User talk:Exiled Encyclopedist
(→Application for administrator privileges; or for Miekal not to have them, either one works.) |
(→Application for administrator privileges; or for Miekal not to have them, either one works.) |
||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
::::My favored attention block is 5 minutes so if for whatever reason anything like that happens again it isnt like your locked out forever. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ::::My favored attention block is 5 minutes so if for whatever reason anything like that happens again it isnt like your locked out forever. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::Here. Try it out, just try and be better at the whole article thing. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | :::::Here. Try it out, just try and be better at the whole article thing. --[[User:Miekal|<span style="color:#009900">''Mie''</span>]][[User_talk:Miekal|<span style="color:#003399">''kal''</span>]] 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | {{od|5}}[[RationalWiki:Sysop guide|Here is a link]] you may find useful. Oh, and by the way, you're blocked for a day, which now means you get to figure out how to unblock yourself. Nothing personal, just part of the ritual. [[User:Sprocket J Cogswell|Sprocket J Cogswell]] ([[User talk:Sprocket J Cogswell|talk]]) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 13 June 2014
Greetings, Amateur Encyclopedist, and thank you for joining our slutty wiki! I hope you enjoy your time here.
Radioactive Misanthrope 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind hello. I was exiled from my home village (wikipedia) and must now prove myself to the ominous council of 12 (arbcom) should I ever be allowed to return and right my past wrongs. I figured this wiki would allow me to mix seriousness and humor instead of doing one or the other; which can be annoyingly limiting at times. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's too bad about Wikipedia :-( But I hope you like RW enough to stick around!
Radioactive Misanthrope 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was my own fault for pushing boundaries one too many times. I just hope they remember I did more good than bad; and that my mistakes at least had good, if misplaced intentions. I don't suppose you know of a wiki where you can suggest experiments for scientists to do, do you? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, no.
- Oh, for future reference, could you indent your replies with a colon? It makes it easier to follow a conversation (you can see how by many colons by clicking to edit a page, and adding one extra to the number of the post you're responding to).
Radioactive Misanthrope 22:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cool; thanks.
- It was my own fault for pushing boundaries one too many times. I just hope they remember I did more good than bad; and that my mistakes at least had good, if misplaced intentions. I don't suppose you know of a wiki where you can suggest experiments for scientists to do, do you? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's too bad about Wikipedia :-( But I hope you like RW enough to stick around!
Contents |
you
don't really need to pick a fight in the article creation summary.--Miekal 23:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- jsyk, Your article is up for a deletion vote and even if it doesnt get deleted theres been questions raised of it's accuracy and it's quality. Those are going to come back to hit you if they don't get addressed early..--Miekal 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
though
Original research is sometimes great, but if its OR that isn't true, or is just what you want it to be is true, it's not so great. So if your going to do it, do justify it. i;m guessing you were \kicked from Wikipedia because you didn';t like that rule. .--Miekal 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
For the love of God.
If you don't know how to use semicolns, don't use them. Nobody will think less of you. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Three reasons god cant exist
first you really need to learn how to format stuff.
- Now on to the point of this
- " you can't know the future and be omnipotent; it's one or the other." Says who?
- "Second the idea god is all compassionate is offensive to anyone whose watched a child die" Yes, but mysterious ways. Also this doesn't disprove god exists, just disproves compassion as a trait.
- " Third killing nearly all life on the planet with a flood is generally seen as evil by most peoples standards; the bible didn't mention anything anything about a planet wide torture epidemic that would warrant doing that." Evil people doing evil things apparently. Also see above.
- If you plan to go into glorious battle to disprove god, please, find better arguments.--Miekal 19:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You forgot the part where I said he could exist but would responsible for criminal ass holetry. Also logical paradoxes are perfectly fine arguements; such as can god make a boulder so big he cannot lift it? The arguements are fine; they are just philosophical rather than scientific arguments. I will add that good in my complaining is defined in terms of Utilitarianism. Now if they somehow violate RationalWiki's rules please inform me what rules they violate. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- When i said "says who" i meant "how?". What specifically makes being all powerful and knowing the future mutually exclusive. As for "being responsible for criminal actions" i know few Christians who dont attribute good and bad to god, its just the latter half isn't specefic to what god wants happening--Miekal 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Technically an omnipotent being could change the results of radio carbon dating tests like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and just create fossils; so those arguments also don't work. That gets closer to Descartes territory though. Also as the FSM shows not all arguments against god need to involve science. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- We are really into the old "First define your God" problem.
- The more specifically a god is defined the the easier it is to refute its existence. The more superpowers a theist postulates the more likely they are to run into contradictions. The more positive human qualities gods are given - such as "mercy" or "justice" - the more likely you are to run up against examples where these traits are contradicted in the whatever holy book you might consider.
- On the other hand, the more theists try to avoid these pitfalls by avoiding making specific claims, the less relevant, influential and powerful their god becomes. So perhaps you should be a little more clear about which of the many versions of god your arguments are directed against.
- Oh, and "hi"!--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- "No religion mentions time travel but einstein did!" so fucking what?--Miekal 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Am I actually violating any of the sites rules or just using non scientific arguments? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are most certainly not violating any rules with the opinions you have put on your user-page. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all, i'm just trying to figure why you think these are compelling arguments. especially your first one--Miekal 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- this debate has useful chat about evidence, logic and faith, if you're interested. SophieWilder
20:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- this debate has useful chat about evidence, logic and faith, if you're interested. SophieWilder
- Not at all, i'm just trying to figure why you think these are compelling arguments. especially your first one--Miekal 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are most certainly not violating any rules with the opinions you have put on your user-page. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Am I actually violating any of the sites rules or just using non scientific arguments? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- "No religion mentions time travel but einstein did!" so fucking what?--Miekal 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Technically an omnipotent being could change the results of radio carbon dating tests like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and just create fossils; so those arguments also don't work. That gets closer to Descartes territory though. Also as the FSM shows not all arguments against god need to involve science. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- When i said "says who" i meant "how?". What specifically makes being all powerful and knowing the future mutually exclusive. As for "being responsible for criminal actions" i know few Christians who dont attribute good and bad to god, its just the latter half isn't specefic to what god wants happening--Miekal 19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Why
Exactly were you banned from wikipedia, may I ask?--Miekal 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- For speeding. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
How writing works.
Why do you think the sentence you inserted in this paragraph is at all relevant to said paragraph? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose it would have made more sense as a one sentence paragraph. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- One learn to use indents. Two that isn't the proper place for that--Miekal 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- We both learned something today. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- One learn to use indents. Two that isn't the proper place for that--Miekal 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What's up block?
- Please specify Miekal as to why you blcoked me; Father Vivian just made my one sentence contribution to Forteanism it's own paragraph; hardly vandalism. You seem to be abusing your seniority. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- To make you stop for a moment and think as to why those edits weren't in the right place. And to wonder why you added content then right away deleted it as wrong.--Miekal 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you think realizing your own mistakes quickly is a problem, that is a problem. (You still haven't fessed up to the capitalization issues.) Why isn't drapetomania pseudoscience worth mentioning on rat wiki exactly. Or why is it not worth mentioning at least somewhere on the Szasz page when Szasz popularized the term? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's worth mentioning somewhere, just not randomly tacked onto an articles lead.--Miekal 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, that's a valid point. Would that somewhere be the same article or a different one? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ask somebody who can write articles.--Miekal 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting you would claim neither of us has that ability. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ask somebody who can write articles.--Miekal 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, that's a valid point. Would that somewhere be the same article or a different one? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's worth mentioning somewhere, just not randomly tacked onto an articles lead.--Miekal 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you think realizing your own mistakes quickly is a problem, that is a problem. (You still haven't fessed up to the capitalization issues.) Why isn't drapetomania pseudoscience worth mentioning on rat wiki exactly. Or why is it not worth mentioning at least somewhere on the Szasz page when Szasz popularized the term? Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- To make you stop for a moment and think as to why those edits weren't in the right place. And to wonder why you added content then right away deleted it as wrong.--Miekal 19:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Application for administrator privileges; or for Miekal not to have them, either one works.
I would like to be an admin on rational wiki and would be more than happy to prove myself capable. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to hash this out in the coop, you may, but it would be... unwise -it takes a lot to convince other users to remove sysopship, once given. If you want to be a sysop, that's an easier matter. People become sysops easily here. It took me six months, but I was an exception, and I got along fine without it. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Three months, not six. Anyway, congratulations your demotion! I think. I forget how the joke goes. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to make him a Sysop as like i said, he isn't crazy, i just don't like that you, if i remember right, also get auto patrolled as a sysop and it's my opinion he needs a bit of attention to his edits at the moment.--Miekal 19:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I would prefer being a sysop, however long that would take. Is there anyone in particular you would recommend I contact in case I get blocked? I know some people are more active on ratwiki than others; I'll probably be editing less as time goes on. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link you may find useful. Oh, and by the way, you're blocked for a day, which now means you get to figure out how to unblock yourself. Nothing personal, just part of the ritual. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)