83,675
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 20:32, 9 September 2012
, 9 September 2012{{TalkPageArchive}}, minor tidy (no text changed)
m (Talk:RationalWiki moved to Talk:RationalWiki/Archive2: Archiving.) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m ({{TalkPageArchive}}, minor tidy (no text changed)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TalkPageArchive}}{{TOCright}} | |||
=="Archive1"== | =="Archive1"== | ||
"[[/Archive1]]" the "archive" made at this time, was made by Nx. He would prefer we not refer to this as a subpage, for some reason. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | "[[/Archive1]]" the "archive" made at this time, was made by Nx. He would prefer we not refer to this as a subpage, for some reason. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
== Proxima's recent rampage == | == Proxima's recent rampage == | ||
Again, see previous. She edits and reverts with no real sense of how to write on a wiki, and has even blocked an editor for correcting her factual errors on this page. I don't see why she is an admin on this wiki considering her totalitarian tendencies. PS, she's also fairly illiterate in both English and wiki-skills. This wiki embarrasses itself by giving her control/power over other editors. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 00:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | Again, see previous. She edits and reverts with no real sense of how to write on a wiki, and has even blocked an editor for correcting her factual errors on this page. I don't see why she is an admin on this wiki considering her totalitarian tendencies. PS, she's also fairly illiterate in both English and wiki-skills. This wiki embarrasses itself by giving her control/power over other editors. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 00:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:I'd like to edit this article to fix the alleged "admin" Proxima Centauri's factual errors and grammatical disasters. Of course, I can't because she has locked the article from being edited to protect her link spamming to her pet wiki (Liberapedia). Sadly, this means she has also protected it from having any of her grotesque factual and grammatical mistakes repaired by anyone. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 01:21, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | :I'd like to edit this article to fix the alleged "admin" Proxima Centauri's factual errors and grammatical disasters. Of course, I can't because she has locked the article from being edited to protect her link spamming to her pet wiki (Liberapedia). Sadly, this means she has also protected it from having any of her grotesque factual and grammatical mistakes repaired by anyone. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 01:21, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 44: | Line 41: | ||
== Edit wars == | == Edit wars == | ||
I apologize that some of my edits became the basis for edit wars. I wanted to clarify some things. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | I apologize that some of my edits became the basis for edit wars. I wanted to clarify some things. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:30, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 63: | Line 59: | ||
== Similar wikis == | == Similar wikis == | ||
'''''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. '''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | '''''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. '''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
| Line 92: | Line 87: | ||
* Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. | * Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. | ||
[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ||
<big><big><big> I moved this to subpage, Nx moved it back out here. I do not endorse edits I made in this section of this incomplete debate map. </big></big></big> Read this if you like being confused (reading my possibly confused edits) due to extreme sleep deprivation. Nx seemed to concede the "stated topic" point anyway. (See edit in bold.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:29, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | <big><big><big> I moved this to subpage, Nx moved it back out here. I do not endorse edits I made in this section of this incomplete debate map. </big></big></big> Read this if you like being confused (reading my possibly confused edits) due to extreme sleep deprivation. Nx seemed to concede the "stated topic" point anyway. (See edit in bold.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:29, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 128: | Line 123: | ||
===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should NOT be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should NOT be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ||
(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument. Only bullet arguments opposing the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))'''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | (Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument. Only bullet arguments opposing the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT))'''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
| Line 162: | Line 156: | ||
=== Nx's example of RationalWiki's consensus === | === Nx's example of RationalWiki's consensus === | ||
'''[This was imported from the section where Nx <s>realized he was off-topic</s> was responding to the misconception of RW purging criticism of CP, so I moved it here where it ''ends'' on topic, where I am making a case that user reviews can be helpful (if not made by idiots [or liars]).]''' '''''[Then the section was copied back after [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|Nx finally decided to tell me he didn't think we were working together on this]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | '''[This was imported from the section where Nx <s>realized he was off-topic</s> was responding to the misconception of RW purging criticism of CP, so I moved it here where it ''ends'' on topic, where I am making a case that user reviews can be helpful (if not made by idiots [or liars]).]''' '''''[Then the section was copied back after [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|Nx finally decided to tell me he didn't think we were working together on this]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
:::We are only purging mainspace of CP, we won't delete the CP related material in the CP namespace - for example, our article on historical revisionism shouldn't focus on TK's oversighting. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::We are only purging mainspace of CP, we won't delete the CP related material in the CP namespace - for example, our article on historical revisionism shouldn't focus on TK's oversighting. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 12:30, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 183: | Line 176: | ||
== Criticism and rebuttals == | == Criticism and rebuttals == | ||
===RationalWiki vs Wikipedia=== | ===RationalWiki vs Wikipedia=== | ||
I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | I don't see how this wiki could possibly expect to compete realistically with Wikipedia, in terms of the "official" goals that are listed at the top of this article. It does however have an interesting and active community and Wikipedia does not allow satire. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [Update: And you can say [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_science dirty words]. :) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :It does not try to compete with Wikipedia. To put it simply: WP's policies do not allow it to call bullshit (e.g. creation "science" etc.) bullshit. RW can do that, and can also be funny while doing it. There's also nothing about competing with Wikipedia in the site's official goals. In fact some of us are quite zealous when it comes to off-mission articles (e.g. some pretty well written math articles copied from CP, where they were deleted by Ed Poor because he didn't understand them, were deleted on RW because they were off-mission, and WP would always have a better article about the subject anyway). We know that we stand no chance against WP in its home turf. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:47, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 247: | Line 238: | ||
===Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?=== | ===Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?=== | ||
I'd be interested in a responce to the following question: Nx said, "The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly)..." Lumenos replied, "Noooo, present all ''reliable'' sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see?" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:10, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | I'd be interested in a responce to the following question: Nx said, "The main point is that while WP does not take sides (in your quote: present all views fairly)..." Lumenos replied, "Noooo, present all ''reliable'' sources fairly. Creationists have no reliable sources, you see?" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:10, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :There's a point I'd like to make relative to this, and RW's content, that I see no one mentioning above. Sorry I can't link to examples right now, but we don't just write "articles" on "topics". We do things that are completely un-encyclopedic, the best examples of which are our "side by side" pages. We take all of some original source, for instance, Behe's "Q & A" from his Amazon author page, and put it into a series of tables and refute/debunk/argue with them one point at a time. Regarding sources, yes, we try to use good references for our work, but also we use arguments and present opinion and conclusions ("original research") in our pieces. And, to basically answer the question in the header, no. They may have greater resources on many topics we are also interested in, and provide great background, but we go that one step further, as pointed out at the very beginning of this discussion - we feel free to call bullshit bullshit. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 16:07, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 308: | Line 298: | ||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||
[I copied this, uuum not because Nx was off-topic, he was uber-topic. I don't know what that means but it is not off topic. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] 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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | [I copied this, uuum not because Nx was off-topic, he was uber-topic. I don't know what that means but it is not off topic. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT)] 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. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:That is such a perfect way of putting it, "Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP" certainly this should be included in a comparative review section. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :That is such a perfect way of putting it, "Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP" certainly this should be included in a comparative review section. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:48, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 350: | Line 339: | ||
== Should Wikipedia be included in the comparison table? == | == Should Wikipedia be included in the comparison table? == | ||
I don't think Wikipedia should be included in a similar wikis section but I think it should be included in nearly any comparison table because it has content on nearly any subject, and more of this content may be added/"addable". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | I don't think Wikipedia should be included in a similar wikis section but I think it should be included in nearly any comparison table because it has content on nearly any subject, and more of this content may be added/"addable". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:30, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Notification of the service failure == | == Notification of the service failure == | ||
07:06, 4 September 2009 192.43.227.18 (Talk) (6,426 bytes) (Undid revision 70356 by Lumenos (talk) Don't get your nickers in a twist, it will be back up in two days.) | 07:06, 4 September 2009 192.43.227.18 (Talk) (6,426 bytes) (Undid revision 70356 by Lumenos (talk) Don't get your nickers in a twist, it will be back up in two days.) | ||
:Have we met? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:28, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | :Have we met? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:28, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 365: | Line 352: | ||
== Oh, **** this place == | == Oh, **** this place == | ||
The sysops and crats are so incompetent it's not funny. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 05:57, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | The sysops and crats are so incompetent it's not funny. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 05:57, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Did you notice the last edit you made before that happened, Wiseguy? May I direct you to the section titled, "Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article." Do we have to watch every edit you make? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:37, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Did you notice the last edit you made before that happened, Wiseguy? May I direct you to the section titled, "Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article." Do we have to watch every edit you make? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:37, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 381: | Line 367: | ||
::::::::::::No one should have to read a page of crap to understand you, seriously you are a dick. [[User:203.113.240.49|203.113.240.49]] 18:55, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::::No one should have to read a page of crap to understand you, seriously you are a dick. [[User:203.113.240.49|203.113.240.49]] 18:55, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::::Should someone <big><big>[[Talk:Huw_Powell#My_.22agenda.22|have to]]</big></big>? [[User:Lumenos|Lunemos]] 04:32, 7 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::Should someone <big><big>[[Talk:Huw_Powell#My_.22agenda.22|have to]]</big></big>? [[User:Lumenos|Lunemos]] 04:32, 7 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::::Pardon this Lunemos gentleman, he is no one important here. Thank you for your feedback on this talk page. Now that we are aware that someone else has an interest in the incomplete "debate maps", I have relocated these to [[Talk:RationalWiki/Debate_maps|this subpage]] [so you would not <big><big>"have to"</big></big> read them. However [[user_talk:Nx|Nx]] moved them back out. Ummm maybe you mean the editors should not have to read them in order to have the article the way they want. Well they didn't really. The only issue that was about the article was the similar wikis issue and Nx didn't really disagree with the inclusion of Liberapedia, he was more here to defend RationalWiki from (perceived) misconceptions. Ummm or maybe you are referring to the issues other than the debate maps, however I think those are mostly valid arguments and therefore I guess disagree, if that is your view.], <del>BUT DON'T GO IN THERE!!!!</del> It is an <big>incomplete</big> debate map, and full of [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Ikilumen ikilumen] which no one should attempt to handle, unless they are a [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Lumenism trained] [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Lumenist professional]. Howevar the [[Talk:RationalWiki# | :::::::::::::Pardon this Lunemos gentleman, he is no one important here. Thank you for your feedback on this talk page. Now that we are aware that someone else has an interest in the incomplete "debate maps", I have relocated these to [[Talk:RationalWiki/Debate_maps|this subpage]] [so you would not <big><big>"have to"</big></big> read them. However [[user_talk:Nx|Nx]] moved them back out. Ummm maybe you mean the editors should not have to read them in order to have the article the way they want. Well they didn't really. The only issue that was about the article was the similar wikis issue and Nx didn't really disagree with the inclusion of Liberapedia, he was more here to defend RationalWiki from (perceived) misconceptions. Ummm or maybe you are referring to the issues other than the debate maps, however I think those are mostly valid arguments and therefore I guess disagree, if that is your view.], <del>BUT DON'T GO IN THERE!!!!</del> It is an <big>incomplete</big> debate map, and full of [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Ikilumen ikilumen] which no one should attempt to handle, unless they are a [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Lumenism trained] [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Lumenist professional]. Howevar the [[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism and rebuttals|RationalWiki vs Wikipedia debate]], is highly recommended. Great show, Nx! Great show! ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] (Updated [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:36, 11 September 2009 (EDT)) | ||
:::::::::::::When you post as an IP address, "we" know less about how much your opinion should matter. Are you someone who has been involved in this? Are you gonna stick around if you get your way? Are you representing someone sympathetic to this wiki or someone looking for a wiki? Is your opinion biased? Do you represent our "target audience"? Why should we care what you write? (I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't care.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:37, 7 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::When you post as an IP address, "we" know less about how much your opinion should matter. Are you someone who has been involved in this? Are you gonna stick around if you get your way? Are you representing someone sympathetic to this wiki or someone looking for a wiki? Is your opinion biased? Do you represent our "target audience"? Why should we care what you write? (I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't care.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:37, 7 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Huw, [[ | :Huw, [[User talk:This is not the solution#Thanks to everyone for the cooling off - here is my idea on how to move through this.|Dilley made the proposal while most of us involved in these conflicts, kinda ignored it, until now]]. I would think it would be in the interest of WikiIndex to provide more warning or instructions for how we might have avoided this. But I tried to get people interested in [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines|developing policy]], and, as you have said, few were interested in this besides me and Proxima (oh yeah, and Dilley ;-). When you got no rules you don't know how to avoid unpleasant rulings. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:28, 7 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
===Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article=== | ===Huw Powel removed four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article=== | ||
(Note, this is the last edit before they were all moved to the talk pages. Coincidence?) | (Note, this is the last edit before they were all moved to the talk pages. Coincidence?) | ||
[[ | [[User talk:Huw Powell#Removing four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article|I have inquired as to how this is helping WikiIndex, on his talk page]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:31, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:How were they "similar", apart from being wikis? An encyclopedia; RW is not. A parody of a conservative encyclopedia, RW is not; what were the other two? An atheism wiki? RW is not. ??? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 22:14, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | :How were they "similar", apart from being wikis? An encyclopedia; RW is not. A parody of a conservative encyclopedia, RW is not; what were the other two? An atheism wiki? RW is not. ??? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 22:14, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Do you have a brain tumor or is the cat walking on your keyboard? They have similar content, OBVIOUSLY. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) (I'm not really as frustrated as I sound, I only talk like this to Huw because that is how he talks to everyone else. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT) ) | ::Do you have a brain tumor or is the cat walking on your keyboard? They have similar content, OBVIOUSLY. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) (I'm not really as frustrated as I sound, I only talk like this to Huw because that is how he talks to everyone else. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT) ) | ||
| Line 399: | Line 384: | ||
::::My, one could easily think that were a quote you were making there, which would mean it was a misquote. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:36, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::My, one could easily think that were a quote you were making there, which would mean it was a misquote. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:36, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I guess we got this all straitened out now? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::I guess we got this all straitened out now? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Nx provides his rational [[Talk:RationalWiki# | :::Nx provides his rational [[Talk:RationalWiki#Similar wikis added by Nx|here]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:26, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Service outage <s>half</s> over. == | == Service outage <s>half</s> over. == | ||
The wiki is up and readable, although the database is locked while the material created at [[teflpedia]] is ported over. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:42, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | The wiki is up and readable, although the database is locked while the material created at [[teflpedia]] is ported over. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:42, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 408: | Line 392: | ||
==Informative!== | ==Informative!== | ||
After having read this article I must say even I have learned interesting facts about RationalWiki, I particularly liked the in-depth tag coverage. Keep up the good work!. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:09, 8 September 2009 (EDT) | After having read this article I must say even I have learned interesting facts about RationalWiki, I particularly liked the in-depth tag coverage. Keep up the good work!. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:09, 8 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:What is tag coverage? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :What is tag coverage? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Could it be [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Blacker |337 h@x0r5], [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/%22Anonymous_(group)%22 "Anonymous"], or [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/The_Man The Man]? == | == Could it be [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Blacker |337 h@x0r5], [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/%22Anonymous_(group)%22 "Anonymous"], or [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/The_Man The Man]? == | ||
| Line 430: | Line 411: | ||
== Sorry about... == | == Sorry about... == | ||
That edit where I must have put the Huw Powel section up at the top by accident. Nx reverted. My bad. Didn't notice that until now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:43, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | That edit where I must have put the Huw Powel section up at the top by accident. Nx reverted. My bad. Didn't notice that until now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:43, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:See, this is why you should leave other people's posts alone. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 02:46, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :See, this is why you should leave other people's posts alone. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 02:46, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 438: | Line 418: | ||
==Related wikis discussion== | ==Related wikis discussion== | ||
===These so-called "similar" wikis=== | ===These so-called "similar" wikis=== | ||
[User:Nx]] [seems to] think <del>there is a [[Talk:RationalWiki#Could_it_be_.7C337_h.40x0r5.2C_.22Anonymous.22.2C_or_The_Man.3F|conspiracy]] to include the following wikis</del> [these wikis were included] because [[User:Proxima Centauri]] has an account on them. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:51, 10 September 2009 (EDT) [(Updated the preceding post [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:43, 11 September 2009 (EDT)) (Note, I'm fairly certain that Nx edited this post to break the link to "User:Nx", without mentioning this. This could have the effect of making me look stupid(er)... or this could also have the effect of setting a sort of precedent for editing others comments without noting this. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:48, 11 September 2009 (EDT) )] | [User:Nx]] [seems to] think <del>there is a [[Talk:RationalWiki#Could_it_be_.7C337_h.40x0r5.2C_.22Anonymous.22.2C_or_The_Man.3F|conspiracy]] to include the following wikis</del> [these wikis were included] because [[User:Proxima Centauri]] has an account on them. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:51, 10 September 2009 (EDT) [(Updated the preceding post [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:43, 11 September 2009 (EDT)) (Note, I'm fairly certain that Nx edited this post to break the link to "User:Nx", without mentioning this. This could have the effect of making me look stupid(er)... or this could also have the effect of setting a sort of precedent for editing others comments without noting this. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:48, 11 September 2009 (EDT) )] | ||
:This is getting silly{{fact}}. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 04:55, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :This is getting silly{{fact}}. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 04:55, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 454: | Line 432: | ||
===So-called "See also" wiki(s), moved here by Lumenos=== | ===So-called "See also" wiki(s), moved here by Lumenos=== | ||
===Similar wikis added by Nx=== | ===Similar wikis added by Nx=== | ||
*[[American Atheists]] | *[[American Atheists]] | ||
*[[Atheists of Utah]] | *[[Atheists of Utah]] | ||
| Line 495: | Line 471: | ||
::Well uum. We could work on that comparison table, I suppose. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Well uum. We could work on that comparison table, I suppose. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::What comparison table? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 05:44, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::What comparison table? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 05:44, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::[[Talk:RationalWiki# | ::::[[Talk:RationalWiki#Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article]] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:09, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::Kinda being snarky there, but I've worked on [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_wikis this one]. It is controversial but this kind of stuff seem appropriate for WikiIndex. If not in the RationalWiki article, somewhere else. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:53, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::Kinda being snarky there, but I've worked on [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_wikis this one]. It is controversial but this kind of stuff seem appropriate for WikiIndex. If not in the RationalWiki article, somewhere else. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:53, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::They look like they are similar, but I didn't realize there were so many. Your point is okay. I more understand your argument now. But I'm not sure the wikis that are being allowed to advertise in the RationalWiki article are more worthy than these others. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:48, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::They look like they are similar, but I didn't realize there were so many. Your point is okay. I more understand your argument now. But I'm not sure the wikis that are being allowed to advertise in the RationalWiki article are more worthy than these others. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:48, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 501: | Line 477: | ||
===See also=== | ===See also=== | ||
*[[Talk:RationalWiki# | *[[Talk:RationalWiki#Similar wikis|Similar Wikis]] | ||
All wikis are similar. They are wikis. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:10, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | All wikis are similar. They are wikis. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:10, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
: Because the Portland Pattern Repository is very much like Wikipedia, or TVTropes for that matter? Oh wait. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:01, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | : Because the Portland Pattern Repository is very much like Wikipedia, or TVTropes for that matter? Oh wait. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:01, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Move to article page - vote== | ==Move to article page - vote== | ||
As I find this discussion page a little incomprehensible and as the statement at the top says: ''Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 [[Sysops]] and 3 people involved'' I propose that we do just that.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | As I find this discussion page a little incomprehensible and as the statement at the top says: ''Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 [[Sysops]] and 3 people involved'' I propose that we do just that.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Personally I'd rather not, unless critical views are going to be linked to, in the article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :Personally I'd rather not, unless critical views are going to be linked to, in the article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 515: | Line 488: | ||
::::Just noticed that [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=sysop Proxima doesn't seem to be a sysop anymore]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 09:23, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::Just noticed that [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=sysop Proxima doesn't seem to be a sysop anymore]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 09:23, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::Oh, [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=interwiki she's an "interwiki"]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:30, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Oh, [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=interwiki she's an "interwiki"]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:30, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Move ''what'' to article page? The only thing we need the sysops for is to unprotect the article. We still have no [[WikiIndex: | :Move ''what'' to article page? The only thing we need the sysops for is to unprotect the article. We still have no [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines|policy for notability, verifiablity, or POV (although Dilley doesn't prefer "NPOV")]]. [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#Enforcement against editors|Edit sparing]] isn't ideal, but if we don't do that, certain editors have assumed the article is non-controversial. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:35, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I think the word you want is spelled "sparring". In fact, I'm sure of it. But the ''phrase'' you might be better off using is "edit warring", since that's the common usage. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::I think the word you want is spelled "sparring". In fact, I'm sure of it. But the ''phrase'' you might be better off using is "edit warring", since that's the common usage. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Why don't we work on the article while it is here? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:35, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Why don't we work on the article while it is here? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:35, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 557: | Line 530: | ||
== Time to end this war == | == Time to end this war == | ||
[The following two paragraphs are a reply to Phantom Hoover's comment, [[ | [The following two paragraphs are a reply to Phantom Hoover's comment, [[User talk:Phantom Hoover#Please don't reignite the edit war|here]]. It was moved by Felix. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:32, 24 September 2009 (EDT)] | ||
::An anonymous editor [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71909&oldid=71828 claimed that they had proven a number of things]. Without deleting this, I posted the '''fact''' that I had cited Wikipedia policy and given an example to make my case, and that none of this was done by the opposition, in their "rebuttals". This apparently was too "controversial" as well, so [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71935&oldid=71909 Phantom Hooover reverted to the version with all their unsubstantiated claims]. Now he has deleted the criticism for maybe the 8th time, on the grounds that [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71952&oldid=71948 I hadn't responded to Huw], when [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki&diff=71950&oldid=71805 in fact I had, at that time]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | ::An anonymous editor [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71909&oldid=71828 claimed that they had proven a number of things]. Without deleting this, I posted the '''fact''' that I had cited Wikipedia policy and given an example to make my case, and that none of this was done by the opposition, in their "rebuttals". This apparently was too "controversial" as well, so [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71935&oldid=71909 Phantom Hooover reverted to the version with all their unsubstantiated claims]. Now he has deleted the criticism for maybe the 8th time, on the grounds that [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71952&oldid=71948 I hadn't responded to Huw], when [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki&diff=71950&oldid=71805 in fact I had, at that time]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::There are a many here who are sympathetic to RationalWiki, but not many who are sympathetic to WikiIndex having critical reviews. If I make up for this imbalance, then I am accused of domination. It becomes a lot of work when editors like Phantom Hoover and Huw Powel, are allowed to delete things and require others to rewrite them, when they put little effort into editing or real debate. Bob M is much more reasonable and Nx was at least as reasonable as I am. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | ::There are a many here who are sympathetic to RationalWiki, but not many who are sympathetic to WikiIndex having critical reviews. If I make up for this imbalance, then I am accused of domination. It becomes a lot of work when editors like Phantom Hoover and Huw Powel, are allowed to delete things and require others to rewrite them, when they put little effort into editing or real debate. Bob M is much more reasonable and Nx was at least as reasonable as I am. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 570: | Line 543: | ||
:As I see it, there are two separate conflicts. I have rewritten the criticism a number of times. It seems it is improving, but this process is slow and it ''creates the other conflict with you''. The solution would be, as you suggest, to do this somewhere else, but I think they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work, or if [we] will let them delete it, <del>as they presently have.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:32, 24 September 2009 (EDT) <big>['''I just read the RationalWiki article and found that it is not consistent with what I had thought. I thought Phantom Hoover had recently deleted the link to the debate about the criticism but (unless someone is tampering with the edit history) he did not.'''</big> They did delete the "criticism", as I said, but I would NOT have objected or mentioned this, had I realized that they left the link to the debate. Many of my statements and my general attitude were influenced by this belief. I believe I have corrected all statements I have made on this assumption (on this page), and I apologize for this misunderstanding. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | :As I see it, there are two separate conflicts. I have rewritten the criticism a number of times. It seems it is improving, but this process is slow and it ''creates the other conflict with you''. The solution would be, as you suggest, to do this somewhere else, but I think they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work, or if [we] will let them delete it, <del>as they presently have.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:32, 24 September 2009 (EDT) <big>['''I just read the RationalWiki article and found that it is not consistent with what I had thought. I thought Phantom Hoover had recently deleted the link to the debate about the criticism but (unless someone is tampering with the edit history) he did not.'''</big> They did delete the "criticism", as I said, but I would NOT have objected or mentioned this, had I realized that they left the link to the debate. Many of my statements and my general attitude were influenced by this belief. I believe I have corrected all statements I have made on this assumption (on this page), and I apologize for this misunderstanding. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | ||
::Heh. You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. Why is it so important that you present criticism of RationalWiki here? Or anywhere else for that matter? And if it is, why not use a blog, over which you would have full control. Think about it, if people are SO bothered by your criticism, maybe they have a point. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Heh. You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. Why is it so important that you present criticism of RationalWiki here? Or anywhere else for that matter? And if it is, why not use a blog, over which you would have full control. Think about it, if people are SO bothered by your criticism, maybe they have a point. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::[[WikiIndex: | :::[[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#Criticism of wikis|Some other administrators seemed to support the idea of having criticism]], and there is an [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette|etiquette policy forbidding deleting the work of others]] (which [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=71695&oldid=71524 you seemed to support]). But now it seems that deleting the criticism is really preferred to making the case that it is a valid criticism. Simply the fact that they have deleted it, gives you reason to believe that "they have a point" whereas my debating anything only seems to make you mad. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT) [Perhaps Felix was "mad" because the ''link'' to the criticism has NOT been deleted, so it was not really being censored, as I had thought at the time. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:::[[ | :::[[User talk:Lumenos#Please don't give in to provocations|You posted on my talk page that "a certain other WikiIndex user seems to be hunting down your edits"]]. <del>It seems I have made another mistake of trying to rewrite these edits in order to reach consensus with those deleting them.</del> Was I supposed to request page protection or what? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT) [Perhaps we ''have'' reached consensus after all? Although it seems the process of doing so was more trouble than it was worth for many WikiIndex admins. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:::: You're either playing stupid, or else you really don't get it, so let me make you a drawing. It's not that you posted criticism, or that your criticism was deleted. It's that you kept posting it right back many times, against the obvious wishes of a peer (and an admin... I keep forgetting about Proxima Centauri), and then you made a huge scandal when your excessive edits led to the page being locked. We tried to mediate between you and them, but you obviously don't want to negotiate. You don't want a compromise. What are we supposed to do? Make it your way, just because? Sorry, no. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | :::: You're either playing stupid, or else you really don't get it, so let me make you a drawing. It's not that you posted criticism, or that your criticism was deleted. It's that you kept posting it right back many times, against the obvious wishes of a peer (and an admin... I keep forgetting about Proxima Centauri), and then you made a huge scandal when your excessive edits led to the page being locked. We tried to mediate between you and them, but you obviously don't want to negotiate. You don't want a compromise. What are we supposed to do? Make it your way, just because? Sorry, no. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::[I wasn't asking Felix for page protection, I was asking if that was what he felt I should have done to prevent people "hunting down my edits". Felix interprets many of my questions like they are "rhetorical" and tries to second-guess my reason for asking. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] After this learning experience, I have added [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this advice]] for newcomers who may be involved in disputes. That is an example of instructions that I would find clear, although there are many things I'm still confused about. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:55, 30 September 2009(EDT) [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User%3ALumenos%2FWikiIndex_%28unwritten%29_policies&diff=72083&oldid=71557 This advice] is still mostly valid, but apparently wiki articles do not have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. The RationalWiki article is closer to what I would describe as the neutral point of view, now, but this seems to be as much because of decisions of myself and Hoover, as the administration, so I suppose it doesn't apply to any other article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | :::::[I wasn't asking Felix for page protection, I was asking if that was what he felt I should have done to prevent people "hunting down my edits". Felix interprets many of my questions like they are "rhetorical" and tries to second-guess my reason for asking. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] After this learning experience, I have added [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this advice]] for newcomers who may be involved in disputes. That is an example of instructions that I would find clear, although there are many things I'm still confused about. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:55, 30 September 2009(EDT) [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User%3ALumenos%2FWikiIndex_%28unwritten%29_policies&diff=72083&oldid=71557 This advice] is still mostly valid, but apparently wiki articles do not have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. The RationalWiki article is closer to what I would describe as the neutral point of view, now, but this seems to be as much because of decisions of myself and Hoover, as the administration, so I suppose it doesn't apply to any other article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] | ||