User talk:Lumenos

User talk:Lumenos/Archive 001 (<-- That is a subpage where I picked some comments to move. Lumenos 11:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT))

How to contact Lumenos.

Community editing space

On second thought WikiIndex may not appreciate doing this sort of thing here (it may flood Recent Changes). Go instead to a page I created at RationalWiki for this purpose or you can write whereever you want at Lumeniki (it may take me a while to notice it there, depending on where I am active at that time). Lumenos 11:14, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

---

---

The rest of section is for anyone to edit. Edit it like an article or post comments and sign them.

Evaluations of Lumenos at WikiIndex

1

The following conversation began on the block policy talk page and was moved here.

(I don't know if those of us who are not a part of the administration are welcome to weigh in on this stuff. I've gotten mixed signals when doing so. There doesn't seem to be any prohibition against me doing so, so I will post an opinion on this. Lumenos 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT))

You're welcome if you ask me. Trouble is, you're "weighing in" like a truckload of bricks. Search for your username on this page; it's plastered in it. Talking to yourself, writing more - and longer - comments than anyone else... seriously, what's the deal? Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:13, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with relocating my comments if they are excessive. I'm interested in your perception now that so much time has past. It occurred to me that maybe it looks like I'm actually pretending to talk to myself when I make another comment like this: Lumenos 20:48, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm not talking to myself when I do this. Lumenos 20:48, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

(Final editor of the preceding comments: Lumenos 20:48, 23 June 2010 (EDT). If you edit it please remove this message or add your signature here.)

(First comments)

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

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

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

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

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

Well the Phantom Hoovenator has taken an interest in Lumeniki. Maybe that is what you had in mind. Lumenos 10:31, 4 September 2009 (EDT)[Changed link to specific "destructive" edit Lumenos 11:18, 12 September 2009 (EDT)]

Reordering talk page comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well what I would do, is just create a new section named after the argument you wish to make and copy everything relevant to that argument there. I know what you are referring to, and am not certain that it was off topic. [You] responded to [my] statement like you had just learned what the topic of the section was, but I don't know. That could be moved back. Don't feel too inhibited, especially if I am doing something unprecedented, to revert such changes if they are inappropriate, in your view. But umm I guess it doesn't bother you that you appeared to be arguing for something which you later stated that you did not care about. Well but then you had a different reason, I guess. (Lumenos 08:55, 1 September 2009 (EDT) (Update: bracket text are typos [or insertions of someone else] that were updated. Lumenos 12:42, 2 September 2009 (EDT))(Updated the preceding statement Lumenos 11:44, 6 September 2009 (EDT))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lumenos, whatever you mean by a "debate map" is not clear to others with plenty of wiki talk page experience. Turning it into something you think makes sense does not do respect to other editors and the format and style of their editing. A good rule to follow: don't edit others' talk page comments. Simply don't. Add your own, quote them, respond to the them, but leave their edits alone. Huw Powell 23:38, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Your prayers have been answered. I've moved the unfun house to a subpage and placed warning signs on the entry ways. BEWARE THE MADDENING IKILUMEN! Howevar, in my perception, the arguments I present in the following sections were spot on:

15 Edit wars
16 Similar wikis
17 Criticism and rebuttals
17.1 RationalWiki vs Wikipedia
17.2 An very rare example of Lumenos misunderstanding
17.3 Does Wikipedia achieve the aims of RationalWiki better than RationalWiki?
18 Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article
19 On what features or qualities should we compare any wikis (or these wikis in particular)?
20 Should A Storehouse of Knowledge (ASK) be included as a "similar wiki" or in a comparison table?
21 Should Wikipedia be included in the comparison table?
22 Notification of the service failure

If I have not destroyed all trust in my abilities to reason, your feedback on the accuracy of this perception, would be appreciated. ~~ Lumenos

Create a guideline for editing talk pages

Link to it from WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines

Writing policies and facilitating consensus

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

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

responded

on my talk page ~~ MarkDilley

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

Yes, I covet their goblins opponents :-) Lumenos 12:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

My "agenda" part 2 (this time it's scienticlish)

[The italicized part was moved from a location which shall remain unnamed by all who are not goblins]

I can see how it can be difficult to produce an "unbiased" article without blocking, when some editors are online more than others. Lumenos 10:28, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

It's also hard to keep pushing your petty little agendas without blocking. Nx 10:37, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I want to know my agenda! Are any of the following my "agendas" that you are referring to. These all relate to the RationalWiki (en) article:

• Put the notice of the service outage and the top of the page. Lumenos 11:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
• Change it from saying "temporary..." to simply "service outage" (with a note right after that of when we were apparently told it was going to be back in service). Lumenos 11:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
• Put a link to a debate regarding whether Wikipedia achieves the stated goals of RationalWiki, better than RationalWiki. Nx you were doing so well in this debate, you must be doing this to make the Lumenos 11:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't referring to you. Nx 11:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Doh! Okay well this is for Huw then. (I always miss his sneaky edits.) Lumenos 11:36, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Requests for Lumenos

If anyone else doesn't appreciate something I have done, please post a diff or be specific about what your problem is. Lumenos 13:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Rpeh

"Trolling"

Rpeh named a section "Trolling" and then posted: Stop it. You have become very tedious. I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but all you're doing at the moment is demonstrating that you're an irritating little person. Rpeh 12:21, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for your perception. Am I doing anything right? Or would you prefer I just leave? Lumenos 12:24, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

What specifically do you find tedious? Is it like I'm flooding the "recent changes" history? Is that why you notice me? Lumenos 12:50, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

More about Rpeh

I googled "Rpeh" and found this apparent quote, "[RationalWiki] is worse than CP. At least over there you know there's going to be hypocrisy." Does this have anything to do with your reasons for being here today? Lumenos 12:46, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

What didn't you like about RationalWiki (en)? Lumenos 13:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

You don't seem to be active with that name at A Storehouse of Knowledge. You know that it is a "conservative" wiki that has a better recommended administration than Conservapedia? Probably less traffic however. :-( Lumenos 12:46, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Rpeh appear[ed] to be a slight critic of the JW's [because Lumenos was confused] but most [all] of their Wikipedia edits I found rather boring. Why do these insignificant things interest you? That's just my little opinion of you, in case you were wondering. Lumenos 13:20, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Cyberstalker! Phantom Hoover 13:26, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

OOhhh for me? (See Hoover knows I've been wanting to know how to make those big letters.) Lumenos 08:11, 5 September 2009 (EDT) Actually I'm not sure he did know that. Lumenos 14:21, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes. I was that Rpeh, and I acted like an idiot. After a period of reflection, I realised that I was being an idiot and stopped. You, "Lumenos", should stop trying to troll so much and just STFU. Perhaps your time away will give you the same revelation it gave me. Rpeh 13:46, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

You weren't the only one... anyway, I know it's a late, but you were right, and I'm sorry for driving you away (though I'm glad you returned to UESP) Nx 14:15, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Well a few others don't seem to agree with you, you aren't very active here, and you are unwilling to mention a specific issue, so I can only tell you that I will try to be more careful as with the mistake that I made in replying (although sometimes I wonder if it not better to let them win one every now and then ;-). I guess this is goodbye. Lumenos 08:11, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

BTW - the WP undo was just that - a reversion of wandalism. Don't try to claim it was attacking anybody. Rpeh 13:48, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Sorry about that. I knew that picture didn't make sense and I should have listened to my conscience. That having been said... Use your freegan watchlist! and have a pleasant evening. :-) Lumenos 08:11, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Me and Reph are hashing this out in a more appropriate location... and the mighty Pi dropped by... if that's its reeeeeal name. Lumenos 13:49, 6 September 2009 (EDT) Well Reph has gone and done the right proper thing for dealing with warty migets trolls. Learn from him oh students of reason. Lumenos 13:57, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes he did the right thing, he ignored you.203.113.240.49 18:55, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

He has been slipping up lately and talking to me. It is so fewlish, I know. You should go try to talk him out of it, Mr IP address. Lumenos 19:05, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

If you are friends with someone who is shunning a warty midget, your duty is to not bring it up. Let it fester in your bowels the way suppressed desires do. Don't give in to communication and consensus building. You will lose all control. ;-) Lumenos 19:10, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Stop it

Stop editing my damn comments. It's none of your business. rpeh 13:24, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

You mean the one comment? Is this a moral guideline you propose to follow if I do? Otherwise I think you need to whine to a sysop and maybe they can talk me into it. Lumenos 13:32, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Rpeh's second example of "trolling"

Edited quote from [1]: I see that Recent Changes is once more full of your edits, including trolling ones like [...] this. [...]rpeh 02:47, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for making me aware of that. I posted an update and will be less trusting of user pages, particularly any content on Liberapedia in the future. Lumenos 18:44, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

My edits in Recent Changes reflect many more than those two examples. You've made a number of comments lately that don't seem all that necessary or helpful. Is this another rule you have for me, that you don't wish to follow yourself? Did you notice what was written below here, by the sysop DavidCary? (I'm not really sure whether Phantom Hoover was seconding his encouragements or not.) Lumenos 18:47, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

wow

Wow. When I hit RecentChanges, I see that you and I have made nearly all the edits for the last few days. Did you know that some people frown on hogging RecentChanges -- Meatball:HijackingRecentChanges ?

Please continue making excellent, thoughtful, well-written contributions, even when there is a lull from other editors. --DavidCary 14:08, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Please heed the "excellent, thoughtful, well-written contributions" bit. Phantom Hoover 14:30, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Eggggcelent, Cary and the hobgoblins have all fallen for my eloquent memewares. Soon they will all be my slaves. BuuuaHAHHA...er did I say that out loud? Lumenos 07:37, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

???????????? Phantom Hoover 13:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh yeah that... umm, i i I meant thanks bro. <serious>Those were truly encouraging words. (Really!) Thank you! </serious> Lumenos 14:14, 6 September 2009 (EDT) Oh I guess that doesn't mean PH already thinks they are "excellent, thoughtful, well-written contributions". Lumenos 18:53, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

You signed up at Lumeniki didn't you? I noticed you started digging a little hobgoblin hole for yourself. Are you tiring of your cruel mistress at Liberapedia? All that wasted talent. You deserve better. Just imagine the liberties you could enjoy, if you strive for lumevolence and lumenotablity! (By the way, those pages horribly suck, someone ought to do something about that. And all those red links... sucking... sucking at the mind which must fix red links. There will nevar be harmony in the universe so long as these injustices remain. Lumenos 14:14, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

He's a lumetic. Nx 14:19, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

That's it! Get into the Spirit. See how she shines? Lumenos 14:33, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

YES! I can see the Lumenosity! Nx 14:35, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

DO YOU THINK THIS IS SOME KIND OF A JOKE?!?!?!? Nooo no nnnoo Nxx ! You cannot see the Lumenosity because Gosh has hidden it from you. But what you might possibly be able to see. If Neo can release the chains The Man has placed within your mind. You might, you just might catch a glimps of the Lumentialism! Lumenos 20:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

removing talk page comments

Please do not remove talk page comments as you did here. I'm going to assume it was because of incompetence, and not malice. Nx 04:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Learn to use show preview and show changes please. Nx 04:15, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Do not remove information from the article as you did here. As I told you, I was working on merging it. If you don't do controversial edits to the article, when they are reverted it won't remove your talk page comments. In the future I will try to undo your wandalism to the article, without reverting our talk page comments at the same time. Lumenos 04:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I have explained my removal of the information. You have not explained it except claiming that my conventions don't apply here. Nx 04:18, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Your "explanation" (rationalization) does not excuse censoring competing wikis from the RationalWiki talk page. Lumenos 04:23, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Seriously, this censorship thing is becoming WikiIndex's Godwin. Please drop the loaded language. The wikis have nothing to do with RationalWiki. Categories are meant to group similar wikis together. The wikis are in the appropriate categories. No information is being censored. Nx 04:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I suppose it possible that you believe these bizarre rationalizations. Those wikis have the same subject matter. I've got quite a lot of work to do to fix the latest mess we have made on the talk page. If you'll excuse me. Lumenos 04:31, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

If they have the same subject matter, then they should be in the same category. That said, RationalWiki does not have one single subject matter - Conservapedia is still an important subject, and as far as I know, that is not the subject of those other wikis. Nx

I now think I should have been replying to this stuff instead of edit warring with Nx. We discussed this also here, and after that Nx gave up and chose instead to label me and poop on WikiIndex :-(. Lumenos 14:16, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Also please learn what archives are for. If someone wants to continue a discussion there (I doubt it), they can bring it up on the talk page again and link to the previous discussion in the archive. Having two places to discuss things is NOT a good idea. Nx 05:32, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Fine. <Psst> (but it is on my watchlist if anybody wants to edit it). It would be different if you could make it read-only. Lumenos 05:35, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?

For example this. Someone could, for example, tell us something about you. Then there wouldn't be a red link there. Lumenos 05:51, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm trying to improve this wiki, though it seems to be a lost cause. As for an article about me, no. And don't try to cyberstalk me. Nx 05:55, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

You are the source of much of the information in these wikis. You are posting your favored wikis in the Lumeniki article. I'm for sourcing these kinds of things. Lumenos 06:11, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm trying to show you why your reasoning is faulty by making pointy edits. Nx 06:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, that's not working because I'm all for you adding your favored wikis to Lumeniki, so long as you do so transparently. Lumenos 06:14, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Just as a side note: What I have planned for Lumeniki is when someone adds "spam", we don't necessarily have to delete it. If someone wants to do a little research, we could add information about the thing being "advertised". This I haven't really decided about but the IP address may be "researched" if they don't use an anonymous one. But text spam is much less annoying than Wikia's apparent advertisements. I allow "InfoAds" at Lumeniki. Lumenos 12:18, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

There was another example where you broke a link I made to your talk page, from the RationalWiki talk page. Why did you do that? Lumenos 05:52, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Because the userlink is still useful. The toolbox links to useful places, something which the creators of this place didn't think of when they moved their user pages into mainspace. Nx 05:55, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I understand about the toolbox sorta, but it helps if I can make a link quickly when you are making a whole bunch of edits at once and generally having your way with the articles. Lumenos 06:09, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

It's not my way. It's the correct way. Nx 06:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't see that it really matters much other than it helps people stalk you. But I'm doing it the "correct" way now. Lumenos 20:08, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Let's try this first, a link to Nx's talk page. Can I do this, Boss? Lumenos 05:57, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

No. why would an article in mainspace redirect to my talk page? Nx 06:00, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Many of the bureaucrats have their pages set up this way. You may have more influence over this wiki than they do. Lumenos 06:06, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

And that is a bad idea, because it makes finding several toolbox links more difficult. Also what influence? Nx 06:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah I got it, Boss. You want people to know about that toolbox and have easier access to your edits here. I thought that might be less commonly known than how to plug a user name into a search engine. But I don't know your definition of "cyberstalking", so I'm not sure I can promise not to do that. I can understand that you probably wouldn't be able to tell us, like Phantom Hoover did, because then we might know how to find the information you don't want us to find. Or maybe you have nothing to hide and it is just more the principle of preventing cyberstalking, that you wish to uphold. Some of your "correct" ways, just don't seem to have any rhyme or reason, to me. Perhaps now you can see why? Lumenos 11:34, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Note first off that it wouldn't take much to have more of an influence than most of the bureaucrats. So perhaps I'm guilty of a little more snarkiness on that point. (Maybe this is incorrect, if they have helped develop Dilley's ideas, or if they are still somewhat active, behind the scenes.) Lumenos 11:51, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

We've spent a great deal of time "debating" and "edit sparring". So, for example, if you say I am a "concern troll", your associates may be inclined to believe you. I think this could influence policies that are eventually developed here. With your activity level and your experience, you may help write unwritten "policies" or "conventions", just as you intend to. Lumenos 11:51, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

It makes it easier to link to information about you. Lumenos 06:07, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Information about me, on my talk page? Nx 06:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Well sometimes it is possible to post there without getting an edit conflict for example. :-P Lumenos 06:21, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Comments on our talk pages are less likely to get reverted. Lumenos 06:22, 10 September 2009 (EDT) (Lumenos was too tired.)

I wanted to source the damn comments on the Lumeniki page is all. Lumenos 20:03, 11 September 2009 (EDT) I'm not all that concerned what is on your user page, just so long as there is a source for these "comments". Lumenos 12:03, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Edit conflicts

1. (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Lumenos‎; 10:11 . . (+224) . . Lumenos (Talk | contribs) (→Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?)
2. (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Lumenos‎; 10:09 . . (+238) . . Lumenos (Talk | contribs) (→Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?)
3. (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Lumenos‎; 10:07 . . (+111) . . Lumenos (Talk | contribs) (→Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?)
4. (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Lumenos‎; 10:06 . . (+35) . . Lumenos (Talk | contribs) (→Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?)
5. (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Lumenos‎; 10:05 . . (+138) . . Lumenos (Talk | contribs) (→Nx do you not want people to know what you are doing here?)

And you're complaining? Nx 06:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Well we should really use a forum. Lumenos 06:15, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

What you should use is the show preview button. Nx 06:16, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't know how that is supposed to help. What I am trying to do now is copy my post, refresh the page, then post it quick. Lumenos 06:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

What I am deciding now to do, is write my post in a text editor, copy, and then all I have to do is add indentations. That way, you can get all your snarky censoring and biased reverts and other such wandalisms. Happy now? Lumenos 06:40, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I'll try to use the preview function more, so that I don't have to edit the same post again. Lumenos 17:19, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Or IRC Lumenos 06:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

But I'm tired. I hate to let you sneakily insert your opinions and censorship everywhere, but I believe I started loosing my mind the last time we were edit sparring. Lumenos 06:17, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Please slow down

Hello, I realize you are attempting to formulate policies here, and it doesn't help that you are a prolific writer - please slow down your edits. Perhaps keeping your ideas on a scratch page till developed, User:Lumenos/Sandbox? Best, MarkDilley

Atomica

Getting a high score on an online game does not make you a genius. It makes you a Bored Teenager. Phantom Hoover 07:08, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Please don't give in to provocations

Hi. I don't know how to put it, but a certain other WikiIndex user seems to be hunting down your edits. That goes against the newly established official policy, so you can guess who I'd rather side with; but your frequent and massive edits are more than a little annoying, so I can understand why he may be upset. Try slowing down a little, and I'll try to make peace between the two of you. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 11:17, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

I thought you said you had put a proposal on the policy page I made (on the talk page). (If that is only a proposal, I guess we should label it as such.) Lumenos 16:52, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Which is the newly established policy you are referring to now? Lumenos 16:52, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Uh... the one right on top of WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines? The one we have already discussed... repeatedly? I thought you had agreed to it in the end. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for clarifying that. I have been putting my policy suggestions in places other than the project page, because I am not an administrator, not because I am agreeing with any of it. I'm really confused here. I don't know if I am on the verge of being banned for excessive posts, or if I am welcome to help develop policy. Lumenos 12:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh, you're welcome to help all right. But judging by the amount of text you post, I'd say you don't want to help, you want to dominate, and that is unacceptable. Now, I don't think banning is a solution, but you have created a conflict here, and it has to be resolved somehow. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 02:18, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

It is a big relief that you do not intend to ban me. I believe conflict can lead to changes that are in "our" mutual interests. (By "our", I mean anyone reading this.) I am not sure whether you are referring specifically to the conflict between myself and the RationalWiki (en) bureaucrats, about including some formulation of a criticism, or if I am involved in a conflict between administrators. (Perhaps there are discussions on IRC or somewhere I am not aware of?) Lumenos 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to visit the IRC channel, if we could meet there it would be a great way to speed up the conversation. Can you suggest a time? I'm on UTC+3 for the next month or so, and I stay online most of the day. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

I didn't see your invitation here until I checked the diff. You, Huw Powel and I, seem to be the only editors who don't always reply at the bottom of a section. If I replied to the comment that you replied to, I would put it under the first reply to that comment. Perhaps why I missed it. Lumenos 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

If you still want to chat: I got my chat software set up with sound notifications. I'll be lurking there when my computer is on. I'm on Pacific Standard Time (like Los Angeles, California). Lately I'm likely to be on 10am - 12pm, but I may be on anytime. Lumenos 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

For conflicts between non-administrators: I could be wrong, it seems one of the main problems we have here is that administrators are being forced to "resolve" disputes that they really have no interest in. I have had a few ideas on how to streamline dispute resolution and get debates to take place away from WikiIndex. To make this brief I will say only that my two best new ideas are: 1) that we can choose arbiters who are not administrators 2) that the arbiters will first announce how much they are willing to read before making their decision. These arbiters could also be WikiIndex administrators, and this process could take place at WikiIndex. Do these sound like manipulative or naive proposals? Lumenos 12:17, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

You're right! Can you guess why admins have no interest in disputes? Because they're counterproductive. Why should we waste a lot of time playing judge and/or debating regulations, when it would be so much easier to follow just one rule: be nice. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

We need a strategy to resolve conflicts with people who are not "nice" by your or my standard. Is criticism nice? I like to be criticized. I think you are more likely to waste time judging regulations because you will have to do that for any controversy instead of using the precedents established by one controversy, to help inform new editors. If you direct editors to talking about policy, instead of edit warring, then they are being nice. Lumenos 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

If I am welcome to help develop policy, what I would do is make a number of proposals and send out requests to administrators and active editors, to vote on these, alter them, or write different ones. Any that have some administrative support I would move out to policy pages with the names of those editors and admins, who support them. These would still be debatable and alterable, but this would be just to get an idea of how things are being run currently. Lumenos 12:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

If you think that helps... The Policies and Guidelines page is a bit confusing right now. But again, why do we suddenly need these regulations? Wikiindex has functioned quite well without them for years. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:18, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Til I came, right? Soon after I arrived (to make an article on Lumeniki) there was a conflict between an admin and the RationalWikian bureaucrats. The conflict was mostly over Proxima undeleting my edits then "blocking" them or something. Both sides seemed a bit hostile to me but Proxima had no block policy to go by. There are just these "policies" that say "don't delete stuff". There are no instructions (for editors or admins) for what to do when editors delete stuff. In the beginning, both sides expressed appreciation for my "intervention". Hoovie gave me a hug (I've been teasing him mercilessly ever since ;-)) and you can see Proxima's comment at the top of this page. DavidCary also expressed some support when other RationalWikians (Rpeh, Huw Powel, etc) were making insults and demands. If you look at Dilley's talk page (do a CTRL + F on "Conservapedia"), or the RationalWiki talk page, you see there were conflicts before I was around. Tell me, what led you to say that you wished you could delete the RationalWiki article? I hope you wouldn't want to do that due to the actions of one editor (me). How would you know that was not all a part of my little plan? ;-) In my view, the content of articles should not be decided based on "favoritism", "punishments", or capitulation. Lumenos 22:16, 3 October 2009 (EDT)