefer this to the "no criticism" approach. Are you open to the idea of someone linking or posting any criticism that you may not agree with? Lumenos 06:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Er, Lumenos, you could also not screw up talk pages in the first place. "Reordering it" would probably consist of reverting to before you mucked it up. Nice work of applying your rather unique mental processes to a shared space. Huw Powell 07:17, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Well I wish I'd have known how you both feel about this, before I went to all that effort. I suppose you could revert it, but Nx did much work on it since the first reordering. He was certainly aware of it long before he complained, as the edit history shows. I made it into a "debate map". Did you feel that it was misleading, biased, or hard to read? Lumenos 07:47, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh, so now it's my fault because I didn't complain soon enough? LOL Nx 07:53, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Well the consequence is we have no neat way of undoing it, if that be the most beneficial course of action. Is there any way we can correct this now that I am "out voted" so to speak? Lumenos 07:59, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I guess I should have asked. Lumenos 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Next time, don't go around reordering talk pages. Nx 08:01, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Awww, you won't tell me what is wrong with the new version so we can fix it? Lumenos 08:04, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

What is wrong is that you started moving comments, inserting "witty" comments about it, duplicating comments, and generally making a mess out of the whole thing. We can't fix it. Next time you can refrain from touching other people's comments. Nx 08:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't mind people copying my comments or work here, as if it were public domain. (I may retain rights of future derivative versions of all my work posted anywhere, however.) Are you saying that, you don't appreciate someone quoting (copying) you work here, for example? Lumenos 08:17, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't mind other people quoting me, I mind people messing with my comments. It's technically allowed, but it is proper etiquette to leave other people's talk page comments alone. At least on RationalWiki it is. Nx 08:27, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Does "messing with" mean "moving"? If so, it seems there is no polite way to create a debate map if any editor strays from the stated topic. I wish I knew if anyone had a reason for this. Lumenos 08:39, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes. You moved my comment were I was directly responding to the comment above, claiming I was off topic. That was not nice. Nx 08:42, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Nooooow you tell me, you didn't appreciate that. Well I restored the one I think you are talking about. Lumenos 11:59, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Well what I would do, is just create a new section named after the argument you wish to make and copy everything relevant to that argument there. I know what you are referring to, and am not certain that it was off topic. [You] responded to [my] statement like you had just learned what the topic of the section was, but I don't know. That could be moved back. Don't feel too inhibited, especially if I am doing something unprecedented, to revert such changes if they are inappropriate, in your view. But umm I guess it doesn't bother you that you appeared to be arguing for something which you later stated that you did not care about. Well but then you had a different reason, I guess. Lumenos 08:55, 1 September 2009 (EDT) [Update: bracket text are typos that were updated. Lumenos 12:42, 2 September 2009 (EDT)]

(undent) I was responding to the previous comment. That it was off-topic in your opinion is irrelevant. It was very much on-topic IMHO because your argument was that RW was going to remove all criticism of CP, therefore WikiIndex should promote Liberapedia as and alternative. Nx 09:02, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

A little background here. I created a section that said at the top: "Please place or move arguments here for what makes a wiki notable and similar enough to RationalWiki, to be included in the "See also" section." within that there was another section that said at the top "(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds." Lumenos 13:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

(Section got large) Nx came and started posting later I think, so he may have not noticed those messages ooooooor maybe he saw them and this was all part of his little plan. Just a possibility. Lumenos 13:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

After a great long debate in one of these sections Nx said:

Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. Nx 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

So I moved comments he had made before that to a section with a name that appeared more like uuh did I mention that he was going on about "snarkiness", and how fun it is. Oh yeah, topic headings could always be renamed, no problem. Then it was "lol" in the edit history description, you know, like as if to say, "yea for that edit!" or "more like that please!" Which was basically what he meant. Okay so I think it is all fairly clear now who was behind all this. All I'm saying is just be careful with this guy. Lumenos 13:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Facepalm.jpg Nx 13:41, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I'd just like to add that the re-ordering of comments does not help one little bit. Especially when it generates a little sub-debate on the same talk page about whether the re-ordering was a good idea.--Bob M 10:18, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Well people might say something before posting to a section that states that this is its intended purpose. Lumenos 10:25, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Is the idea of debate mapping appealing to anyone? As in, collaborative development of a debate map by people who are, in essence, having a debate at the same time. Lumenos 10:25, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Can I have a debate map on my talk page for example? Lumenos 10:26, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

If I knew how to put text in red and make it large, I could label the tops of sections more clearly. Lumenos 10:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos:Well people might say something before posting to a section that states that this is its intended purpose.

Not quite sure that I understand you there. Anyway, I say something before almost all of my edits - but usually the only one listening is my dog, and she usually has no comment. --Bob M 11:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for signing single paragraphs. This isn't too confusing if I reply here even though there is a post after it, right? Lumenos 12:03, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

If you scroll up and read the first phrase in bold, you might figure out what I thought we were talking about here. To me this is like a subtopic of all the topics that are less indented. What would be conventional from my sense of order, is if you are not aware of the "topic" you undent to the point at which you are following the discussing, then comment there. Lumenos 12:03, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I put a clarification notice in the first of "my" posts, on the top of this section. I didn't alter any of your posts in any way. Please let me know if I have failed to satisfy reason, once again. Lumenos 12:07, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

On debate mapping. Without putting too fine a point on this - perhaps your use of bold in conversations is already sufficiently ...errrrr ... dramatic.--Bob M 11:25, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Well don't you think important stuff should stand out a little? Lumenos 12:08, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Don't you think if I had put the stuff in bold to begin with Nx might have noticed it (if he didn't)? Lumenos 12:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Create a guideline for editing talk pages

Link to it from WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines

Writing policies and facilitating consensus

In a sense I am trying to act as a sort of ambassador between some RationalWikians and some of the sysops here. Do you feel that I am out of line, say for example the way I just went and edited WikiIndex:Editing_etiquette to hopefully prevent some RW editors from being banned for deleting information? Lumenos 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

How about the way I created WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines to try to facilitate a consensus approach? Please let me know early if this is wandalous or...something much more insidious. ;-) Lumenos 08:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Copyrights

WikiIndex:Copyrights says, "Most content on this wiki is under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/." Does that statement apply to talk pages? Lumenos 08:12, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes. Also why are you asking this on your talk page? Nx 08:15, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't see a need to bug Dad or sysops, if we can get something done ourselves. Lumenos 08:18, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

But I'm asking you because you just told me about something else I was apparently doing wrong. And so I'd like some feedback on some other issues as well. Mostly the policy stuff though. I would think that would be of greater concern than a talk page, but that's just me. Lumenos 08:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Your talk page is usually for other people to ask questions of you. If you ask questions here, they might not get noticed. Nx 08:24, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh okay. I tend to be more passive I guess. I figured since you were here giving me advice already. I don't know that anyone else would care to be bothered. Do you think the average editor would harbor grievances such as that, without telling me, until after I go to a great deal of work? Lumenos 08:32, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

For example the copyright page here is OpenEdit I assume that is not an invitation to alter it, in that case, everything else seems to be a bit gray. I was kinda surprised that you were able to get unblocked so quick after (or because of) blanking someone's user page or whatever it was. Clearly wandalous (meaning easy to fix) but I don't know what we are gonna do with policy pages all intermingled with people's copyrighted work, if someone decides we should all retain our copyrights. Lumenos 08:26, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Any text you add here is released under CC-by-sa-3.0, it says so under the edit box (I updated the copyright page because clearly someone who has access to the server files updated the global license setting to cc-by-sa-3.0, but forgot to update that page). You cannot suddenly decide to revoke this license and ask all your contributions to be removed. Nx 08:31, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh okay, so it is impolite in your "culture". Perhaps if we get more agreement on this we should edit WikiIndex:Editing_etiquette, to reflect these conventions. Lumenos 08:34, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

No. I believe it is illegal. Phantom Hoover 10:41, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Which law? Or what reason? Lumenos 11:03, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I think that you cannot change the copyright if it is against the terms of the license; I remember that there was a discussion on RW over whether or not we could change the license without getting sued. Phantom Hoover 11:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh I understand that. That is what ShareAlike means. I apologize for my ambiguous pronoun. I was referring to copying from talk pages, while retaining the original license. I wasn't really sure if the (ShareAlike) copyright notice applied to talk pages or only the articles. Lumenos 11:29, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't want to bug anyone but if a sysop is reads this, I suggest you protect the copyright page. If someone changes it to say we all retain copyright to our own work, it may not be noticed for a while. Lumenos 11:37, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

link to category page

Dear Lumenos,

Did you know you can put a link to a category page -- for example, Category:Guidelines -- anywhere in an article? I am sorry the syntax is so counter-intuitive. --DavidCary 08:53, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

No, Sir. I hadn't seen an example of it until now. I will delete that "hack" I use. Lumenos 09:01, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

responded

on my talk page ~~ MarkDilley

also - seeing more rational for your neutrality request - thanks, MarkDilley

I don't really administer RationalWiki

Gosh the things you can learn on talk pages. I hope people know enough to look at talk pages where the real information on the wikis may be. Lumenos 09:04, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

"RationalWiki has about 3,197 registered users, of which 359 (or 11.23%) have Sysops rights, which are awarded very liberally by the bureaucrats." from RationalWiki Nx 09:07, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

"AdMinistering" RationalWiki

It should be noted that virtually every editor on RW is an "admin", or sysop. Being an admin there is no special thing. That is all. Huw Powell 02:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I ran that title through a spell check, for ya. Gosh I wish I could move your comment over to my user page, but you know, I don't want to offend anybody. :-) (You can edit it... and I'm not going to see that as an invitation to edit yours... necessarily.) Lumenos 04:12, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

You administer RationalWiki?

I wasn't aware of that. I must've missed a staff meeting. Nx 08:32, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

(Nx is a bureaucrat at RationalWiki.) Hum maybe I'm not using the conventional definition of an admin, but I changed it. Are my sysop privileges awaiting me if the site ever comes back online? Lumenos 08:41, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

If not, is there anything you can say to all the other sysops who may be wondering what I did wrong? Lumenos

Practically everyone's a sysop at RationalWiki. I'm not going to desysop you. Nx 08:56, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Do you think that I should loose my sysopness? Lumenos 09:00, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

No. Nx 09:01, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

:-)