User talk:Blue
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| cierto | 8 | 21:51, 5 November 2011 |
| Please stop | 6 | 13:18, 31 October 2011 |
| Voting vote | 10 | 03:14, 31 October 2011 |
| Drama Dump. | 9 | 01:50, 31 October 2011 |
| Blue2 and template:unsigned | 4 | 23:31, 26 October 2011 |
| reviews | 5 | 03:57, 25 October 2011 |
| brainstar template | 1 | 03:10, 24 October 2011 |
| default sort pagename | 2 | 02:45, 23 October 2011 |
| hmm | 7 | 00:24, 20 October 2011 |
| For your enjoyment | 1 | 18:14, 19 October 2011 |
| Ray Comfort | 12 | 23:22, 18 October 2011 |
| RC quote box | 2 | 22:20, 18 October 2011 |
| rate gadget | 1 | 20:26, 18 October 2011 |
| About the article on Eve... | 2 | 17:02, 17 October 2011 |
| Vote 1 | 1 | 20:51, 14 October 2011 |
| Voting eligibility | 3 | 03:13, 14 October 2011 |
| hotarticlerate2 | 4 | 21:17, 9 October 2011 |
| Api edit bot bug | 0 | 06:41, 9 October 2011 |
| Meh | 0 | 01:06, 9 October 2011 |
| Autosign bot | 0 | 06:43, 6 October 2011 |
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |
cierto
de verdad, hablo espanol y franceis. pero cuando digo "hablo," digo leio. no puedo entender hispanohablantes si no hablan lentemente. y en espanol, no se nada sobre el subjuntivo
Même avec moi. Sauf avec le français. (...something...looks...wrong. OH WELL! I TRIED, Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Ah, Brx, estaba esperando que pudieras entender lo todo, así que pudieramos conversar siempre en español. Pues te recomiendo que estudies más este idioma.
Screw that. I'm not fishing out "ñ" just to say something that anyone can understand regardless. Call me back if I confuse años and anos.
Although, come to think of it, calling someone señorita (ñ is on my clipboard now) is akin to calling someone miss, and Blue might not appreciate that. Who wants to be reduced to their marital status?
Please stop
The joke is getting kind of old, nobody is going to step in and do anything about it, and I can't myself. Make your bot leave me alone, please. I don't want to switch off email notification. Please just stop.
Look.
Your time here has culminated in negative social capital, and that is nobody's fault but your own. Far, far be it from me to blame the victim, but the grief you receive is directly related to the grief you have given others.
There are only a couple users who I believe have had an actively negative influence on this site, and you're not one of them. I would recommend, if you really care about RW, to come back with a new account. Your heart is in the right place, I think.
Voting vote
Thanks for your diligence in composing it, seeking comment, and carrying it through! Considering the scope, the low level of outrage against something changing!??!?11 testifies to your care. Great work!
Thank you! I honestly can't believe that we've had such little HCM in recent months. Is a new Golden Age of RW upon us?
It's hard to say if things are actually calmer and more productive. I'd like to think so, but I'm also aware that I have a vested interest in that belief, since it justifies my own views and my past actions. And even if it's true, it doesn't mean something valuable hasn't been lost along with the riots.
Thankfully, I think there are more than a few users who are dedicated to the tribunal role, searching for authoritarianism and any suppression of free inquiry here. The fact that we have users like Nutty Roux, for example, make me confident that if we start to go down the wrong path, there will be someone there to declare our missteps and rally support against mistakes.
Prepare for long-winded rambling.
I wouldn't trust the RW userbase to organize a pissoff in a brewery, let alone act as watchdogs. We certainly couldn't be trusted with user rights, and we certainly can't figure out what to do with people who rile us up. If I am perceived as authoritarian for attempting to establish a cluocracy in place of an nepotistic adhocracy, so be it. A significant number of users here, including the sainted Nutty Roux, seem to automatically insert their heads up their asses whenever they see good-faith attempts to solve the problems anarchy has caused. They cry "RULESRULESRULESRULESRULES!" (like LX and his REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!) without fail. Some don't seem to understand that this is a website, not a nation-state, and online communities are regulated from the top down to avoid massive implosions like this past May and June's. I get that RW 1.0 and early RW 2.0 were anarchistic. But we have changed, I watched us change, and we are no longer the same community that could once get on without organization of some sort. That really should have become apparent when we lost eight or so users to the May conflicts - but it didn't, of course.
I believe in minimizing all disputes and conflicts that don't relate to our "services," in which I count mainspace articles, WIGO pages, debates, essays, recipes and perhaps the saloon bar and forums. I believe policies and penalties should be dealt with slowly and bureaucratically, the latter through an arbitration body as I described here. I believe in being bold in all other areas. As a practical concern, inter-user disputes that don't involve our "services" should not receive the attention of arbitrators or "moderators," and when they are brought to moderators' attention, they should be treated with a casual disinterest - their only interest being to stop disruption of contribution to our "services," and that the party(ies) with the most reasonable argument should prevail. In other words, a cluocracy established through meritocratic (or even gerontocratic) structures, substituting bureaucracy for ochlocracy.
All of this means that if you want to see the right thing done, you have to work hard for it. If you don't, the bureaucracy will continue to function normally, preventing implosions so that the userbase doesn't have to take an active role in resolution. What we have had is people shouting "don't be a dick" at each other from every possible perspective or loudly complaining about how little the issue matters. We need a place for the loudmouths to vent (away from our "services") while ensuring that those who care have a place for reasonable discussion, discussion which results in action taken and enforced according to the vested authority of arbitrators. I said "authority," wait, that must mean I'm an authoritarian fascist tinpot dictator! Well, no. I do not want authority. I want stability and the flourishing environment of "free inquiry" that is its progeny.
The thing is, the response to this post will be just "RULESRULESRULESRULES!!!!" My plan is more nuanced and more general than "proposing more rules." Rules have a function, but they tend to hamstring (it works great in nation-states, but not in websites). We need fewer rules and policies. We need rough procedures, but what we really need is organization, and that requires people, not rules. We might have been able to do this with the old rank of bureaucrat; but RW was never the type of site that could use traditional moderators, and despite the name, "bureaucrat" was the wiki equivalent of a friendship bracelet among RW cronies, not any kind of functionary position.
Perhaps I'll write a lengthier and more organized essay about my, er, vision/plan. Apologies for the rambling.
Why are you unveiling a plan, Blue? Things seem to be going pretty much OK. Don't rock the boat.
Being proactive is what keeps the boat steady. If we wait until after we've hit the storm to change course, we go down. That's why I pushed for the voting standards in a non-HCM environment, because such a process would be impossible in turbulent waters.
I was going to say "Things might be OK for you but I'm still blocked!" When I realized I couldn't because I was blocked. Then you of all people unblocked me so it sorta lost its relevance. But an all around
to blue, for being spot on. Although, my support might be more of a hindrance at this point. So scratch that, and let me say BRING BACK MARCUSCICERO!!!! RULES SUXX0RS, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE BASICALLY CIVIL TO PEOPLE!!!! FUCK YEAH!!!1
Blue, you're a wonderful person that deserves only the best in life. If I could hug you over the internet, I would.
Drama Dump.
Heh, I was just about to move that also. Thanks for not being taken in by this latest round of trolling. Seriously, Brx offended because I asked "What the fuck are you talking about"? Really.
brx is mc?
MC wrote that article.
I was always rather fond of MC. OK, so I know he could be a pain in the backside and, maybe, I never got the full force of his attention, but he was more directed than some I could think of.
Don't speak about me in the past tense. I am still very much here, alive and well. I still carry a lantern for liberty. I still defy the authoritarian power structures in this place, designed to emasculate us and rob us of our sentience. I have been quiet recently, this is true, but only because my voice has been silenced by a conspiracy directed against me and my good name. This conspiracy relies upon a campaign of misinformation, deceit, and appeals to prejudice against my Irish nationality. My freedom has been deprived of me, and I no longer have the liberty to speak truth to power (A liberty long since abandoned in this place) There is no freedom of speech, accountability or consent of the governed. This is an authoritarian fascist internet statelet that has been over-run by power mad cravens and imbeciles.
I still operate on the sidelines. My sock accounts wreak havoc. Email exchanges plant seeds of doubt, mistrust and betrayal. I am leaking explosive information to relevant personnel. I do this on a drip-drip basis. Slowly I am reassembling a legitimate power base and with the publication of my satirical novel, I will crush the authoritarian dictatorship that has consumed this once virtuous website.
My struggle is a long and lonely one. I am derided at every turn by the sycophants of the system, the blind idiots who censor comments like this one and do all they can to curry favour with the establishment.
Do not allow them to censor me. If they revert this comment or delete it, undo their action. If they deprive you of your natural rights to sysopship, post this comment on your userpage. If they ban you, set up a new account. Resort to emails. Eventually we can prevail. The truth must come out. Power must be held to account. People are born to be free. Don’t let the bastards win.
Actually my reaction was this. So I wasn't really taking offense at first. Then Ace said this, which kind of pissed me off, so given our history I responded with this. That's when he blocked me.
I was mildly surprised Ace McWicked still had block rights given how he would use them to harass people before and there was a big thing and even a new user group handcrafted by tmtoulouse and Nx to keep people from resysopping him. So I asked why he still had his block rights in the sort of place where this sort of thing is discussed.
So what you are saying is, you taunted him. since far as i can tell, he wasn't talking to or about you, but you got offended. Humm....
No, he was talking to me and about me. He said "you two." And Blue, this is so far relevant to the topic. I was explaining that though it seems at first glance that my complaint is making a mountain out of a mole hill, the mole hill in question has been wreaking havoc on my grandfather's garden for years and it's ruining his lawn. My grandfather hates moles (maybe people will like my metaphors better if they turn into jokes before being fully fleshed out and they don't include dead Jews).
Blue2 and template:unsigned
This bot needs a lot of work. Just now I unsigned a comment, which the bot had apparently missed, but it did take the trouble of unsigning my unsignature.
reviews
If you are going to call these, Essays, then all the reviews need to be moved to "essay" space. right now, reviews are held in mainspace.
I put only those reviews which are written as one author's personal experience/thoughts on a text into essayspace, because in that style they are incompatible with mainspace. The others, which are written from the general point of view of our mainspace, are fine as they are.
Well, all the ones by Fed something or other, are his personal views about the books or films and his own counters. I think either "reviews" are essay, or they aren't. and maybe that's something worth deciding or not. But taking some out of essay space and not others isn't consistent.
The difference is easy to see. The ones that use the first person belong in essayspace. The ones which use the third person can be mainspace articles.
The alternative would be to edit all reviews and remove the first person so as to put them all in mainspace, which I don't want to do, especially seeing as Thanatos purposefully put his reviews in essayspace.
That's rather arbitrary and should have nothing to do with how essays are defined. Half of the essays in essay space are 3rd person. Reviews are comments about a film or book by One person. That's what all the reviews in the section "review" are.
Feredir has written most of the reviews in the review cat, and they are all just his opinion. I think "review" should be something distinct from article or essay. but we need to treat all of them the same, and not just say "oh, it's first person".
I am only applying this criterion to reviews, because that is what you asked about. I am not trying to define the entirety of essayspace. There is an arbitrary distinction between reviews, mainspace articles and essays which we need to sort out, and there isn't a magic way to avoid this problem.
The easiest solution would be this: Keep the "reviews" category intact, and let pages' authors be the judge of whether or not their work goes into mainspace (where it can be edited mercilessly) or essayspace (where it can't). If the author of a review voluntarily places it into mainspace, in mainspace it should remain. Anything we find disagreeable can be edited according to the principles of a wiki. But if, as Thanatos did, the author purposefully places their review in essayspace, it should stay there (within reason).
There is no good reason why the reviews category can't span both mainspace and essayspace pages. In the absence of a review namespace it's the best we can do.
brainstar template
are you all trying to put the brainstar template on every page? That is, if i'm doing a random link and it's not got a brain star, should I be putting it in? or are you all doing it systematically?
There's no system to which pages we rate, and yes, we are trying to get all non-stub articles rated.
default sort pagename
Can I ask what that does? I've seen it several times.
Normal category sorting uses the entire page name, including the namespace, i.e. all "User:" pages are sorted into the U's, "Essay:" pages into the E's, etc. {{DEFAULTSORT:}} tells MediaWiki to use a different title to use in sorting, and {{PAGENAME}} generates the page name sans namespace (changing "Essay:Voting" into "Voting," for example).
Ohhh - I wondered how it did that. I figured I'd have 400 pages of "e" for essay. thanks!
For your enjoyment
As a token for your hard work on the voting standards voting. International Woman of MysteryConservapedia has a problem 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Ray Comfort
Did you read the Ray Comfort article before you reverted silver? Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Silver upgrades usually need a discussion/vote on the talk page.
I don't know 'bout what Blue said, I've seen things rated gold without a fancy to-do, but that aside, there's way too much info in the current version for it to be "silver". I mean, not that info is bad, but it's of the "tl;dr" sense to me.
And it's because of concerns like these that we should discuss on the talk page.
(Blue, there are tons of really good articles here that I think could easily be rated silver and no one would bat an eyelash. There's no system for nominationg pages for Silver and gold, - or rather, like everything else, it's a "hit and miss" system. But i'd never revert if someone who is a regular contrib changed an article to silver without "discussion" if it was a good article.
I really think we are all smart enough to know when something should be rerated, and when it's premature.
I am skeptical that we have promoted any article to cover story (gold) without a discussion first, no matter how brief, at least in recent years. I am also skeptical that there are "tons" of articles that could be rated silver without anyone batting an eyelash. There might be a couple, though, and that's why I said these upgrades "usually" need a discussion.
RC quote box
The quote box on the Ray article, the one you just added, seems really BIG for the rather non "wow"ish quote there. Do you have any other quote tricks up your sleve you could try? Something more appropriate of a crappy/unimpressive quote?
There's {{quote}} and {{cquote}}, but they aren't really appropriate for that type of quotation. Idk, really. {{quotebox}} has proliferated.
OK. i was even thinking of pulling the quote itself out. It didn't add that much that wasn't alrady said in paraphrasing.
rate gadget
did you make that? it's - as ADK said, "uber cool".
I made a limited version which was supplanted by Nx's infinitely superior gadget.
About the article on Eve...
Why don't you think it deserves bronze? Let's take a look at the criteria needed for a bronze brainstar, copied from the article on article rating.
- Article must not be a stub or VSA and should not be tagged with any of the "articles requiring attention" categories.
Let's see. Nothing says it's a stub, it's obviously not "very short", and has no "articles requiring attention" tags.
- Article is formatted correctly according to the manual of style.
Okay, I read through the manual of style. I'm already a grammar freak, so that isn't a problem for me. Sections are arranged in the right order. Sections are properly titled. There are no problems with links. References are properly arranged and written, now that that one bug has been fixed. I've provided good edit comments, and didn't use any mass deletions. So far, there are no images (which is a requirement for silver but not for bronze). Everything seems good with this requirement. If anything, you sort of broke it by performing a mass deletion without putting it in the talk page first.
- Article contains appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate.
Yep, this is all peachy keen. There's a lot of blue text (light and dark), it's in more than a few categories, and several references.
- Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content.
No goat jokes or anything. The only joke was the one with Eve discovering gold and silver, but I put the Template:Lie tag and the rest of the article does not read with a humorous tone (it's not dry or dull, either, but it's not funny).
- The article content is original, and not largely copied (even under license).
Only parts I copied was the thing from The God Delusion and an excerpt from the 1611 KJV which was modified so much (modernizing grammar and spelling) that it looks more like the NIV with a few word choice changes. This doesn't seem to be "largely copied" to me.
So it meets all of the requirements for the Bronze brainstar. I've added it back in.
Voting eligibility
In the site notice you say "75 votes and a registration date after August 28". Do you mean before August 28 or am I just a bit slow?
hotarticlerate2
I've added it as a gadget, though I haven't tested it thoroughly. Too tired now.
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |



