Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions

'[[Talk:RationalWiki (en)/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)

# [[Wikiindex]]

# Why the page "RationalWiki" was protected

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)

Anyone can see these RationalWikians are being deliberately unpleasant.  Only close insiders know what the real problem is though if the problem is what it seems RationalWiki will probably be back on or soon after the 6th of September.  I don’t rule out that there may be a worse problem, I don’t rule out that there are legal problems involving those connected with Conservapedia or with any of the many who RationalWiki has branded practitioners of Pseudo-science.  Many astrologers and other similar people quite likely have their livelihoods affected by what RationalWiki says and they will pay large sums of money to lawyers to stop what RationalWiki says about them.  [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:17, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

::Actually it was a fortune cookie. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:01, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

:Unlock the page and undo your reversions; unblock and apologize to Nx and Phantom Hoover.  Then take a careful look at your reverting, locking, blocking, and oversighting habits and see where [[conservapedia|they might fit in better]] on the web... just a suggestion. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 01:05, 25 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)  

::What about those who liked the olden days of RationalWiki, and they are looking for a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia? (We are not looking for exact similarity. If RW is changing this makes Liberapedia '''more''' notable, not less.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:54, 30 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 (en)]] 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)

:::Having separate pages would allow us to leave one unprotected while the other is protected, if edit warring is only happening on one of them. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:57, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::Perhaps not if editors believe that would only mean the main article would be protected, and the link replaced. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Well we could always use talk pages for all these opinions and whatnot. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::Exactly 47 users. Seriously though, you're asking as if it weren't generally accepted that this is a good thing. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 14:17, 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)]

::<del>What you can't do at Wikipedia is Conservapedia (or Liberapedia). I think your stated goals should include satire, since that is really what sets you apart.</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:04, 31 August 2009 (EDT) [Updates: struck out bad argument. Huw attacks this weak point of the debate, next. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:28, 10 September 2009 (EDT) RationalWiki has a different inclusion policy, meaning that it focuses on those objectives solely, whereas Wikipedia has a broader scope. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:33, 10 September 2009 (EDT)]

::::::I believe it is nearly a measurable fact that [[Wikipedia]] is able to achieve these objectives to a far greater degree than RationalWiki, but I have answered a number of arguments to the contrary, if you would like to respond to any of those, or come up with a new one. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:38, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::The Existence of God article has arguments [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God against the existence of God], if you click any one of the arguments for God you will find more refutations along side the arguments for. Tell me this, do you know of any argument that is represented in RationalWiki but not Wikipedia? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Seriously, is this the best criticism you can come up with? That the wiki has no chance to compete with Wikipedia, even though it's '''not even trying to'''? That's not even criticism. You can criticize Conservapedia for having delusions of grandeur (Schlafly said that they would surpass Wikipedia in a few years), but RationalWiki isn't even trying to be a general encyclopedia, and it actively enforces this by removing articles that do not fit its mission. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 03:29, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

[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]].

Okay (I'm just going to stop indenting at this point although I am replying to Nx.) Can we analyze your claim that, "Wikipedia cannot achieve the stated goals of RW because of its NPOV"? I think it plausible that Wikipedia's policy of requiring reliable sources (which is the main aspect of [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral NPOV] that matters here) is '''more effective''' at, "analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people." In other words, providing evidence rather then someone simply telling you what they think the truth is. Do you find this to be a plausible theory? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:43, 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)  

::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)

: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)

You have no clue what reliable sources means at WP do you? There are plenty of "reliable sources" for creationist and other bat shit crazy ideas. Read what WP defines as a RS. WP presents bat shit crazy ideas in a far too sympathetic light. There is also the problem that WP is saturated that it is difficult to follow articles, and they often slip under the radar, with crazy people and their pet ideas being written by proponents. That doesn't happen on RW because the content creation on the site is easily monitored. Also WP is descriptive, RW can be both descriptive and proscriptive. We encourage original research and synthesis of sources and information. We can extend our analysis of ideas and people and movements in directions that WP can not because it is an encyclopedia. There are many examples of ways that we do things different than WP and for our niche we are doing very well. [[User:76.113.112.137|76.113.112.137]] 14:11, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

::[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources Here is the actual policy, "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". Couldn't you figure a way to argue that a bad source was not either as "respectable" or as "mainstream" as a better source you have? If you have one source that conflicts another, and it is more respectable, for example, more "scientific" couldn't you replace the claim made by the less reliable source and add the claim of the more reliable source? Then your audience would be what, maybe 20 times the size? And wouldn't they be much less likely to already agree with you? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia cannot present such things as these three examples from RationalWiki:

:::What is more important or effective, Huw Powell and his friends emphatically stating their opinion, or this, "a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[10]" [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism] [[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)

:::::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)

:This seems kinda like trying to prove that a commercial that is on during the Super Bowl, is going to have more of an influence than a commercial during a rerun of Mash. I can't exactly ''prove'' it with absolute certainty. Some Wikipedia pages may be less noticed than some RationalWiki pages, especially if RationalWiki features the page. In general, it would seem that editing the Wikipedia pages on the major topics, is more likely to have an influence. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:02, 23 September 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)

::From [[Liberapedia]]: "However its creator stated that it was created to parody Conservapedia and advises that: "most articles should take stereotypical liberal views and distort them to the extreme"". What is your point again? [[User:Nx|Nx]] 17:53, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Liberapedia is incredibly badly written (and is getting worse with time). RationalWiki is written better every day (that it is on line). [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 07:25, 1 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)

09:47, 4 September 2009 203.113.240.49 (Talk) (6,426 bytes) (Well it will be back in two days and this article makes you look like a dumbass in the mean time)

The sysops and crats are so incompetent it's not funny.  [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 05:57, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

:::OH BAM! Pi VS Dilley. Nothing to see here. Please be gentle with my debates with Nx, he was doing so well I would hate for that to be forgotten. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:53, 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)

:::::::::::::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))

''See also is for related things. Categories are for similar things. Only those wikis that are actually related (besides Proxima Centauri having an account on all of them) should be listed on see also. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:04, 9 September 2009 (EDT)'' (quote by Lumenos)

:::Lumenos, please provide a reason for reverting my edit other than "we don't do it like wikipedia because I say so". I have given a reason for my removal of those wikis: they can be found in the categories. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 03:46, 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)

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)

My internet has lost its connection a few times recently (maybe 4?). That is not common. Yesterday I was writing back and forth with Phantom Hoover and another editor on [[Lumeniki]]. Referata (where Lumeniki is hosted) went down for 15-20 minutes. This is not unheard of but it has only happened a few times in the last few years. Maybe once or twice a year. And it usually recovers faster. Hoovie first wanted me to make him a bureaucrat, then made this funny, funny joke, "[http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Gooniepunk2005 We outnumber Lumenos now! Quick, get him while his back is turned! Let us raze this wiki to the ground and build something better on the burnt ashes and skulls!]". I [http://www.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Yaron_Koren#Is_my_wiki_vulnerable.3F spoke with Yaron Koren] who provides the greatest free service you could ever ask for. He said, "It was some MySQL hiccup, that went away after about 15-20 minutes". I recalled that RationalWiki's crash was "most likely due to a MySQL connection error". I think it most likely that MySQL just isn't that stable but I thought I would mention these experiences in case anyone has any more information that may be relevant. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:16, 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)

::[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)

[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) )]

:::[[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)

*[[Talk:RationalWiki#Similar wikis|Similar Wikis]]

: 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)

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)

::::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)  

: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)  

Somebody created [[Rationalwikі]]. I don't know if that will arouse the administration's furry but they let me make a policy page with no policies on it. <del>I think it should be moved to something like [[RationalWiki(temp)]].</del> [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:19, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

:I moved it to [[RationalWiki (temp)]] and edited it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:43, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

:Didn't you just do that? I vote, only under agreement that it allows linking to in-depth, well organized, criticism such as Dilley's idea for the Conservapedia page to have a [[Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia]]. But I favor rather a page for real debate maps (better than the ones above). (Note those debate maps suck because, they were not completed, because I found out half way through, my debate opponents did not want to create a debate map.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::Rpeh, do you know of any comment that I deleted before you deleted [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Rpeh&oldid=70740 '''a few paragraphs''' written by both you and I] on the grounds that you think me a troll? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::The only other comment I remember deleting was one of Phantom Hoover's, [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkDilley&diff=70908&oldid=70907 here]. It seemed like attention whoring at the time. Now I think you were right to undelete it. I removed the tag suggesting it be moved to your talk page. [but neglected to notice that Phantom Hoover had commented on it, so I put it back and replied.] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)[Updated [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:07, 11 September 2009 (EDT)]

:::::'''Why [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Debate_map#Debate_crap debate craps] where moved to subpages:''' [[Talk:RationalWiki# Oh, **** this place|Someone complained that, ''"No one should have to read a page of crap to understand you, seriously you are a dick. 203.113.240.49 18:55, 6 September 2009 (EDT)"'']] so, to prevent people from '''''"having to"''''' read it, I moved it to a subpage and put warning signs, saying that it [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Ikilumen doesn't always make sense]. Nx moved it back out, so I guess people who can't resist the urge, will '''"have to"''' read it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::It was a post in a section called "Vote for re-insertion" and made with an edit comment of [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki&diff=71340&oldid=71339 added vote too], so it really shouldn't confuse you so much. And please don't move more stuff around as it will just mess things up even more. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 06:40, 12 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)

: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)]

:::[[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)]  

:::::[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)]

::::::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 [[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)

:The only person I know of, who has invited me to IRC, was "Phantom Hooover". I'm on IRC now. I wrote a big long reply before "MarkDilley" and "Felix (claudeb)" showed up there so I will only post this for now. I don't like to work "in secret". I've told them I intend to copy the chat and post it publicly and Felix said he didn't have a problem with that. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:08, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

:As I see it, <del>the administration here has</del> [ [[MarkDilley]] and then Felix had] a method of making WikiIndex "better" by by blanking and locking articles ([one of] which [Felix] would prefer to delete?), whereas I'm suggesting we would make WikiIndex better by making broadly supported policies, and '''protecting articles according to those policies'''. (This may or may not require ''page protection''.) Blanking articles as a "punishment" just seems counter-productive to the goal of making WikiIndex better; that's all. But you are absolutely correct that I '''am''' afraid of being banned. <del>You might have noticed that unlike some of my opponents here, I don't threaten to [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= "vandalize" the whole wiki], if I don't get my way.</del> [I don't plan to come back if I am permanently banned.] That means I have only one shot at this. This is the most prominent wiki directory to wikis, as far as I know. That makes it very notable in my mind. Being able to edit this wiki is pretty important to me, at this time in my life. If you don't share that view I believe that is because you lack the vision to see a potential gold mine here. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 05:03, 2 October 2009 (EDT)