User talk:Tmtoulouse
- [Edit↑]
- [Fossil record↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Conservapedia.org | 5 | 01:43, 2 May 2011 |
| Russian RW | 24 | 01:38, 2 May 2011 |
| MW update | 4 | 01:37, 2 May 2011 |
| Logo for separate similar project | 8 | 01:22, 2 May 2011 |
| YWJYCOSgnfg | 0 | 01:22, 2 May 2011 |
| Capturebot | 7 | 15:27, 29 April 2011 |
| Templates | 1 | 11:28, 28 April 2011 |
| Donations | 1 | 17:47, 26 April 2011 |
| My gadgets, where are they? | 3 | 22:34, 23 April 2011 |
| Improving "edit conflicts" | 0 | 12:53, 9 April 2011 |
| I found something on conservapedia that might interest ya'll | 6 | 11:46, 7 April 2011 |
| Problem : science and religion done by the same "scientists" | 2 | 01:15, 22 March 2011 |
| Edit notice | 5 | 21:25, 9 March 2011 |
| 0 | 14:28, 26 February 2011 | |
| Thanks for adding recurring PayPal payments | 0 | 18:15, 22 January 2011 |
| Regarding user "Obama Killer" | 0 | 18:20, 14 January 2011 |
| Voting extension part two | 1 | 18:20, 23 April 2011 |
| Voting extension | 0 | 22:24, 10 January 2011 |
| hihi | 0 | 21:37, 23 April 2011 |
| So you have joined the dark side | 9 | 01:40, 2 May 2011 |
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |
Conservapedia.org
Hi Trent. I was thinking it might be a good idea to register that domain and redirect it here. I dont know if there would be too many related costs but that's up to you. Cheers
Russian RW
I'd also like to set up a russian version of RW, as a trial. I'm still thinking it through, but basically it'd be symlinked to RW's mediawiki and use interwiki transclusion and RW as an external upload directory.
I have some concerns about separate language wikis on a meta level. My main concern is that they become small isolated communities with little to no integration back with the main site. It kinda sucks to work on a wiki where you are the only one editing. While categorized pages here aren't ideal I like that users involved in the construction of the articles are directly in the middle of the existing community, getting welcome templates, and "thanks for your work!" style talk page comments that they likely wouldn't get on a separate wiki. It also creates a bit of serendipitous feedback of people with either no interest in another language wiki but who know the language or people that only know a little of the language being able to make minor corrections or suggestions, or even catching a potential parodist.
I share Trent's view here to some degree, but it's a little chicken and egg.
How can a non-English RW take off and attract a new group of dedicated editors if it isn't given the freedom to move to its own site? But at the same time, how can it justify a move to its own site before it takes off and attracts a group of dedicated editors? (!)
However, if Nx suggests it as a trial, I'd be for that. We'd want to see how it works, how ru.RW would integrate (or not) with en.RW and whether a dedicated language would attract new users. After all, we've already pointed out that the start of a project is always the most exciting for people. It could well be that offering this blank slate could stimulate considerable interest.
I am certainly not shutting down the idea merely expressing concerns I have over it. I initially turned down the idea when it was first proposed because I wasn't even sure we would get anything. But there are now a couple different languages represented on RW. Ideally there is some ingenious technological fix to bridge the communities a bit.
Do we have any evidence of a demand for RW in Russian, beyond that one guy, or a potential demand (e.g. existence of comparable sites in Russian)? I'm not sure that putting effort into creating what may well be an empty wiki is a good idea. Better to see if the onsite content in Russian (& other languages) takes off, then fork it away if it does.
The only evidence I can offer (and it is not specific to Russian language) is that translate.google.com accounts for a significant portion of our monthly site traffic.
It's a chicken and egg thing. Anyway, "that one guy" has already put in a lot of effort, so I think it's only fair to give him a chance with a proper russian site.
MW update
When would be a good time to do an MW update? I think we should decide on a day and then do an update once every month, sort of like patch Tuesday.
If you're busy I can handle it myself, I just wanted to check with you first.
Saturdays are usually are deadest days, want to do something like the last Saturday of the month? Should we get rwbeta back up and running?
Yeah, something like that. Just so people know in advance when to expect it. I probably can't make it this saturday though.
Just let me know, I will spin out rwbeta just so we can make sure something hasn't snuck into the update to cause problems.
Logo for separate similar project
I am very like the logo of RW. And I've decided to create a separate project with similar goals but in Russian. So, can I use this logo? Thank you.
I will see to it that it is put on the Board of Trustees' agenda if/when we meet next. Until then, though, I'd like to see some input from the RationalWiki community, as it is their logo, too.
Personally, I'm okay with it as this is one of the purposes of having the foundation and the copyright held on the logo. For now, I think it's fine to license it to Bertran for this side-project. However, as this is very clearly the first time this has been done we should be open about it.
Capturebot
PING conservapedia.com (65.60.9.250) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- conservapedia.com ping statistics --- 15 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 13999ms
What's up with that? It was working yesterday when capturebot broke, now that I fixed it it's not working.
Could they have 403 blocked it?
It happened before, and autocorrected itself, I say give it a day or so.
No, but the last time this happened other people in the same geographical area as the server were reporting CP being "down" for them too. Then when it was back they reported being able to access it again. CP is just fucked up.
Templates
Hello! Can I ask you to set up few basic templates at ru-rw? I am talking about template template:messagebox and all other required templates for this template. If you'll do this, you can delete (if it would be needed) all existing templates at ru-rw. Simple copying templates didn't give expected result. As it seems, it needs to change some special settings. I am not a programmer, so I probably will do this for a long time with uncertain result. Or, maybe, is there some guide about these settings?
Donations
Hi Trent, I am resident of Ontario, Canada, and I really enjoy reading RW. I am interested in donating, but I would like to know how my money is being spent. I couldn't find anything at the Canadian Revenue Agency, so could you please provide me with your statistics? In addition, what name are you registered under with the CRA? Are my donations tax deductible?
Financial reports, budgets and assets are all kept at the RationalWiki Foundation page. The Foundation that runs the website, and accepts donations, is a US non-profit registered in New Mexico. Donations are not tax deductible.
My gadgets, where are they?
Ah, I think it might be because I changed my settings on RussianalWiki, and there are no gadgets there.
Are those settings stored in the user rights table?
Improving "edit conflicts"
Hi Trent,
"Imptoving" should be of course "mproving" but I don't know how to correct the title.
Those "edit conflicts" are real nuisance for everybody (I think) and since you appeal for donations I could donate my time to fix them (after I understand their machanism). I'm rather new here but I've seen them on wikipedia already and I didn't like them there neither.
I'm a retired software engineer, previously working in real time, mostly in assemblers, but also with higher levels like C, and C++. Except being a software and hardware guy I'm a sculptor now so I might put my clay away for a while and find enough time if you are interested in a donated help.
BTW, it might be more handy if one could edit his stuff directly at the original printout since all translations take place at the local computer so they may be quick enough and besides one doesn't need "show preview" button then since preview is seen all the time in the real time.
I found something on conservapedia that might interest ya'll
If it is parody then we tend to let that lie as exposing it here will lead to it being removed. It is not our responsibility to clean up Conservapedia; the sysops have banned people who try to help there because of some minor ideological difference or not following orders. Let them clean up their own site. However, if it is something that has been posted by a sysop then feel free to expose their idiocy. If you'd like a second opinion you could always email me.
No, it is something that their latest admin added, or didn't notice, check out this image: http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2403/unledwj.png "Christwire" is a parody (fake) website. Obviously, I know this site is not to clean up whackopedia.
Perhaps you can add it to Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?
While amusing I don't think it is WIGO-worthy. Normally it would merit just a comment at TWIGO-CP.
Problem : science and religion done by the same "scientists"
Hi Trent, as a psychologist you might have an opinion in such a case: newer science invalidates older: how to handle such an event not offending old "scientists" who still believe they are right.
Is it possible at all or one has to wait till the old guys die out...
It happened in RW where when Einsteinian gravitation replaced Wheeler's (with its Wheelerian creation of energy from nothing) the folks in RW don't want to accept Einstein's relativity of time and stick to the old Big Bang stuff arguing with me that I must be an idot supporting Einstein with his eternal universe that turned out to be correct Einstein's prediction. And making it even worse, they kept deleteing my essay about it, which made me a little bit nervous and I started not behaving as a coolbloded scientist should. Which I regret but more I care about an answer from a psychologist.
The RW mainspace is not the place to publish your unified theory, we have a respect for science and expertise derived from billions of man hours of the collective work of the scientific community. In other words, expect the peer reviewed scientific consensus to dominate RW articles. The essay space is another matter, and there was a bit of an issue there but I think its resolved.
As for altering existing theories within the scientific community, Thomas Kuhn is the place to turn (with some caveats). But basically for a major shift to occur there have to be an increasing number of problems with existing theories or questions that can not be answered, and the proposed alternative must answer all questions the old model did plus make major in roads into the new questions. Or in other words, your idea has to be better than the old idea.
While individual scientist maybe reticent or have a vested interest the scientific community will eventually see the light. Check out the story of the Helicobacter pylori and stomach ulcers. Evidence wins out in the end.
If an idea is not sound, is not better than existing ideas, and can not make specific predictions which can be tested, then it rightfully will not surpass established theories.
1. I'm not talking here about my theory but Einstein's.
2. Since 1965 when I found accidentally that he was right (also accidentally, and that's why he couldn't prove it) about his idea of stationary universe I'm trying to find out what went wrong with his cosmological constant which he considered "the biggest blunder of his life" (which it might be, but he was only a brilliant physicists, not an applied mathematician. I found that he was just cheated by applied mathematicians whose belief in God was stronger than in a rational brain and honesty.
3. Since I already proved mathematically that the universe might be stationary and eternal despite looking expanding, and also how this apparent expansion should look in our universe, and that it does as predicted by Einstain's theory (which just means that both Einstein's theory and me, might be right, but not necessarily since the precision observations is limited).
So we need more evidence.
4. Then ccomes help to proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis from pure math and Einstein himself and the mathematicians notice the opportunity to sneak God in ito the picture.
Einstein said that "he stopped to understand his theory when mathematicians started explaining it to him" He believed them when they told him that the metric of spacetime tensor has to be symmetric (which is true for all metrics up to three dimenssions, not for 4th dimenssion though). So Einstein assumed symmetric metric for his theory including gravitation. Only in 1950, in his "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation" published in April issue of "Scientific American" he gave up his idea of symmetric metric tensor. It was too late and cosmology went on with symmetric matric tensor of spacetime preserving God as creator of energy from nothing and causing the universe to expand through its divine intervention (since it couldn't be done with the help of physics, which Einstein might have known).
5. As Hertz once said: "some theories are wiser than their creators". Since we are rather sure that creation of something from nothing is impossible (even if it is still a popular idea among crationists and if it does not apply to souls :) Einstein as an atheist couldn't believe in creation of energy from nothing despite Wheeler's Big Bang and not knowing how to prove mathematicians wrong, just kept his doubts doing nothing
6. So today I'm trying to protect Einstein theory from phony "theory" by 3 applied mathematicians Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, both still alive, and John Archibald Wheeler (already dead), authors of 1279 page "Bible" titled "Gravitation". AThe gentlemen call themselves theoretical physicists added to Einstein's theory (after his death) three axioms, to "prove" the existnce of God but never mentioned in their monograph, that 23 years earlier Einstein gave up his symmetric metric of spacetime. Some astrophysicists suspected something fishy when they learn from Catholic professors that energy can be created "somehow". Not many protested though... And today creation of energy from nothing is third axiom of "theoretical physics" (one can't prove that one can't since one can't prove a negative proposition), which with God axiomized already is not that easy to fix. At least by Catholic professors or priests who love cosmology.
7. Creationists call their doctored theory Einstein's theory or the Big Bang "theory" on other occasions (despite it is not a theory but only a 3 lame axioms: (i) that universe is expanding)("somehow": presumably by the action of "dark energy"), (ii) that the spacetime is curved (either positively or negatively: just somehow" but is not "flat" since then energy couldn't be created out of nothing, for mathematical reasons, which some people mix with curved space, a necessary feature of space), and (iii) that energy can be created ("somehow"). The support for this action comes from The Templeton Foundation as illustrated by a grant of $1,600,000 to mathematician, physicist, astronomer, and Catholic priest Michael Heller) from whom I learned that he works on axiomization of "Einstein's" theory. Spooky?
8. How to contact Thomas Kuhn?
9. What are those caveats (is he a member of Opus Dei by any chance? :)
Edit notice
Hello there. I was wondering if you could make an edit notice for certain articles, in particular Andrew Schlafly, because I just find the gray banner at the top distracting for readers. It seems it would be more appropriate to create an edit notice instead, so that it shows only when a user edits the page. Thanks!
Here's an idea: take it to the talkpages of the articles in question. That way everyone can discuss it and come to a consensus as to what they think that articles should look like.
Um, go fuck yourself? Try that instead. No wonder why you have so many trolls attacking you. Lolz.
Voting extension part two
See RationalWiki_talk:2010_board_of_trustees_election/Election_booth#Forging_votes.
To open the polls, uncomment the line:
#$wgElectionName = "2011board";
in LocalSettings.php. Votes are saved to a file called {$wgElectionName}.blt in public_html/w. I've made it inaccessible from the web in .htaccess (btw, the previous file is accessible from the web).
Candidates can be specified in LocalSettings using $wgElectionCandidates. The election name variable is used for the filename and to record who has already voted. There's a table in the database called rw_election_voted that contains the user id and the election name for anyone who has voted.
Eligibility is determined using $wgAutopromote (see w/extensions/Election/Election.php).
So you have joined the dark side
There seems to have been a bit of a rush on today.
I am always down for passive aggressive tactics.
Really not following you. I noticed on PZ's blog everyone that has commented seem to be anti-lambic beer (not to be confused with Beer Lambert), especially fruit ones. As you seem to reserve your strongest opinions for beer, what are your thoughts?
Where am I? Who are these messages?
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |



