We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
|Goal: $5000||Donations so far: $2890|
Help and donate today!
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Allow Tor editing, but with a longer time to become autoconfirmed||1||18:39, 25 May 2012|
|Request||1||18:48, 10 April 2012|
|Regarding AbuseFilter||2||02:57, 10 April 2012|
|sorry for my rudeness||0||00:31, 10 April 2012|
|Trent, I'm imploring you||2||19:11, 9 April 2012|
|This is going to sound a little nuts||4||18:48, 9 April 2012|
|Trent, I'm imploring you||0||19:17, 8 April 2012|
|Captcha||1||17:52, 31 March 2012|
|Thornhill and Palmer||0||23:42, 25 February 2012|
|Email sent to you||1||08:52, 23 February 2012|
|Raymond Tallis||2||03:33, 18 February 2012|
|Heartland Institute FYI||5||04:30, 16 February 2012|
|Google plus hangout||3||13:12, 6 February 2012|
|Moderator election votes||2||23:47, 5 February 2012|
|Wiki4CAM's article on you||17||14:19, 24 January 2012|
|0||00:43, 15 January 2012|
|Rebuild recent changes||3||14:59, 4 January 2012|
|On the social media thing...||7||08:55, 4 January 2012|
|Polls for the moderator position will open at 7pm EST.||1||02:49, 30 December 2011|
|1||21:48, 11 December 2011|
Even WP allows Tor editing, but you are held to a higher standard before you become autoconfirmed. I don't think it should be blocked entirely.
Hey Trent, so you think we can get this page back in Recent Changes? It's no longer a danger of inundating RC, quite the opposite in fact. I think it needs any visibility it can get if we want to close out the remaining 150+ articles. Thanks.
I don't know if you'd considered this, but the AbuseFilter extension can also test whether an edit was made by a TOR exit node.
Turn off IP editing until somebody figures out a way to shut this asshole down. Show some respect for the community at large.
But has UHM contacted you asking you to corroborate his confession? The server side implied guilt assertion is awfully vague.
Perhaps when you have the time you could take some of it to release the data?
I know UHM is innocent and I won't see him bear this cross. And no, it wasn't me either.
"server log and other evidence backs up that he is a far more likely candidate than brxbrx, matching user strings in the log file, knowledge of templates, css, etc."
I never knew UHM to have any sort of programming experience.
CSS isn't a programming language. It's a stylesheet language to make stuff look pretty for marke-up languages - or somthing like that. That's like saying morse-code is a language.
All I can say is that the user agent strings from when UHM deleted stuff this morning are a better match for the vandal than the brxbrx were. Also brxbrx never should any competency or knowledge with setting up and using templates. UHM the first thing he did was start coding templates. Therefore, between the two individuals what evidence it is possible to gleam UHM is the better match than brx.
That said it does not prove anything. Personally I don't really care, I got a kick out of the the little back-and-forth with the vandal and the spamregex. I know a lot of other people took it a lot more negatively than me though. I think it would have been better if I hadn't have been at a family egg hunting pagan festival that day.
And anyway my interactions with both brx and UHM are limited at best. I am not even sure what the conflicts are about on either side. I am neutral though I stuck my vote in on the ban just to drop the info I had. I actually like Nutty Roux idea more.
Trent is there somewhere that as a moderator I can review the list of questions or is it something server-side only?
I just wanted to let you know that I sent an email to firstname.lastname@example.org for your eyes. Essentially, I'm trying to find good fits for wikimedia "alliances", and RationalWiki is perfefct in my eyes.
What is your opinion, sirrah? I was thinking of picking up Aping Mankind but this review has dissuaded me.
I can't say that I have followed him very closely and haven't read the book. It seems very much a God of the gaps argument. I will be the first in line to criticize the way a lot of modern neuroscience is getting extrapolated out. I have spent the better part of the last 2 years working intimately with cutting edge analysis techniques of fMRI data, unfortunately, true analysis seems to be relegated primarily to methods papers and psychology and neuroscience are using extremely facile techniques and extrapolating well past what is reasonable. My primary area of study has been in computational modelling and the development of conceptual models for neural systems, and again, will be the first to admit that our models only offer the barest hints and analogies to the true functioning of real neural systems.
While the list of things we don't have a clean mechanistic explanation for is huge, there is still significant progress being made. The next gen technology for non-invasive neuroimaging is amazing and will be out the door soon, I expect to see exponential growth in our ability to trace "mind" to material processes. What it comes down to is every time we find an explanation for something its based in biology and mechanistic material actions. Claiming that the things we can't get explain, now that is where the "mind" lives is no different than the same ontological god arguments seen in every other area of science. How many gaps can we close till people stop shoving "mind" in every new gap?
On the issue of the difference between human and other animals I am a bit more conflicted. Obviously we are animals and everything is a matter of degree. But there are very significant unique elements to human psychology. We can actually trace these difference directly to anatomical difference in brain structure but that still related to the previous point. I have never been overwhelmingly impressed with the supposed examples of culture, language, art, ect. in other animals. While it is certainly there in some rudimentary sense, there is something uniquely different about what humans have developed, not merely a new iteration of the same theme.
This needs to be heavily qualified though. I do not believe that having truly distinct traits is unique to humans or that our development is some how making us superior to other animals. There are many examples of species whose evolutionary trajectory has lead to highly developed and distinct traits not shared by other extant species.
But back to point. None of his ideas are particularly new nor do I see anything compelling in his arguments to overthrow materialistic neuroscience as the premier paradigm for modern research into the brain and human psychology.
I was hoping for a compendium of criticisms of "Darwinitis" and "neuromania," which aren't exactly new, as you note, but it's handy to have something like that all in one place. I agree with what you say, though. From the review, it sounds like he's trying to rescue some kind of mysterian position in the process, something I'm definitely not very favorable to.
I quoted the blogs about the Heritage Institute budget on the page. They issued a general legal threat in, of all places, press release: "The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions." Sounds like denialist overkill, but you're in charge. Rid?
Bluster and bluff. Even in the most favourable sense they have to directly contact us with a take down request, a press release is not a legal request.
Seems deleted now. Shame, I thought we could do with another notch in the bedpost, it's been a while.
Scratch that, found the release. Amused by the use of "total fake" in an apparently formal setting.
One idea that might be easier than a podcast (if people don't mind that it's not edited) is a Google Plus hangout, not unlike what Phil Plait does with Bad Astronomy each week. He has people hangout (but not actually chat with him) and answers questions in the comments. (He also records at least parts of them, for example here. I guess it depends a bit if you want to have prepared material or questions, etc., and how "refined" you want them to be.
This would be interesting, and certainly I know a few of us might be interested in something like Blogging Heads, though we'd have to consider what that would do to the pseudo-anonymity aspect of the wiki.
True, although I think the anonymity issues aren't as much of a concern to many people as they used to be, when the interface with CP was more relevant.
Hi Trent. I was sorta hoping for a response to this. I voted for fourteen candidates, including myself as first choice. This combination does not appear among the published results, so I can only assume that my votes were not counted. Any idea how or why this might have happened?
Because of the way information is stored I can pull out your specific vote but I can check a few things. You are marked down as having voted in the database and the number of votes in the ballot file corresponds directly to the number of people marked as having voted. I did find a vote that had you first and had 14 votes casts I assume that is you. It did not appear to make it into my cut and paste of the results on the website. Must have lost some votes during the formatting for posting to RW. This is why I fucking hate trying to post the raw data cause something always goes wrong in the reformatting to more human readable.
Here's something to laugh at. Careful, they might astrally rain knives on you. Or something.
Ah its good old Ramanand Jhingade, thanks for the heads up. I think I will go poke it.
The funniest part is how that idiot doesn't even know how to make a proper redirect.
Yeah, spotted that in RC... oh Ramarama Jingjong, we love you really.
I disagree with the factual claim that Trent says all that much about politicians, to the extent he says anything at all. But otherwise it's fine.
Well, it's been cleaned up now.
@Nutty: given that the current article was written by Trent, I see no reason to question it. The old version was much more hilarious, though. Talk about a guy with a childish vendetta against this place......
The previous version before I poked it:
"Trent Toulouse, also known as T.M. Toulouse is a skeptic who criticizes everything he is ignorant about through his wiki blog, www.rationalwiki.org. Chiropractic, Homeopathy, the Silva Method, Reiki and so on, are criticized simply because their effects cannot be explained.
He criticizes people as well. While politicians are his favorite target, he blogs about alternative medicine practitioners as well, in a defamatory way, by calling them, ‘quacks’, even if they are qualified and licensed to do what they do.
He is also a racist, as he believes that people of African origin should rightfully be called, ‘Niggers’ or ‘Blacks’ (just because of their skin color) and people of Indian origin are, ‘worms’, eating away the ‘white man’s’ job (even though they come with proper visas, at the invitation of the Governments of the West – U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and so on.). Those who want to get even with him, may find him at the “McMaster University”, Canada, where he is a Psych PhD candidate (a photograph of him can be seen on the top right).
He scornfully disrespects astral projection and witchcraft as well. Those who can project themselves astrally, can astrally project themselves to the “McMaster University”, Canada, where he is a Psych PhD candidate and rain knives on him (a photograph of him can be seen on the top right). Sorcerers and witches can use the photograph of him, seen on the top right and make it unbearable for his soul to remain in his body (the body should not be able to house any soul after that)."
Please run the script to rebuild recent changes, it appears that the patrolled and bot flags got lost, but only in the recent changes table.
If I go to a diff from recent changes it says it's not patrolled and the mark as patrolled button is there, but if I go to the history and click the diff there, the mark as patrolled option disappears.
I am working on rebuilding all the generated tables to see if it helps the search problem.
I'd love to take up the RW Twitter page, but not sure if I'd have the time to do the others. I'm a journalism major at Guelph-Humber in Toronto, so it fits right in with what I'm doing right now.
Is it this account? And if so, what's the news with that? The FB page is ticking over nicely, actually, so I imagine Twitter would work providing people were willing to work on it, and we clearly do have people keen on running it!
Trent seems to have been MIA for about a month. I imagine it's work-related pre-occupation and stress.
I have sent you an important e-mail sir. Please respond when you get the chance. Thank you.