User talk:Huw Powell

Hello,

Huw Powell,

I(we) have thousands of things to do. I think your are aware that WikiIndex has no cyber judge function (at present). Would you be so kind as to give CP and other readers time to overthink your point of view. With the hope that my english is understandable. Regards --Wolf | talk 03:33, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I think you mean PC, not CP? Your English is far better than my German. Far, far better. And thank you for the welcome! Huw Powell 06:12, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Censoring dissenting opinion

Hello again, I'm writing in reference to your recent edit of the RationalWiki article, wherein you removed the link to the following argument. "Wikipedia achieves the stated goals of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki does". Your edit summary was, "11:08, 1 September 2009 [...] (Lumenos, please whine on the talk page.)" Did you read the argument? Lumenos 10:04, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I found that you had in fact replied, but due to the location ([...]the general disorganization of talk pages [and my inexperience with wiki editing]) I neglected to notice it until now. I have answered your rebuttal and I will give you some time to formulate a response (if you should wish to do so) before possibly adding the comment back. Consensus on this matter seems to be favoring the creation of separate articles for Constructive Criticism (although where the links to these articles may be is less clear)[Well just read the link.]. Lumenos 13:13, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

"Consensus" is you and Proxima agreeing? Also, you completely ignored and failed to understand the responses to your bizarre WP vs RW thesis. Also, why don't you respond to comments where they are made? Huw Powell 00:50, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

It seemed like Dilley might favor it, but I should obviously take into account the editors edits and not just the policy page when making determinations about consensus. So I apologize for that. Lumenos 11:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Why do I quote? I find it keeps things better organized. Your idea of not quoting, has merit. I do appreciate that you allow me to decide where we will be having discussions. Face it Powell, resistance is futile. All will be assimilated into the Lumenati hive mind! ;-) Lumenos 09:38, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

On my RW vs WP thesis: You mean how I told you I favor your description of the wiki over that of your authorities there? Lumenos 09:38, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

The italizided text is a quote from the following location Talk:Lumeniki: The stuff he was removing did seem a bit odd. Having the owner of a wiki write a rambling stream of consciousness description of their personal goals on a wikiindex article? Is that the norm here? Huw Powell 20:02, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'. ~~ MarkDilley

So, what is it? The "norm"? In which case surely I could "own" the RationalWiki article...

Huw, these are dangerous words I'm hearing. You'd never dream of undermining a sacred technocracy now would you? ...or is the Lumenati vision starting to work its way through that thick head of yours? *grin* Lunemos 12:28, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Secondly, if you have any suggestions for why WikiIndex should not allow certain criticisms, or how to objectively judge which ones should or should not be allowed, your reasoning on this matter would be appreciated in this section of the policy page. Lumenos 10:03, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, quit with your power grab. You've made up some lame policy page with virtually no input from the site's owners, and it's barely readable. You fail at "wiki discussion". Huw Powell 00:50, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

How could I "grab" power? How do you feel about basic democratic ideals such as rule by law, equal protection under the law, and separation of power? Lumenos 09:38, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

You noticed it is not really a policy page? There isn't any. So it is a policy development page and a page that links to what clues I could find (without bothering anyone) about what to expect from the administration. That is all we have so far. Dilley seems okay with having it here so long as it is not in a "neutral point of view". So we changed that. If it causes some problem, I will adapt it for Lumeniki and that's that. Is the power of suggestion really so threatening to you? Lumenos 09:38, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

If we'd moved here when RW crunked we'd be completely dominating the wiki by now. Huw Powell 22:04, 5 September 2009 (EDT) (quote by Lumenos from here)

My "agenda"

The following is a quote from Huw Powell taken from this location: "Lumenos seems to have one agenda here, and that is fairly clear when one looks at L's contribs." Huw Powell 07:14, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Hum now you went from "seems to have" to "fairly clear", but you don't feel any need to describe the this agenda? I'd be interested in hearing what you perceive that to be. Is it comedy? Direct action? I've no idea what you are referring to. Lumenos 05:47, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

The following is a quote from Huw Powell taken from this location: "I think the general policy here is to simply describe wikis, not to engage in petty arguments about their worldview. Huw Powell 07:14, 1 September 2009 (EDT)"

Oh. And have you been merely attempting to defend your "pet" [favored] wiki from these petty arguments, or are you completely uninvolved in these supposed debates "about [wikis] worldview[s]"? Lumenos 05:47, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Why don't you respond to what I said where I said it, you freak? Huw Powell 00:47, 4 September 2009 (EDT) [Strikeout by Huw]

Oh, and if one looks at the contribs I linked to, Lumenos appears to have a very intense interest in two things: the RationalWiki article, on whose talk page he expresses rather odd confusion, and writing policy for wikiindex. In case no one is paying attention. Huw Powell 02:27, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh man. I guess I may as well admit it. Lumenos 11:32, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

You are wasting everyone who reads your words time. You write the worst English I've seen since Proxima Centauri, and you have no clue what you are doing. Other than trying to dominate some pointless wiki. PS, your wiki really sucks big time - it's incomprehensible and badly written. Now go gently fondle yourself. Huw Powell 05:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

If only there were a solution for those who simply must read my words.

-

Til next time, Normie ~~ Lunemos

Clear course

I mentioned that this was the path I was going to take forward, last week. Let's work out what goes on the article on the talk page and move from there. ~~ MarkDilley

I just yakked at your talk page, let's hope we find a common understanding. Not that I need to run this place, far from it, I just want to know how it is run... As far as the RW article, which I think you are alluding to, yeah, the next few days will bring clarity, we all hope. Huw Powell 06:09, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Removing four similar wikis from the RationalWiki article

Tell me Huw, why did you remove four of the similar wikis from the RationalWiki article and leave this message in the edit history, "(remove duplicate sentence; decrufting)"? (Note, this is the last edit before they were all moved to the talk pages.) Lunemos 12:28, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

I can't find "decrufting" in any dictionary. Huw, it isn't like you to speak anything but the right proper Englush. You haven't started dabbling in the forces of lumenism, have you? :-) Lumenos 13:02, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh fsck off you irritating little piece of rectal slime. Do a fscking Google search for "cruft" and then fsck off. No, just fsck off. 65.39.67.100 13:25, 9 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. Nx 15:04, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for a uummm possibly reasonable argument. I replied here. Lumenos 02:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

1. the IP above is not me, 2. Nx is correct, 3. Why not talk about the RW article on its talk page? 4. They weren't "similar" except that they are wikis, with some overlapping membership. Huw Powell 17:55, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree we should talk about the RationalWiki article there. But here we should talk about why you don't put in the edit history that you are deleting similar wikis? You don't think that all this controversy about censoring competition and criticism, would make such a move seem a bit sneaky? Lumenos 00:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

You are such a moron. I did exactly what my edit comment said - removed duplicate sentence, and decrufted. Also, who the frick are you to tell me how to write my edit comments? Now go gently fondly yourself, concern troll. Huw Powell 01:08, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

It would be fun to start every reply to you with some sort of insult but I don't want to look like a frustrated fewl. Lumenos 02:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you IP address. You probably won't be surprised that this isn't compelling me to leave. I'm a flexible person, who may actually change if you provide some constructive criticism. Lumenos 00:18, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Nx actually provided some plausibly legitimate reasons for Huw's edit. Lumenos 09:03, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

"Stalking"

Hi Huw, regarding 00:00, 11 September 2009 Huw Powell (Talk | contribs) (27 bytes) (Undid revision 71272 by Lumenos (stalk)). You may notice that when you link to user page through a redirect from ("mainspace"?), it removes many of the "stalking" functions from the toolbox. I find all this whining about cyberstalking extremely ironic, given a prior conflict I do not wish to bring up. Nx added some links to the Lumeniki article. I am for sourcing "comments" which may be biased or dubious. That is why I created the page. Apparently Dilley is opting to end this practice now (as I noted on your user page) so I have redirected the links. Your input on WikiIndex (or simply my own) "policy" on biographical info, verifiablity, and notability (of the "see also" links in the Lumeniki article) is welcome, as always. Lumenos 09:01, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

It is not cyberstalking to look at someone's contributions. This is an open wiki. Being able to see the edits made by a user is a standard feature on open wikis. Phantom Hoover 13:10, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Sheeeeww. Gosh I thought I was doing some serious cyberstalking. Thanks for explaining that, Hooves. Way back before it was evil, Hoover posted a more thorough explanation of his definition. PH seems to be less websearchophobic (and policyphobic) than the other RationalWikians. Lumenos 06:15, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

On an "unrelated" note. You have asked me a question concerning a Lumenati neologism. Now I like you even more than I used to. :-) This should not effect my objectivity in any way. It really shouldn't. (-; But I may be more inclined to be accurate and clear in communications. Lumenos 09:01, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Gawd, Lumpy, before you stick me with an orange box, can you at last formulate an idea to communicate? Huw Powell 01:52, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Well I thought I had. Apparently Huw cannot comprehend "simple" Lumenati concepts. ;-) I formulate many ideas that seem clear to me, but I would need feedback to know how it appears to someone else, and to know if they would have any interest in it. I spent a good deal of time on Lumeniki before debuting it here, but it doesn't make much sense for me to work and work at it, if I'm the only one interested in it. I've been pleased at the turnout so far, including someone claiming to be the honorable Trent (god of RationalWiki). Lumenos 10:01, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

No need

It is the convention at this wiki to have real people in the main namespace - but since you prefer not to, it is not a problem for you to stay in the user namespace. Best, MarkDilley

Thanks. If I change my mind in the future, is that ok? Just getting my legs here, and all... PS, I have no idea what Lumpy is on about in the above section. Huw Powell 01:50, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Of course - your option, sorry I created the article in the first place without asking you. As far as Lumenos - I wonder what calling them Lumpy does for anything or anyone? I have asked them to slow down their editing here. Best, MarkDilley

What?!?! That wasn't an affectionate nickname?!?! :-) I'm not fragile, I don't want to be taken too seriously, and I make a lot of mistakes. It would be nice if Huw would put some more effort into communication but it is his prerogative to decide if that is worth it. I'm only worried about what the administration thinks of me. Lumenos 10:01, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Glad it was taken in the manner intended. I have a bad habit of coming up with silly, friendly corruptions of people's user names. Huw Powell 15:29, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Re: work on the new policies

Forgot you were involved; your suggestions are appreciated. Your proposed way of working on policies is pretty much what I had in mind, too. (09:59, 4 October 2009, unsigned by user:Felix)

Thanks, is much progress taking place? I should check recent changes again... Huw Powell 17:34, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

We've just started making policies for real. You're not late. See WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines and WikiIndex_talk:Policies and Guidelines. -- Felix Pleşoianu | talk 00:19, 5 October 2009 (EDT)