RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Spit.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. A question about pseudo law. (02:58, 31 Aug 2015)
  2. The X-Files (04:43, 30 Aug 2015)
  3. The quantum physics debunkers? (11:39, 29 Aug 2015)
  4. Manosphere Thesaurus (17:04, 25 Aug 2015)
  5. Question: How do I make a fun/essay page? (18:02, 20 Aug 2015)
  6. CAIR entry, other changes needed to be made (19:40, 15 Aug 2015)
To do list


[edit] Article for false rape accusations.

Given how a lot of crank ideas surround it, with your help I would like to create a balanced article for false rape accustions. I'm going to need a lot of Sysops to help play janitor on it though. Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oh! Can I help out? I can do something about the perspective on rape/false rape in Latin America. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Sure thing. Just please make sure any claims are reliably sourced. Unsourced claims make us look bad. Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make sure to find some sources. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] Articles in Spanish

I'm thinking of porting over/translating as many articles as possible to Spanish so that the growing Spanish-speaking audience can understand the RW mission better. Anyone want in? It could start out with using Google Translate to put out a rough starting base and going from there, fixing errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and the like. We can do this for as many articles possible as it takes. As I said earlier, anyone want in? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

I think i'm weary of hosting on RW other languages if it's going to be a dedicated effort with a lot of articles - a community that can't speak english is somewhat useless to a english wiki (and we can hardly service them either when the articles aren't enough) but one that has it's own RW - affilliated place (like that russian site we have) seems more useful to everybody.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
We can ask Trent or David if they're willing to set up a dedicated Spanish subdomain of RationalWiki. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That sounds pretty great, too. I was just curious because a) the Spanish language world is one of the largest, and b) that in the Latin American nations, there is a lot of creationist/conservative rhetoric that influences most of daily life there. Let's just say that when your own ethnic homeland brutally murdered hundreds of student protesters during a Dirty War, you might want to rethink the effectiveness of the dominance of conservative policies in the government. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I will inevitably make a few minor edits to any newly created pages in Spanish. In the unlikely event that a new Spanish only version of RationalWiki is set up, I'll register there too. Spud (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Translating a pile of English articles strikes me as a terrible idea. If someone wants to write skeptical stuff in Spanish that'd be great. We usually do it by putting them in mainspace with a suitable category - see the French articles for examples.
Main thing is having more than one person interested - see the recent kerfuffle with the Portuguese articles that turned out to be self-promotional complete shit - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd go along with that. Leave machine translation out of it. Well, I see that, apart from me, the category Hablantes de espaňol includes six other people and one template. Unfortunately, only one of those six other people has edited here in donkeys years. Still, I can promise you that nobody will post self-promotional complete shit (or Jew baiting) in Spanish while I'm around. Spud (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What Gerard said. Remember the last time a noob showed up and started writing articles in a language other than English and we had to go through the wiki and delete a bunch of off-topic stuff, articles based on personal crankish grudges, and anti-semitic passages written in Portuguese? Unless a serious number of established editors who are proficient readers of a language will commit to monitoring this, it's a bad idea. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] *judgementally wags finger*

I think it's pretty disappointing how the main reasons cited in favour of resolving this issue over here were "this is embarrassing, hide it away in the archives already" and "this is ugly, get this out of my sight!" Meanwhile there was very little talk about actually addressing any problems. Sadly, I can't say I'm surprised. Also, while I do apologize for being the arrogant moralist in the room bar, I thought this was something that should be brought up, and since no one else was gonna do it... (talk) 09:57, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I think there were some editors who just thought this should never have been a coop case to begin with. Most of what was discussed there could have been dealt with on the article talk page. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it could have (it probably should have), but despite oblong discussions (interspersed with repeated derailings, trollish BS and petty quips) it didn't. The whole reason why the issue spilled over into the coop was because there was a lack of sane non-trollish voices to oppose all the bullshit. Admittedly there were a few people that tried to involve themselves in the discussion, but their points mostly amounted to superficial "you damn kids are making too much of a ruckus, be quiet" arguments (and for some reason seemed to focus mainly on pointing out Mona's argumentativeness and the fact Chris often writes sizable blocks of text, leaving much of the actual bullshit largely unaddressed). So maybe when an issue does spill over, perhaps the best way to react is not "quick, wipe it underneath the carpet". (talk) 11:51, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
This reminds me of when people were arguing "this is a fucking ugly issue, let's cut the article back as much as possible to minimize the ugly shit there is to look at" in regards to the Gamergate article. Using that same retarded reasoning, you could argue for the deletion of most of the wiki, because it's about ugly issues. (talk) 13:12, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Embarrassed about being a member of the RW community, that's stage 2 of being an editor. I'm sorry son, it's terminal. Tielec01 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping to genetically engineer a stage 3 where we all stop being assholes and start taking the debunking of bullshit more seriously. (talk) 14:26, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah I also think the coop case was buried to fast (swept under the rug if you may) before there was actually any resolution of any issue Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I hate to be the one that tells you, there's no stage 3, it stops at stage 2. It ends here... Tielec01 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)–
Bah, that's fatalism and an appeal to nature. There's no physical law or moral rule keeping us from engineering a stage 3. (talk) 14:50, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's just what an in denial stage 2-er would say right now.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The next stage is LANCBing and when you return you go back one stage. Het is niet goed. I'm sorry, all the best humble BON, you were one of the best. Tielec01 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, dang, now I got pulled into RW recurrent problem #2: humorous derailings when we're talking about serious issues. (talk) 15:13, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
If it makes you feel better you're right, this is one of a million issues that was buried quickly to stop everyone feeling uncomfortable about breaching the cardinal rule of RW. You're still only at stage 2. Tielec01 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
What is the cardinal rule? All cardinals have to be shot on sight, lest they become pope? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's that you should always keep smaller birds in mind when setting up a feeder. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Basically it was at "Don't make me come over there" stage, where the mods would actually have to get together and decide something, and ain't nobody wants that (particularly mods: "what? I have to think about this idiocy?"), and a lot of it was stupid bullshit that should never have happened. Anyone who feels dissatisfied by the conclusion should try being less of an arsehole and see how it works out - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you did anything particularly wrong in the resolution and archival process, but calling what happened a 'conclusion' is being rather generous. A sentiment expressed by many was that the issue and how some were dealing with it was blatantly stupid/ugly/embarrassing (I agree up to that point) and that it should therefore be quickly hushed away to then be swiftly forgotten about by anyone not involved in it. I think the latter part of that is very problematic. This proactive apathetic/dissociative sentiment is not conducive to the furthering of RW's goals. (talk) 17:14, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Not actually dealing with the underlying issues is a well honored and oft-tested Rw tradition. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Down with traditions! Viva la revolucion! (talk) 17:33, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Let's break, archive this nonsense, and get back to debating the cranks. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
But arguing against crank ideas is something I'm already doing in this very section! (talk) 17:49, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Zionism is not a crank idea. It might have been when Theodor Herzl came up with it (at least in the minds of other people), but if we say it like that the American Revolution was even crankier. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Avenger! While I consider nationalism in general a pretty cranky category of ideas, I actually hadn't argued against Zionism—or even mentioned it by name—in this section so far, so that wasn't what I was referring to. (talk) 20:28, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
That awkward moment when... WalkerWalkerWalker 20:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
...One's dishonest biased tactics are laid bare? (talk) 20:38, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd've worded it "one fails to read and presumes the evil anti-Zionists are busy spreading their Iranian propoganders," but you can say it that way. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I may have misunderstood, we are a bit slow in (place I come from), so which crank ideas were you refuting if not Zionism. (which just to be absolutely clear is not a crank idea) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It was primarily an unnnecessary shitshow between two anti-Zionists - includes you - and a couple of people who disagree with you. Do not be surprised that people lost patience with your shenanigans so quickly. --Castaigne (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that's a very objective non-opinionated presentation of events. And here I thought you were so big on facts, Castaigne. (talk) 23:02, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Bah. Facts are inconvenient things. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Facts have a well known atheist bias. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You make my point for me. ;) WalkerWalkerWalker 03:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I HAVE RETURNED!!!!

DUN DUN DUN!!!!!!! well im back from my summer absence, i just decided to take a break for the summer, but now im back! NOW SHOWER ME IN GLORY!!!! BWUHAHAHAHAH! Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 18:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot you existed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this guy supposed to be important or something? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
He's just a regular editor. No need to be overly dismissive nor overly reverent of him. (talk) 21:25, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
'sup.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
on my part this was a terrible attempt at forced humor I posted a lot late April through May this year. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 21:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Modern scientists have long since passed the power and strength afforded to your feeble god

The onion on GMOs ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted, prior. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] My first essay

Shameless plug (what did you expect me to link to, honestly?). My first essay is now fully written. I would love to engage y'all in a - hopefully civil and productive - discussion about something entirely unrelated to Zionism. Thanks. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say instead of "terrorism", "DAESH, a couple less murderous oppressive regimes, and terrorist groups supported by any of these regimes" would be more accurate. I'm also skeptical of how big an effect raising the tax would really have. As Arisboch proposed on the talkpage, making everything fossil-fuel-free would be much more effective. (talk) 22:21, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Sure that is the lofty end goal - getting rid of all fossil fuels. But we need a workable solution to get close to that lofty goal 'now. Also, I'd appreciate if you could discuss that at the essay talk page and not here, as I don't have the Saloon bar on my watchlist. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Given the US political landscape, widespread adoption of renewable energy might be likelier to happen than raising taxes. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite some renewable energies being "mature" enough to be cost-competitive right now, they will need some sort of subsidy / guaranteed loans / the likes for at least the next two years. And cars don't run on renewables. For the most part, cars run on gas. The percentage of electric cars is negligible and will remain so until and unless gas gets more expensive Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The technicalities are sound, I just don't believe that the political landscape will support it, even if that turns out to be to the country's detriment. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I know. That's why I formulated my proposal in a way that would please the right wing. After all, who could ever be for terrorism? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] My second essay

This one on constitutional amendment is now out. check it out Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Of primaries and conventions

2017 Project puts out some stupid at times, but this caught my eye recently. It's one of the more interesting proposals for revamping presidential primaries that I've seen in a while, possibly because there aren't many beyond "make campaign season shorter somehow" and "it costs too much" and "holy shit Trump w0t" floating around that I've seen. Thoughts? WalkerWalkerWalker 09:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A pretty sensible Republican nomination reform suggestion. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Well, compared to the rest of the site, it is fricking genius... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] (Not a) programme for revolutionary change

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:Community Standards.

As many of you know (and some of you might remember) RationalWiki last elected moderators in 2013, over two years ago. For those who forgot, moderators are indeed still a thing; President Cicero did not abolish them. : P Anyhow, I had prepared some grand spiel to go here, but I'd rather put it simply: it's past time to dissolve this !Parliament and call elections, helping to ensure that the moderators will continue to be viewed by RationalWiki as a genuinely representative (even if (hopefully) abnormally even-keeled) force, and furthermore allowing the mob at large to make (or reaffirm, as the case may be) choices of moderator best suited to the current needs of RationalWiki. Therefore, I propose an election be held the week of November 23, 2015, for seven moderators and two alternatives, with nominations taken the week of November 2. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need 7, but happy to just accept this to get a vote done. Tielec01 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The seven/two bit was just chosen as a stare decisis thing; I do not presently oppose a reduction in numbers; I just wanted to leap into one controversy at a time. WalkerWalkerWalker 09:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. One for the Saloon Bar - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
D'oh. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
...and tada. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Elections? Those sound dangerous! i'd still rather see a different way of getting mods besides biannual elections (namely, a revert to how Crats worked where we just sustain ourselves by having trusted users added in or removed as time goes by, as i'd like to believe we'd be able to not have things go all may11 again) but, if it's what other people wanna do, i'd support it. Would new mods get those fancy capes you asked about? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Debatable, but David probably won't get a complete Dr. Doom costume. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
On a more serious note, that sort of plan would of course avoid all the ill effects of elections, though I don't share your confidence in the lack of HCM-to-be. Then again, I am in many ways obsessed with repetitions of history so... *shrug* WalkerWalkerWalker 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind much how they're selected but have always thought seven is a ridiculously small number & really can't understand the people saying that's too many. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Given the amount of regularly active users to choose from, I'd say 7 is way too much. (talk) 17:44, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I agree. Wikis aren't exactly known as the most active of places. Even then they'd have to commit themselves to constantly patrolling RW so that no one goes ahead and, say, delete tons of articles. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)ZexcoilerKingbolt
That's what our large pool of Sysops are for, mods aren't for patrolling the wiki.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, going around baleting en masse is something a sysop (to temporarily debit) and the coop could deal with anyhow, hopefully without any moderators needing to try to drag us back onto the rails/reattach any flying editors to the handle. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
So what is it you think we need? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm? Oh, I was just saying that the example given to argue for the need for "constant patrolling" by moderators didn't really require moderators under ideal circumstances. I still thing moderazis or similar are a good solution to the general propensity for HCM that just keeps being headless instead of resolving itself, otherwise potentially endless wheel wars over rights (deop him! Reop him and deop him! Deop them all! Reop all the people! (ok, this isn't quite an accurate summary of the event I was recalling... whoops)), etc.; I just don't hold with the claim by Zexcoiler that we'd need enough mods/OC enough mods to patrol all constantly. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that the Mods are largely unnecessary here - if they were ever useful, they aren't now. In the three years since we elected them I can't think of a single HCM they have averted (for god's sake we elected MC as a moderator) or even a single judicious use of their position and powers. However, I would be happy to stow my concerns just to get an election done because the current situation is the worst one to be in. Having said that, if there is a general mood to get rid of them I'd be firmly in favour. Tielec01 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've used my mod powers twice - once to salt a shitty article an otherwise good sysop kept creating, and once to undo a mod-locked forum, because who the eff mod-locks forums? BicyclewheelModerator 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Seven is way too many, it only needs to be three or four. there was I time I wanted to leave RW last year, but I stayed because leaving meant brxbrx would become a mod. So, um, seven is too many. Let's have a new election now that pointless little twat has been permabanned so all the newer editors can have their say. BicyclewheelModerator 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There is, approximately, a 100 percent chance that BrxBrx is still on the wiki editing under a different user name. Tielec01 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I ran into him once on another website, he was horrified. and a 100% chance? That's far to certain, 99.99% seems better. Allows you for saving face.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Before we go all democratic, can we settle (1) how many mods and (2) how often elections? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay, bring on the three-week turdblossom on voting! It'll be just like the old days! BicyclewheelModerator 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Voting on Voting is a great, time honored tradition!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, did you say overcomplication? Okay, I can see about arranging that... WalkerWalkerWalker 04:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How many mods?

[edit] 30

  1. Is this how many active users FCP says that we have? Sounds like a good number of mods. Tielec01 (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yep nope. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 7

  1. 7 is a nice number. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. An odd number is necessary so that there is no tie. If there is, the last Mod can break that standstill. 7 is not necessarily a great number, but just having an odd number of people is fine. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
  3. Seven is fine, in case you need them to make an important decision. Seven is a good representation of the users of this site. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 4

  1. Seems fine. 4 is pushing it for our active 30+ edit/month usercount; 7 is too far, and an odd number to boot. Besides, 4 sounds like "death" in Chinese, and perfectly fits the job description of moderators to "kill heresy on sight" (and onsite). oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Four sounds good to me as well. We currently have seven, but where are they? If there aren't enough, we can have a by-election or bring the next one forward. BicyclewheelModerator 08:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Actually, I'm liking what Bicycle Wheel said: four, but the moderazis can have the option to call the alternates up to be mods if they deem it needed. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. 7 is far to many for how few we have - if we are going to have a higher class of rights editors it needs to be proportionate, at 7 we may as well just mod all the sysops. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 3

  1. Triumvirate! Triumvirate! - π 14:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    What about a piumvirate? Four people, but someone only counts as π - 3 moderators. : P WalkerWalkerWalker 19:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. YOUNG GOATS! YOUNG GOATS! Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

[edit] No fixed number

  1. Whoever wants the position, gets a few supporting votes & doesn't have a history of creating HCM situations. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

[edit] How often elections?

[edit] Every 6 months

[edit] Every 1 year

  1. Same as RMF board. Could even roll the elections together. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk)
  2. One election per year. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. One per year. every six months is overkill, and every two years would be...where we are now. BicyclewheelModerator 08:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, let's keep this an occasional turdblossoming not a constant one... Although thus far there hasn't been much well turd. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. So long as we actually stick to this, I think annually is fine, though I'd argue for it to be 6 months offset from the RMF election to avoid confusion about who is running for what. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. What Goonie said - have Mod elections in the summer (minus the upcoming one, obviously) and board elections in the winter. 6 months for a imposed system is what led us to have the current apathy --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Longer


  • QUEEN SOPHIE MUST BE OBEYED BicyclewheelModerator 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Wait, should we even still have moderators? Let's ask the big questions last...

[edit] Yes

  1. It's been useful, on occasion. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Mods are only necessary on rare occasions, but I think the current system has finally managed to stop the drama getting out of hand. The massive HCMs that tore the place apart are a thing of the past. BicyclewheelModerator 08:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think the system has stopped the HCM so much as editors with strong differing opinions having drifted away from the wiki. But, you know, that's just my opinion man. Tielec01 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    But perhaps they drifted away because they knew there was a group of people who could put a stop to the crap. BicyclewheelModerator 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. When it first came out, I hated the Moderator system because the big egos (Nutty Roux, Blue) that hated it got elected and used it as a proxy in their ego wars. However, it is clear to me, with some of the shit I've seen on this Wiki the last year or two, that having active Moderators is important to dealing with big issues where the community at large seems brain dead (think instances of libel where edit wars occur over an assumed right to libel somebody.) As such, this site does, in fact, need goid moderators. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, why not. All things in moderation. - π 14:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Goat

[edit] And actually, a point of order

Which all of these quality as policy change votes? All of them? And if so, what's considered the status quo for the how often question? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy? On RW? It's about as ad hoc as it gets. Here's fine.
The status quo is "fuck all". FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 07:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Fuck all? I knew RW was filled with evil ateist slets fucking everything! WalkerWalkerWalker 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews

Very many companies sell fantasies that their food produce are healthy or play down unhealthy aspects of their products. And some just might advertise with Wikia. I hope that’s not an issue. Wikia runs yet another wiki called, Healthy Recipes Wiki. How healthy are the ideas in that wiki?

Before spring 2015 the page on Sugar didn’t mention health problems with sugar at all though there were plenty of suggestions about cooking with sugar. I tried to put that right. Also previously the category for Dessert Recipes had no warnings about sugar being harmful. I tried to put that right. Then a webpage from Harvard University on Carbohydrates and the Glycemic Load was moved or went offline. I haven’t had big trouble with Wikia though a recipe appeared in June that, I felt needed a warning about sugar.

I also greatly expanded the coverage about Salt and health which I felt previously was far too brief.

Anyway the problem is I’m not a qualified dietician but I know the RationalWiki team does a great deal about food woo. I’m asking for peer review of the whole Healthy Recipes Wiki website and specially of my contributions. This is also at Talk:Food woo#Peer reviews. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] UNICE global brain project

Wat. Why is RW mentioned? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently RationalWiki is a much better place to host its UNICE site over Wikipedia because "Wikipedia articles are required to be written in an often tedious, encyclopedic neutral point of view (NPOV), but RationalWiki allows original research, opinion and humor." Neato, I'd say. For a formal organization to choose this place is an honor. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Last I checked, your characterization was quite iffy, and someone got a bunch of pages speedied here a while back doing that. But my memory is not the best. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Former Florida gubernatorial candidate, I think. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
RW is mentioned because the author twice tried to host it here after Wikipedia purged it from there. The first attempt was deleted as it was a straight copy of the (very soon after deleted) Wikipedia page while the second was removed as spam after some AfD discussion. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia page on former Florida gubernatorial candidate Michael E. Arth, "Arth founded the UNICE Global Brain Project in February 2015. UNICE is an acronym for Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Entities, a term coined by Arth in the 1990s to describe the transformation of our species that might be the result of a new form of intelligent life developed from a hive-like interaction of computers, humans, and future forms of the Internet. Arth established the website www.UNICE.info in 2007. In a 2015 article, Arth further refined the concept to refer to the development of a public-policy answer-engine, which will involve both an independent web site (where cognitive-UNICE is being developed) and an existing public policy wiki at www.UNICEwiki.org. Arth has written a number of the seed topics on UNICEwiki, which are duplicated for collaborative topics that anyone can edit. Cognitive-UNICE will at first utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) and later Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)." I'm a fuckwit. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
For bonus points, actually scroll down to the references: ipse dixit, ipse dixit, ipse dixit, ipse dixit, look IBM is doing real things, and look! IBM is doing real things (that aren't actually tied to my project at all). WalkerWalkerWalker 04:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Why IBM, though? Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
Wait, wouldn't UNICE fall under some sort of wingnut/pseudoscience woo type of category? Or is this actually sane science? Because one of the footnotes mentions the Science of Consciousness Studies Journal. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
The citation is to their summary of a conference which... I know jack about. Uno momento. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Real conference; he at least shared the room with actual science, philosophy, etc. (it's pretty specifically interdisciplinary). That said, I dug up his abstract. Some excerpts: "UNICE also refers to a cosmic Internet, or cosmic consciousness, that might already exist... If UNICE already exists... certain mystical states or spiritual practices (such as meditation or the use of psychedelics) might currently allow for fleeting glimpses of UNICE" and "Important decisions that govern all aspects of life could eventually be made almost automatically, without the involvement of physical bodies." WalkerWalkerWalker 04:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't exactly sound like the type of guy to ramble on about science woo like a certain other medical professional... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
You're right, I can hardly call this science woo given the lack of, well, ya know. Science. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonus lulz: [1] WalkerWalkerWalker 04:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Arth here seems to have a lot of articles across Wikipedia to spread his new form of urban design he's called w:New pedestrianism such as w:Out of the Woods (film), w:New Urban Cowboy: Toward a New Pedestrianism, and w:Democracy and the Common Wealth. He's even got people to translate his bio and pet projects into French, German, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese. He even listed himself as a straight ally on the Japanese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's just hope he doesn't go batshit crazy. Or maybe yeah. It'd be worse with another one, but I'd like to see the stupid things he has to say. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
You want to see stupid things he has to say? Look no further than what he said when I called his shit spam. "Keep Forever"! What a twat! Spud (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Be careful for what you wish can apply to this situation right now... Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I would've agreed with him on some level had his little pet project been a forum for actual, sane science that is concurrent with the RationalWiki Mission. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt
I'd be interesting in seeing his plan for an algorithm to analyze wikiedits in an attempt to discern truth... Though I'm not waiting up on its actual creation, horribly flawed or not, tbh. WalkerWalkerWalker 14:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Who's hungry?

Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It was the maple bacon donuts that did it for me. (She'd only heard of this thing, so she got donuts and put bacon and maple syrup on them.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What amazed me is that I've watched so much subtitled stuff with Japanese audio that I was able to understand about a fifth of what she was saying. Recognizing food names helped. OTOH, the problem with Japanese cuisine is that Japan is an island. This means that it is surrounded by the ocean on all sides. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Wh-where does she put all that food? (talk) 23:31, 29 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
If you watch the video I posted you can clearly see it's in her stomach. Also look at her go to town on this giant potsticker.

Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I was watching another one of her videos and it turns out that when she overeats, while her stomach expands to fill up her whole abdomen, her body can't actually fully digest it all. And she gets by on other days by simply eating slowly and to where she's about 60% full, which she acquired the ability to do because she grew up poor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Parody of Vox Day as written by Theo Pratt and read by John Scalzi

Enjoy ClothCoat (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another coop case

And once again, it may or may not be related to User:-Mona- but is definitely related to Zionism... Check it out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to post that in the saloon bar, Avenger. The users that like to comment on coop cases tend to have the page in their watchlist. Also, calling this a coop case is being rather generous. (talk) 01:14, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well there might be some that don't. The last coop case was mentioned here as well. Furthermore, what should I call it instead? Juan José? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably not enough headless chickens for the HCM?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't a lack of headless chickens, it's that they're the ones making the 'case'. >.> (talk) 01:20, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
And it wasn't even amusing. Seriously, where the fuck is the humour guys? WalkerWalkerWalker 04:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It was deemed a Zionist trait, and as we don't want to get into the claws of Mona and her ilk, we don't want to be accused of Zionism. Hence... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a Miracle: A conservative commentator sees the need for gun control.

Okay, so a week ago I came across an article by conservative columnist Michael Brendan Dougherty of The Week. While he's not jumping on board with the Brady Campaign, and he still has complete faith in the Second Amendment like any good conservative, he says in this article that after the on-air killings in Virginia, we can't ignore that our gun culture is fueling the volume of mass shootings.

Some points he makes (heavily paraphrased by yours truly):

1. An armed citizenry is not the same thing as an armed consumer base: Our gun culture has reduced guns to just another consumer good. It is the duty of a pro-gun society to ensure that gun owners are responsible and qualified to keep and bear arms. As it stands, we have a gun culture that markets overpowered "tacticool" hardware to angsty mall ninjas, and that's not healthy.

2. Our gun culture is one of the factors driving the militarization of our police force: Maybe our police wouldn't be so heavily armed, armored, and trigger-happy if they didn't have to engage in an arms race with the general population. There are other factors such as the War on Drugs and federally subsidized military equipment, but it cannot be denied that police have to assume that every person they pull over might be armed and dangerous.

3. It is entirely possible that Americans are more violent than people from other countries BECAUSE of all the guns: Ownership of a gun can make people envision themselves taking a life more easily, and may make it easier to perceive threats that would warrant the use of a firearm.

4. America leads the developed world in gun-related deaths, and that is embarrassing.

He does not support most of the traditional forms of gun control outside of a universal background check. He also brings to the table proposals that he hopes will be more friendly to the Second Amendment. The one I was most interested in was mandatory gun club membership. But overall, what I am most impressed about this article is that we finally have found a conservative who doesn't try to cherry pick the data or try to pass off mass shootings as false flag conspiracies. Could we perhaps call this progress? Blitz (Complaints Box) 15:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I call it someone unexpected looking to make progress. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Castration

So I'm thinking of creating the Castration page that;s been requested from our todo list. What does it need to have to actually be a worthy article? So far I'm thinking...

  • Types (emasculation, castration, neutering)
  • Reasons (punishment, Castrati, population control, slavery)
  • More on slavery (especially Crimea)
  • Crime effectiveness (castrated rapists/pedophiles can and do reoffend in... different ways)
  • Social norms/suppression (Turing goes here)

What else would it need? CorruptUser (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Snarky hatnote with a link to a page that the reader definitely wasn't actually looking for. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah well when I tried the edit button at the top my computer more or less froze. We should archive the SB soon. CorruptUser (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Eunuch culture. Mostly historical I guess and related to the slavery point, but the Indian Hijra and the concept of a "third sex" is a modern day reality.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ooo that's important too. China had Eunuchs as well in important positions, since it was assumed that they were less corruptable (not true). CorruptUser (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reginald Johnston's Twilight in the Forbidden City will be a helpful reference for the influence of eunochs in the late period Qing court.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Fucking Hell...

Rational wiki has been a mess over the past few months (i doubt it was no less than usual but it piles up after you go away for awhile) that is the most full i've ever seen the coop, and that is only one archive, and another thing, is it over? if not any bets on when it will end? Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that the coop cases mostly deal with a conflict (I am trying to state it as neutrally as possible) between one user on the one side and several users who either disagree with her on content grounds or on account of her behavior, I fear this will only end if (when) either said user leaves or ceases in (part of) her disruptive behavior. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This? This is nothing to the great conflicts of yore between the heavies we've seen in the past--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, unlike with GG, no-one was demoted and/or perma-b& over the Israel/Palestine-topic... Yet.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
2 users on one side, but I haven't seen ChrisAmiss since he stuck his foot in his mouth about hate crimes in Europe. CorruptUser (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Not even GG compares, i'm talking stuff like the fights between Human, Blue and Nutty. This isn't anything compared to the fight that brought down Crats and ended with Trent imposing Mods (the gold standard of HCM). This stuff is barely a blip on the radar compared to how bad things could be here in the past.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is that the way those things should be measured? "Well it's not as bad as,...." Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
When people are trying to make this out to be bigger than it is, yes. Bubba said "this is terrible the fuck is going on!" and it really isn't anything compared to what we've gone through before. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I had to think of this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll add my pfft to the above pffts. Although it's the biggest row in a while, it's a gnat's fart compared to the civil wars of September 2009 and May 2011. It seems to be on HCM 4 at the moment. BicyclewheelModerator 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
But it has been simmering on ever since Mona appeared and it has by now spread across several sites. Ah I wish RWW were still around to document this particular HCM Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Partially because you people keep dragging it to other pages.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is "we people"? Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That you only find fault in the other side for this HCM should give you the answer to your question.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You people. Who, for instance, posted this. Yesterday. BicyclewheelModerator 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to not even bother reading Talk:Zionism any more. But the unholy combination of axe-grinding, whitewashing and blind stubborness is migrating fast across related articles also.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools