83,675
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
m
minor tidy following changes in {{TalkPageArchive}}
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m ({{TalkPageArchive}}, minor tidy (no text changed)) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (minor tidy following changes in {{TalkPageArchive}}) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TalkPageArchive | {{TalkPageArchive}} | ||
=="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 5: | Line 5: | ||
Current Table of Contents of the writable "archive" which was, at this time, made by Nx. (It is on my watchlist. Your prayers shall not be forgotten oh brave dissenters. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | Current Table of Contents of the writable "archive" which was, at this time, made by Nx. (It is on my watchlist. Your prayers shall not be forgotten oh brave dissenters. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
# What Conservapedia thinks about RationalWiki | |||
# The "criticism" section | |||
# Gibberish | |||
# Hell! | |||
# Wikiindex | |||
# "Cyberbullying" section | |||
# Why the page "RationalWiki" was protected | |||
== 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 26: | Line 26: | ||
::Actually it was a fortune cookie. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | ::Actually it was a fortune cookie. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Why cant I edit this page? == | ==Why cant I edit this page?== | ||
What the f00k? f00k f88k f66k? k99f? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]] 11:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | What the f00k? f00k f88k f66k? k99f? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]] 11:16, 24 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
:::::I didn't bring it up here, they did. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:59, 28 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::I didn't bring it up here, they did. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:59, 28 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 56: | Line 56: | ||
:::*1st to leave it reading "as of" instead of changing it to "on" as I have done? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:18, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | :::*1st to leave it reading "as of" instead of changing it to "on" as I have done? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:18, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::*2nd to assume that you understood what it meant and that we were too stupid to put the correct date? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | :::*2nd to assume that you understood what it meant and that we were too stupid to put the correct date? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::*3rd to explode at the sysop? Was someone just saying to me [[ | :::*3rd to explode at the sysop? Was someone just saying to me [[User talk:Lumenos#Reordering talk page comments|how unnice something was]]? Who was that? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 [[ | '''''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)]''''' | ||
What criteria will include these: | What criteria will include these: | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
<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) | ||
(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. '''''[[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 [[ | (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. '''''[[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)]''''' | ||
*They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | *They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
*<del>Being that we are discussing merely a link, it doesn't take up very much space or detract from the article.</del> (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | *<del>Being that we are discussing merely a link, it doesn't take up very much space or detract from the article.</del> (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | ||
:It wasn't the link that was advertisement; it was her inserting a paragraph promoting LP as an alternative source of CP criticism. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 13:57, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | :It wasn't the link that was advertisement; it was her inserting a paragraph promoting LP as an alternative source of CP criticism. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 13:57, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::We could definitely use some help [[WikiIndex: | ::We could definitely use some help [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#Notablity|establishing a criteria to define "advertisements"]] in this sort of context, if you believe you are qualified to make this judgment alone or establish consensus or at least some "consensus groups", to move forward on this issue. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
*If we add only a link to [[Liberapedia]], this would not take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | *If we add only a link to [[Liberapedia]], this would not take up very much space or detract from the article. (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | ||
===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 [[ | (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)]''''' | ||
*If LP devotes a lot of time to CP this information should be in the LP article and the CP article. It is not, of itself, an argument for it to be in the RW article.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 05:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | *If LP devotes a lot of time to CP this information should be in the LP article and the CP article. It is not, of itself, an argument for it to be in the RW article.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 05:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
:'''[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relevant to this topic [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]''' | :'''[I moved two chunks of dialog here as it is more relevant to this topic [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)]''' | ||
[[WikiIndex: | [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#How sympathetic or critical.3F .28Who decides.3F.29|Proxima and I would like to assimilate Wikinfo's policy]] wherein the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view mainpage is written in a sympathetic format] and a link at the top of the article leads to a page devoted to criticism. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Being that you are a respected member of a community, I would like to feature your criticism with your signature, in the article [[Criticism of Liberpedia]], in a section for RationalWikians. This would mean we would also create a [[Criticism of RationalWiki]] article which you may be able to help with also. Both articles should follow any other polices that are established. Sound like a plan? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :Being that you are a respected member of a community, I would like to feature your criticism with your signature, in the article [[Criticism of Liberpedia]], in a section for RationalWikians. This would mean we would also create a [[Criticism of RationalWiki]] article which you may be able to help with also. Both articles should follow any other polices that are established. Sound like a plan? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::I don't really think there's a need for a separate article for criticism, what's wrong with a criticism section? I simply don't see how a separate article solves any problems. Also, I'm not fond of the idea of including "user reviews" of wikis, because that's just a way to circumvent referencing (it's just an opinion, it doesn't need to be substantiated...). Note that I'm not against criticism being presented. Ideally, this wiki should have admins who oversee the content of articles, so that any criticism is well referenced and true. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:34, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::I don't really think there's a need for a separate article for criticism, what's wrong with a criticism section? I simply don't see how a separate article solves any problems. Also, I'm not fond of the idea of including "user reviews" of wikis, because that's just a way to circumvent referencing (it's just an opinion, it doesn't need to be substantiated...). Note that I'm not against criticism being presented. Ideally, this wiki should have admins who oversee the content of articles, so that any criticism is well referenced and true. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 13:34, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:Oh no one would think that, don't be silly. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:43, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :Oh no one would think that, don't be silly. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:43, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
=== 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 [[ | '''[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) | ||
::::How many agree with that plan? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::How many agree with that plan? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:10, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
::::::::::::::::::I guess perhaps I may have gotten the idea into my subconscious by reading Dilley's plan to do this. I think I read it before, but I'm not sure... I know what you are thinking, "My the vanity!" And why are you reading? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::::::::::I guess perhaps I may have gotten the idea into my subconscious by reading Dilley's plan to do this. I think I read it before, but I'm not sure... I know what you are thinking, "My the vanity!" And why are you reading? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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)] | ||
| Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
::::::::::::::::::In response to your edit (what's with the strikeouts?): | ::::::::::::::::::In response to your edit (what's with the strikeouts?): | ||
[Nx again deleted this criticism from the article. Here was his stated reason, "Criticism - censoring silliness and one user's misunderstanding of the goals of rationalwiki)" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:54, 1 September 2009 (EDT)] Certain administrator are quite sensitive and controlling when it comes to censoring criticism. For example, watch what happens if you try to suggest that perhaps [[Talk:RationalWiki# | [Nx again deleted this criticism from the article. Here was his stated reason, "Criticism - censoring silliness and one user's misunderstanding of the goals of rationalwiki)" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:54, 1 September 2009 (EDT)] Certain administrator are quite sensitive and controlling when it comes to censoring criticism. For example, watch what happens if you try to suggest that perhaps [[Talk:RationalWiki#Criticism and rebuttals|Wikipedia achieves the stated goals of RationalWiki (without these being the stated goals of Wikipedia) better than RationalWiki does]]. | ||
:::::::::::::::::::::The strikeouts were there because the statement hadn't become true until after you moved the post here. So I have removed the strikeouts now, and harmony is restored to the universe. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:56, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::::::::::::The strikeouts were there because the statement hadn't become true until after you moved the post here. So I have removed the strikeouts now, and harmony is restored to the universe. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:56, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::::::::::::Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV policy. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 05:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::::::::::::::Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV policy. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 05:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
::I suppose you could say that NPOV implies a sort of "fairness", but they do distinguish between (what they call) "reliable" and "unreliable" sources and I challenge you to find anything in the Wikipedia that states that Creationism is anything but psuedoscience. The Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact It has and article devoted to this viewpoint]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::I suppose you could say that NPOV implies a sort of "fairness", but they do distinguish between (what they call) "reliable" and "unreliable" sources and I challenge you to find anything in the Wikipedia that states that Creationism is anything but psuedoscience. The Wikipedia states in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact It has and article devoted to this viewpoint]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:20, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Thank you for explaining the term undenting, BTW. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Thank you for explaining the term undenting, BTW. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:22, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Lumenos asked, "Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?" [[ | ::Lumenos asked, "Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?" [[User talk:Huw Powell|Huw Powell res]]po[[Talk:RationalWiki#Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki.3F|nded, "No..."]] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Umm like I claim above, this would appear to be a nearly measurable fact. Do you have any web traffic statistics comparing articles that cover the same information, for example? Perhaps you mean, that RW is more effective, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_capita per capita]? Do you have any statistics on the number of users of RW vs WP? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :::Umm like I claim above, this would appear to be a nearly measurable fact. Do you have any web traffic statistics comparing articles that cover the same information, for example? Perhaps you mean, that RW is more effective, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_capita per capita]? Do you have any statistics on the number of users of RW vs WP? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:06, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
::This is all very speculative, but no one seems to disagree that Wikipedia has a larger and more diverse audience. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ::This is all very speculative, but no one seems to disagree that Wikipedia has a larger and more diverse audience. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Nx had another uuuh "rebuttal" [[ | :::Nx had another uuuh "rebuttal" [[User talk:Nx#Did%20you%20notice...|he would like to "share"]], "12:26, 4 September 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (6,426 bytes) (What part of RationalWiki is not trying to be an encyclopedia do you not understand?)" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:07, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::All these IP address editors. Finally a real person. I'm not arguing that RW wants to be encyclopedic. I guess you win? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:07, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::All these IP address editors. Finally a real person. I'm not arguing that RW wants to be encyclopedic. I guess you win? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:07, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::You are arguing that RW wants to compete with Wikipedia. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 10:15, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::You are arguing that RW wants to compete with Wikipedia. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 10:15, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
===No, Wikipedia cannot, does not, and never will=== | ===No, Wikipedia cannot, does not, and never will=== | ||
Wikipedia cannot present such things as these three examples from RationalWiki: | Wikipedia cannot present such things as these three examples from RationalWiki: | ||
*http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Behe:The_Edge_of_Evolution,_Interview | *http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Behe:The_Edge_of_Evolution,_Interview | ||
*http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation | *http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation | ||
| Line 282: | Line 281: | ||
:::[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation This article] has numerous sources listed. Do you believe this information could not be imported into the Wikipedia? For example in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Age_of_the_earth ? Where do you think it would be more effective at '''refuting''' YEC (not just affirming what you already believe)? Then all you have to do is link https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Age_of_the_Earth to that article or you could work that information into the YEC article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | :::[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation This article] has numerous sources listed. Do you believe this information could not be imported into the Wikipedia? For example in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Age_of_the_earth ? Where do you think it would be more effective at '''refuting''' YEC (not just affirming what you already believe)? Then all you have to do is link https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Age_of_the_Earth to that article or you could work that information into the YEC article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::No, it couldn't, because WP has a neutral point of view, and taking that page would violate it. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 06:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::No, it couldn't, because WP has a neutral point of view, and taking that page would violate it. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 06:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::I've explained what NPOV means in the Wikipedia. This is one of many points y'all failed to address. You don't debate or make your case. You just delete what you don't want to hear. [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&curid=13789&diff=71784&oldid=71778] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71778&oldid=71774] You are altering a quote, BTW. And this is against [[WikiIndex: | :::::I've explained what NPOV means in the Wikipedia. This is one of many points y'all failed to address. You don't debate or make your case. You just delete what you don't want to hear. [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&curid=13789&diff=71784&oldid=71778] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=71778&oldid=71774] You are altering a quote, BTW. And this is against [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines|WikiIndex policy]]. Phantom Hoover and Huw Powel (Human), are both [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=bureaucrat&limit=50 bureaucrats at RationalWiki]. Are these your usual methods of thought control there? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::Wikipedia has an article called, ''[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Evolution as theory and fact]''. Does this violate NPOV? Here is the NPOV policy again, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."] Notice the terms, "respectable" and "mainstream". In case you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia, the "respectable mainstream" usually means the majority of the "scientific" community. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:19, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Wikipedia has an article called, ''[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Evolution as theory and fact]''. Does this violate NPOV? Here is the NPOV policy again, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."] Notice the terms, "respectable" and "mainstream". In case you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia, the "respectable mainstream" usually means the majority of the "scientific" community. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:19, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 297: | Line 296: | ||
:I'm trying not to cause any "collateral damage" in our "fight", but I believe I have made my case while Hoover and Huw simply declare it "idiocy" and delete criticism. Nx was a bit more honest, that is why I'm sad to see him go. They really have no reason to put much effort into debate if they will be allowed to do this. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:38, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | :I'm trying not to cause any "collateral damage" in our "fight", but I believe I have made my case while Hoover and Huw simply declare it "idiocy" and delete criticism. Nx was a bit more honest, that is why I'm sad to see him go. They really have no reason to put much effort into debate if they will be allowed to do this. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:38, 24 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 305: | Line 304: | ||
:::::Okay? Are you submitting this for the comparison section if it is created? Are you in favor of turning the "Similar Wikis" section into a "Comparison with other wikis" section, in other words? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Okay? Are you submitting this for the comparison section if it is created? Are you in favor of turning the "Similar Wikis" section into a "Comparison with other wikis" section, in other words? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:36, 1 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Perhaps this should more properly go in the Liberapedia article. While it has been stated that : "Liberapedia is a parody of CP" and "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme" if I look at recent changes I'm not sure that most articles do either of these things. I see various articles on interstellar phenomena which are written in a factual manner; an article on Hell which, while sarcastic, does not seem to fit the description; a factual article on the British NHS. After a bit of looking you come to "Atheist" which perhaps, sort of, fits the description.[--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT)] | ::::::Perhaps this should more properly go in the Liberapedia article. While it has been stated that : "Liberapedia is a parody of CP" and "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme" if I look at recent changes I'm not sure that most articles do either of these things. I see various articles on interstellar phenomena which are written in a factual manner; an article on Hell which, while sarcastic, does not seem to fit the description; a factual article on the British NHS. After a bit of looking you come to "Atheist" which perhaps, sort of, fits the description.[--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT)] | ||
:::::::Yeah so then I move it there for you and you whisper to the authorities that I'm traumatizing the talk pages. I aaaaint [[ | :::::::Yeah so then I move it there for you and you whisper to the authorities that I'm traumatizing the talk pages. I aaaaint [[User talk:Lumenos#Reordering talk page comments|falling for that one again, buddy]]. Maybe what I should do is go create a section there, on an unrelated topic so everyone will want to post this information there. Then I'll use the super-safe strikeout to strike out the section/topic name so it will no longer be false at least. It is just impossible to create a debate map with you people. But that's how you like it isn't it? :P Uumm that having been said, I don't mean you Bob, you might be all for debate maps, who knows? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:24, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Frankly, I think it needs to re-define itself and after it has done that this question should be re-addressed.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::Frankly, I think it needs to re-define itself and after it has done that this question should be re-addressed.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:18, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::::Well I think you are straying from the topic but, do you believe it doesn't fit the "official" definition (or inclusion policy) or rather that there is no official definition (inclusion policy)? There is an exclusion policy. Try writing about abortion. You can't even criticize abortion (or answer critics) at [[Wikinfo]]. Sometimes it all looks like one big wiggerpedia to me. Uhh with everyone wiggin' out, you know? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:00, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::::Well I think you are straying from the topic but, do you believe it doesn't fit the "official" definition (or inclusion policy) or rather that there is no official definition (inclusion policy)? There is an exclusion policy. Try writing about abortion. You can't even criticize abortion (or answer critics) at [[Wikinfo]]. Sometimes it all looks like one big wiggerpedia to me. Uhh with everyone wiggin' out, you know? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:00, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 338: | Line 337: | ||
I think [[A Storehouse of Knowledge]] ought to be included. It is represented in the criticism section, but being that it seems to be administrated better than [[Conservapedia]] (which isn't saying much) it does have that in common with RationalWiki. They are both alternatives or offshoots of Conservapedia. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:00, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | I think [[A Storehouse of Knowledge]] ought to be included. It is represented in the criticism section, but being that it seems to be administrated better than [[Conservapedia]] (which isn't saying much) it does have that in common with RationalWiki. They are both alternatives or offshoots of Conservapedia. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:00, 3 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 351: | Line 350: | ||
:::Is the problem that list of sites where RationalWikians are hanging out while the site is down? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:39, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | :::Is the problem that list of sites where RationalWikians are hanging out while the site is down? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:39, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 366: | Line 365: | ||
:::::::::::I'm unfamiliar with some of your terminology as [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Homosapien you may be unfamiliar with mine]. Forking off? And what was that gibberish about turning me insane? Do you feel that you have such powers? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:27, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::::::::I'm unfamiliar with some of your terminology as [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Homosapien you may be unfamiliar with mine]. Forking off? And what was that gibberish about turning me insane? Do you feel that you have such powers? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:27, 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) | ::::::::::::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: | :::::::::::::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/ | :::::::::::::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, [[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, [[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) | ||
| Line 386: | Line 385: | ||
:::Nx provides his rational [[Talk:RationalWiki#Similar wikis added by Nx|here]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:26, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::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 395: | Line 394: | ||
: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]?== | ||
(For those of you unfamiliar with leetspeak, that means, "Could it be elite hackers?") | (For those of you unfamiliar with leetspeak, that means, "Could it be elite hackers?") | ||
| Line 402: | Line 400: | ||
:Note the timing of the RationalWiki crash, when [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] was on vacation. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:22, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | :Note the timing of the RationalWiki crash, when [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] was on vacation. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:22, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::MySQL is one of the most used db systems on the web. Wikipedia uses it. Google uses it. Facebook uses it. I would argue that it's pretty stable if all these websites use it. And a mysql crash wouldn't take the entire server down. Trent said it was a hardware error, but he didn't provide details. I'll ignore your conspiracy theories and insinuations. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:15, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ::MySQL is one of the most used db systems on the web. Wikipedia uses it. Google uses it. Facebook uses it. I would argue that it's pretty stable if all these websites use it. And a mysql crash wouldn't take the entire server down. Trent said it was a hardware error, but he didn't provide details. I'll ignore your conspiracy theories and insinuations. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:15, 9 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Thanks for the info Nx. I'm going to ignore this conspiracy theory myself, it was obviously the work of lumetics. [[WikiIndex: | :::Thanks for the info Nx. I'm going to ignore this conspiracy theory myself, it was obviously the work of lumetics. [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#Examples|We need to keep these people from being able to slip this information into WikiIndex]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:34, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::[http://www.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Yaron_Koren#Is_my_wiki_vulnerable.3F Is this you posting over at Referata], Nx? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:52, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::[http://www.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Yaron_Koren#Is_my_wiki_vulnerable.3F Is this you posting over at Referata], Nx? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:52, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=71273 I posted my consideration of Nx's latest demand]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=71273 I posted my consideration of Nx's latest demand]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::He seems to believe he has some authority here to make such demands: 18:25, 10 September 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (1,677 bytes) (Which part of You may NOT edit this page do you not understand?) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::He seems to believe he has some authority here to make such demands: 18:25, 10 September 2009 Nx (Talk | contribs) (1,677 bytes) (Which part of You may NOT edit this page do you not understand?) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Maybe twenty minutes ago, computer went off. I don't remember if the lights did also, but I heard the speakers click so it seems this was a power failure. I'm guessing it is probably due to other factors, but I've heard of such things happening. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::Maybe twenty minutes ago, computer went off. I don't remember if the lights did also, but I heard the speakers click so it seems this was a power failure. I'm guessing it is probably due to other factors, but I've heard of such things happening. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::Some editors have been showing an interest in [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Small-scale_solar_steam_power small-scale solar steam power], lately. One claims to be a mechanical engineer with the US Department of Energy. The other is using the name of our beloved [[ | ::::Some editors have been showing an interest in [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Small-scale_solar_steam_power small-scale solar steam power], lately. One claims to be a mechanical engineer with the US Department of Energy. The other is using the name of our beloved [[User talk:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:35, 11 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Boy this section is so hard to notice now that Nx dragged that big debate map out from the subpage. ;-) He requested/demanded that I not cyberstalk him. I'm not sure what that means exactly. Is that like just putting a nic in a search engine? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | :::Boy this section is so hard to notice now that Nx dragged that big debate map out from the subpage. ;-) He requested/demanded that I not cyberstalk him. I'm not sure what that means exactly. Is that like just putting a nic in a search engine? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== 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 419: | Line 417: | ||
==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# | [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) | ||
::By bringing closer to the public eye the motives behind the editors?{{fact}} [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:59, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ::By bringing closer to the public eye the motives behind the editors?{{fact}} [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:59, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 529: | Line 527: | ||
I've just (tentatively) restored and unprotected the article. Let's see if this helps. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:14, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | I've just (tentatively) restored and unprotected the article. Let's see if this helps. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:14, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Time to end this war == | ==Time to end this war== | ||
[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)] | [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) | ||
| Line 552: | Line 550: | ||
:::::Funny how nobody else finds the WikiIndex (admittedly unwritten) policies confusing. Funny how nobody else ever felt a need to write them down. Are you sure the problem is with us? Is it so difficult to just use common sense? I see Phantom Hoover has dropped the issue regarding the RationalWiki article; if you're willing to do the same (formally, as I see you're not editing it anymore), we can all move on. Then, if you want to try and establish strict policies, feel free to rally other WikiIndex members, but I predict a lukewarm response, if any. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 13:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT) | :::::Funny how nobody else finds the WikiIndex (admittedly unwritten) policies confusing. Funny how nobody else ever felt a need to write them down. Are you sure the problem is with us? Is it so difficult to just use common sense? I see Phantom Hoover has dropped the issue regarding the RationalWiki article; if you're willing to do the same (formally, as I see you're not editing it anymore), we can all move on. Then, if you want to try and establish strict policies, feel free to rally other WikiIndex members, but I predict a lukewarm response, if any. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 13:08, 30 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::If I am the main problem here, then why would you threaten to lock and blank the article, leaving only the edit Hoover was deleting?!?!?!? That's extremely confusing to me. <del>We are letting Hoover have his way so he obviously has no reason to discuss the matter further.</del> [We were actually letting '''me''' have ''my way'', but I didn't realize it. I don't know how Hoover feels about having a link to the debated criticism. Nx deleted the link to the criticism, way back when. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] I'm looking at a more ''long-term'' solution to '''many''' such conflicts. DavidCary said about the RationalWikiWiki article, "since the history page shows back-and-forth bickering a few months ago, I wouldn't say there is "nothing" controversial about it." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWikiWiki&diff=71253&oldid=71223] and MarkDilley said "...I also highlight what David is saying." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWikiWiki&diff=71491&oldid=71457]. They could not possibly be talking about me in that case, at least. What is moving articles to talk pages supposed to solve? That is like vandalism. <del>You are never going to get consensus that way. What happens is some editors just give up and let more aggressive editors have their way.</del> [Maybe we did happen to get "consensus" that way. But] I believe rule-by-law, is the most ''efficient'' way to [resolve disputes more painlessly]. If you and others, periodically post comments on the policy pages, just like everyone was doing before, eventually we may be able to establish some common ground on which to build a conflict resolution mechanism that is efficient, equitable, and broadly supported. It is just a matter of how long it will take. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:54, 30 September 2009 (EDT) | ::::::If I am the main problem here, then why would you threaten to lock and blank the article, leaving only the edit Hoover was deleting?!?!?!? That's extremely confusing to me. <del>We are letting Hoover have his way so he obviously has no reason to discuss the matter further.</del> [We were actually letting '''me''' have ''my way'', but I didn't realize it. I don't know how Hoover feels about having a link to the debated criticism. Nx deleted the link to the criticism, way back when. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT)] I'm looking at a more ''long-term'' solution to '''many''' such conflicts. DavidCary said about the RationalWikiWiki article, "since the history page shows back-and-forth bickering a few months ago, I wouldn't say there is "nothing" controversial about it." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWikiWiki&diff=71253&oldid=71223] and MarkDilley said "...I also highlight what David is saying." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWikiWiki&diff=71491&oldid=71457]. They could not possibly be talking about me in that case, at least. What is moving articles to talk pages supposed to solve? That is like vandalism. <del>You are never going to get consensus that way. What happens is some editors just give up and let more aggressive editors have their way.</del> [Maybe we did happen to get "consensus" that way. But] I believe rule-by-law, is the most ''efficient'' way to [resolve disputes more painlessly]. If you and others, periodically post comments on the policy pages, just like everyone was doing before, eventually we may be able to establish some common ground on which to build a conflict resolution mechanism that is efficient, equitable, and broadly supported. It is just a matter of how long it will take. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:54, 30 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72017&oldid=72003 I'm planning to put a number of proposals in subpages] of [[ | ::::::[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72017&oldid=72003 I'm planning to put a number of proposals in subpages] of [[WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines]], [[User:Lumenos]], and maybe some other places. This means '''very long posts''' when I import them, so I am wondering if this is likely to result in some sort of lockdown by you or Dilley. I honestly do not know if this is what you call "trolling trolling trolling", or what he calls "edit spamming Recent Changes", or something I am not welcome to do here. Could you sorta promise to let us know '''immediately''' before you lockdown a page or something, so that we can change what we are doing, to avoid being "punished"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:54, 30 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
(Starting over from column one, for hopefully obvious reasons). Lumenos, all those conflicts you're referring to are over this one article. Which is just one among thousands here. Do you think it's so special to me? It's not. You made it so, by fighting other editors over it, and I'm fed up with that. What I ''really'' want is to delete it permanently, and if that wasn't so blatantly against the goals of WikiIndex, I would. As for consensus, you just mentioned two admins and an editor who seem to agree over what is right, and I'm with them.<br>So who does that leave? ''You'', Lumenos. You're the one who wants verbose policies. You're the one who forces us to wade through huge walls of text. And no, there isn't a character limit, you're just posting far more than anyone else. Can you spell "common sense" and "basic courtesy"? Can you see how badly you stand out from everyone else here?<br>And why are you so worried about being "punished"? Does your life revolve around WikiIndex or something? Well, ours doesn't. We're just trying to make it better, one little piece at a time, because that's all we can afford. Do you want to help, or do you just want to obsess endlessly over one particular article, and play victim when that bothers a whole lot of people?<br>I'll repeat my invitation over to IRC, in the hope that a real-time conversation will help us understand each other better. I don't know what else to say. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:50, 1 October 2009 (EDT) | (Starting over from column one, for hopefully obvious reasons). Lumenos, all those conflicts you're referring to are over this one article. Which is just one among thousands here. Do you think it's so special to me? It's not. You made it so, by fighting other editors over it, and I'm fed up with that. What I ''really'' want is to delete it permanently, and if that wasn't so blatantly against the goals of WikiIndex, I would. As for consensus, you just mentioned two admins and an editor who seem to agree over what is right, and I'm with them.<br>So who does that leave? ''You'', Lumenos. You're the one who wants verbose policies. You're the one who forces us to wade through huge walls of text. And no, there isn't a character limit, you're just posting far more than anyone else. Can you spell "common sense" and "basic courtesy"? Can you see how badly you stand out from everyone else here?<br>And why are you so worried about being "punished"? Does your life revolve around WikiIndex or something? Well, ours doesn't. We're just trying to make it better, one little piece at a time, because that's all we can afford. Do you want to help, or do you just want to obsess endlessly over one particular article, and play victim when that bothers a whole lot of people?<br>I'll repeat my invitation over to IRC, in the hope that a real-time conversation will help us understand each other better. I don't know what else to say. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:50, 1 October 2009 (EDT) | ||